Creationism vs. Evolution

If humans evolved from apes....why didn't the apes evolve?

No professor could ever give me a good answer to that question.

I voted a little of both because we can obviously see animals and organisms change to adapt to their environment.

 

because they both evolved from a common ancestor

apes evolved into what they are now , human evolved into what they are now

 

I'm not talking about earthworms and I'm not mad about the anthem

 

- Humans did not evolve from other modern day apes or any currently living species.
- The reason both modern day humans and modern day monkeys exists, is because there were initial geographical separations, whereby the different species diverged and adapted to the different environments.
- Modern day humans and monkeys have evolved over the exact same period of time.

 

nope, its more about how many times we can re-state something from a man made book....

 

YUP and tinfoil all around....sigh........

 

I said I wasn't mad , I didn't say you were right

Oh , and I'm born again

All praise the One Bob

 

Pete, we ALL know you're just in here trying to get your post count back up

What else is evolving like that though, I mean honestly, with the billions and billions of life forms on the earth shouldn't we someday see a duck turn into a fish? Or something develop a new set of limbs it didn't have before.

This is my limited scientific understanding coming in, but it seems to me we only have the capability to de-volve rather than evolve. I think there's adaptation sure, but macro and micro evolution are two very different things. Like I said way earlier, if Noah's ark really is true, it was probably just two wolves on the ark, and from breeding that's how we get all the different types of dogs. I don't think god created the sharpee. Or the chihuahua. In fact I think there's evidence those are from the devil.

And I'm really asking that question, because I know what I believe, but I'd like to here someone scientifically tell me it's not plausible that dogs came from one predecessor and there was more at play than just breeding.

 

I have to agree, the level of.....ya its not even worth it...

 

You can't be serious , even the ridiculously exagerated lifespans of people in the Bible wouldn't see one species turn into another

 

and this folks is why Condoms were invented....

 

Yes it certainly has, Bama...
40 years ago the secular liberal scientists were pimping their religion of global cooling.

 

You do understand that using your scripture to justify scripture is inane. When someone asks you why your scripture is the right one and you answer with "John 3:16", it is kind of self-defeating. That really doesn't distinguish it from any other faith that you might have been born into. Every religion has literature to justify and distinguish itself. IMHO that is why people use the term "bible beating". Because all that is used to justify the source is the source itself. Say someone has studied scripture and determined that they don't believe it at all. Quoting it doesn't do any good if they think that what you're quoting is invalid or fictitious to begin with. Just a thought...

 

FTFY, dude.

 

Thats the widely accepted scientific theory.


EDIT: I love this thread, so entertaining.

 

Ummm.... Antibiotic resistant bacteria? Happens all the time. What about our coccyx? Appendix? Human canines (teeth...)... None of these show anything huh?

But you're right, we should SEE it. Once science shows us how to live for millions of years, we can observe it.

 

Oh man

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

 

I am being serious, I'm just saying of ALL the critters in the world, one of them is bound to sprout legs and walk. We've had studies of animals now a few thousand years, yet cats are still cats and dogs are still dogs. I feel like of everything around something was bound to be seen

And what about our tailbone? Does it actually allude to us having a tail at some point? There's literally no evidence to back that up. It's just a bone that's a tad longer than we, the observer, think it ought to be. It's easy to say 'I think we had tails' and then force evidence into that belief. It's equally as easy to say 'I don't think we had tails' and find that that bone serves some other purpose entirely.

And to the bacteria...wouldn't that be another example of macro vs micro evolution? Things adapt all the time, what makes that any different.

Now it's probably evident, but I am right at the edge of my knowledge of these things. Most of them were taught to me by people that I trust and believe. So I really am just asking questions, because it honestly doesn't make sense to me from what I do know and have explored on my own, how evolution is taught as science when by its very nature, it's hardly observable. Ive read that Even Darwin challenged it.

 

You clearly don't understand the timelines of evolution

 

I tried to get at this with them with geologic examples, but...