Errr, . . . no. Maybe Uncle Mickey. No. Our ancestors were early apes. But apes and monkeys have a common ancestor.
Re: Were our ancestors monkeys? No, I meant true, hardcore Christians. There's different shades to anything. I don't see it as "you are, or you aren't." I was raised Catholic, confirmed in the Catholic church. I favor a pro-choice stance, and believe in physical and mental (Nietzsche's overman) evolution.
I think that we are through evolving in a physical sense because evolution, the way I accept it, was little more than adaptation. Early man had to adapt to his environment in order to survive in it, thus Darwin's theory. Our environment manipulated us. We have, however, reached a point where we now have the ability to manipulate our environment. Therefore, individuals born with various physical disadvantages can still survive as easily as others. There are practically no more traits that can't be passed on because nearly everyone is capable of doing so. It's just a byproduct of technology, really. Now, I believe that we are very much in the thick of social evolution, but that's a different story for a different day.
Fine with me. I'd do the same thing if I didn't have any evidence.:hihi: You're right, though. All the research in the world wouldn't change your opinion. Just don't write off those of others as foolish if you're not prepared to make your case.
Re: Were our ancestors monkeys? No it doesn't, at least for me it doesn't. IMO, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Just because it doesn't say, "God created dinosaur" in the Bible doesn't mean dinosaurs didn't exist. And just because science says the earth started with a "Big Bang" doesn't mean Jesus and God don't exist. I think most scientists do not think that if evolutionary theory is correct, then there is no God. In fact, I have books where through science, men believe they have proven the very existence of God. "The FingerPrint of God" attempts to prove through mathematics that God does exist. This "science is the new religion" was perpetrated by people who did not believe in God to begin with and love hating and calling out supposed "people of faith." IMO, most who proclaim to be an atheist or agnostic love talking about how they are atheist a bit too much. They carry it as a badge of honor for some reason. OK, you don't believe, now go read a book and let people believe if they want to.
Absolutely preposterous, Everybody understands that evolution is entirely supported by science. It is creationism that science cannot support. This is a completely false statement. Again untrue. There are no solid scientific proofs against evolution, only rhetoric which does not withstand scientific scrutiny. Science does not "switch tactics" either. This statement is evidence that the layman author fails to comprehend what a scientifc theory is. See the other thread where I have posted a definition. Scientific thories are, in fact, proven. Overwheming scientific support exists and I can document it. It is the creationists who decry evolution as "only a theory" because they don't understand scientific nomenclature. Scientists recognze theories for what they are--an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. Nonsense, the opposite is actually true. We have very different ideas about what constitutes denial. Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. - Theodosius Dobzhansky
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest all part of the evolutionary process? There are certain leaps in evolutionary history, specifically for man, that actual physical evidence has not been located to showcase the entire evolutionary process. But as a whole, I think scientists have pretty much shown that through Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, that mating with certain dominant traits proves that adapting to one's environment is proof that evolution exists. It's not that one day we were monkeys and then the next we're not. And it's because of evolution this happens.......so take that religion. See proof there is no God. I don't think that what's scientists are saying and I think that this is where religious people maybe take this argument too far without knowing the facts. Anybody can see that through natural selection certain traits are carried on and on. That in and of itself is proof of the evolutionary process. Darwin not one time said he had proven that there was no God. What exactly is the argument here anyway?
Evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is atheism and humanism. Both of which are pillars of communism. I would hate to think that Karl Marx and I had anything in common. Where is your missing link? How can you blindly accept the rants of Darwin, and completely ignore the scientific evidence that evolution is false. When Darwin wrote his book, we were at a time in our history when many people wanted desperately to embrace the world and wash their hands of God and his Law. In evolution, mankind has found a way to explain the great mystery of where did life come from. In so doing this, they can conveniently explain away God.
