If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar

No, according to your citation "ape" is not included in "monkey".

You tried this before, it didn't work then, still doesn't now.

Words have meanings, you may have opinions about those meanings but it changes them not.

Tried what? Pointing out that you fill your posts with trolling lies? Your citation does not say that apes and monkeys are the same thing. Anywhere. Keep telling yourself you've got a clue though sport.

a reply to: peter vlar

sure thing sport

the thing i like to do here is reevaluate whether or nor I have a clue and whether someone has a better clue, and if they contradict I want to know which is false

because

truth is not a democracy with a silver medal for second best

or to paraphrase qatte wyll1ams: "you don't have to believe nonsense just because a mail thief tells you nonsense with a sincere composure"

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: anton74

Too bad you link is nonsense.

You see, this is the exact negligence that allows ignorance to perpetuate. It took you 2 minutes to respond - surely you did not even read the link. How do you know its nonsense if you haven't read it? Is it because it challenge your contemporary worldview?

I felt the need to comeback and let you know that I have already read the link you posted before you posted it. It has already been discussed on ATS. I've been pretty busy.

a reply to: wisvol

As far as your Pasteur comment. He only showed that Spontaneous Generation is not an everyday occurrence (Yes, I know I'm being pedantic and agree it doesn't happen). As in all science nothing is proven.

What Pasteur did not do is do is show that abiogenesis is impossible. Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation(as Pasteur saw it) are not the same thing.

a reply to: anton74

What Pasteur did not do is do is show that abiogenesis is impossible. Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation(as Pasteur saw it) are not the same thing.

wow, thanks for being on the ball sir

so of course you're right, and I must add

abiogenesis would imply no observer (a biological entity) so experiments and abiogenesis don't mix -how convenient-

also etymology of abio*genesis*

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: anton74

What Pasteur did not do is do is show that abiogenesis is impossible. Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation(as Pasteur saw it) are not the same thing.

wow, thanks for being on the ball sir

so of course you're right, and I must add

abiogenesis would imply no observer (a biological entity) so experiments and abiogenesis don't mix -how convenient-

also etymology of abio*genesis*

No observer is needed, and I might add.

If God came down and caused A Creature to Spontaneously Generate in front of everyone then, SP would become a fact and Pasteur would be shown to be wrong.


I must add the Scientists are getting close, what will the argument be if they create life?

a reply to: anton74

I must add the Scientists are getting close, what will the argument be if they create life?

they'll do robots, then the shwarzniger movie about drones with missiles

but real life is hard, minor gods are nothing

which is precisely why ID and creation is so much different

as in a man from the moon made adam & eve but who made the moon

and to stay on topic i said "moon" even though consensus is C45Glp because at the time the argument was made, the telescopes were small

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: anton74

I must add the Scientists are getting close, what will the argument be if they create life?

they'll do robots, then the shwarzniger movie about drones with missiles

but real life is hard, minor gods are nothing

Just because they haven't done it doesn't make it impossible. IMHO it is only a matter of time before they do, no matter what side of the argument you are on. Creating life in a lab doesn't mean God is real or not.

Creating life in a lab doesn't mean God is real or not.

a reply to: anton74

I don't care if you're a pepsi and i'ma coca as long as you remember this is science-fiction

urey & miller & c.

even creating life "on a pool table" which counts as a lab it's flat

so then therefore & c. =>pro creation is not creation so keep throwing money at monsanto

originally posted by: wheresthebody
Not even close to how it works...

Where are you from?

Care to show any proof ?

You do not know "how it works" and this "distant ancestor" is akin to believing Bible stories.

Not a chance in the UNIVERSE that we "evolved" from something that is the same as they did,

Stop claiming the Universe just does what it does, it is EXACTLY the same as proclaiming GOD did it.

Well something did make monkeys from a similar data plan, but it didn't EVOLVE itself magically.

You people should easily realize this by now, you have ALL been DUPED.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: intrptr

It doesn't explain it tho, it just explains what happened after...

So what is the point of thinking you know something, and yet have actually no clue about the entire string of events ?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: intrptr

It doesn't explain it tho, it just explains what happened after...

So what is the point of thinking you know something, and yet have actually no clue about the entire string of events ?

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: intrptr

Abiogenesis is the origin of life, fun stuff, cool ideas, no one knows for sure. This is where the debate is.

Evolution is everything that happened after.

It is amazing that you can make the leap that from all the stuff no one knows for sure, and in the light that you really have next to ZERO evidence of evolution in a great many parts of all that is, that you would actually believe that any of the current models or theories are even remotely close to being true.

Man, it sure is easy to please the so-called "scientific crowd".

Just why is it that this field is controlled by the most incredibly closed minded group of people to ever walk this earth ??

They actually think the models and theories that they use to figure things out are the best possible answer, when they have actually achieved NOTHING.... I would say it is time to find out just why it is , that they are so bloody satisfied with the answers they receive, the order and magnitude of the discoveries, and how to proceed.

For me, this is the worst and most boring topic ever conceived, because I can SEE CLEARLY, that it purposefully is ignorant and actually MAKES SURE that no one ever actually find out the truth.

originally posted by: secretboss

If evolution was true, shouldnt monkeys be resembling primitive cavemen by now?

What if I told you they already have. Another link.

Edit: Added another link.

originally posted by: anton74

I felt the need to comeback and let you know that I have already read the link you posted before you posted it. It has already been discussed on ATS. I've been pretty busy.

That's fair. What's the issue you have with The Link? Surely more tests need to be done to completely ensure this data is accurate, but what in particular did you find to be faulty science?

originally posted by: Barcs

"When Japheth migrated north through the caucus mountains to areas which had less annual sunlight, the average skin tone of the people became lighter because less melanin was required to absorb sunlight. This "race" of people that adapted to regions north of the caucus mountains received lower annual sunlight and eventually gave rise to the Caucasian race."

How is that NOT evolution? New traits developed over time. IE lighter skin for different climates. Adaptation is evolution, but you already knew this, and continue to troll people with ignorance.

So you're saying Caucasians are evolved homo sapiens? I strongly disagree... and suggest that Various colored skin pigments were always present in the gene pool

Adaptation is NOT evolution.