Quantcast

Is there more proof that we(humans) came from Apes, or is there more that we came from God ?

2789847 2012/05/05 08:31:15
Related Topics: God, Proof, Apes, Ape
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Remember im asking for proof
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Thank you but no... 2012/05/05 12:40:44
    There is more proof that..
    Thank you but no...
    +25
    As there is no proof that we came from god, it would make little difference if we only had a small amount of proof that we and apes shared a common ancestor.

    However, we have tons of proof for our evolution.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Alex 2013/02/19 16:33:31
    In my opinion..
    Alex
    We came from God all people who don't think that are dumb
  • Blessed Sheep Gone Wild! 2013/02/19 08:16:26 (edited)
    There is more proof that..
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    that we came from Apes... There is no evidence that we came from God, however there is conjecture. Anyway Hinduism is much older that Judaism... So when you say God... so you mean Krishna? If you are looking for proof then its either Krishna or whomever Stonehenge was built for. Christians... your arrogance always getting in the way of facts.
  • sneekyfoot 2013/02/17 12:58:26 (edited)
    In my opinion..
    sneekyfoot
  • Resp 2013/02/17 06:58:36
    In my opinion..
    Resp
    +2
    I don't know about you but I just came from Wal*Mart.
  • Magicwriter 2013/02/17 04:31:11
    There is more proof that..
    Magicwriter
    +1
    We came from God.
  • Blessed... Magicwr... 2013/02/19 08:21:07
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    +1
    you have a new definition for the word proof? Lets just stick the actual definition which is basically sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition...
    I actually tried to play devils advocate this one and couldn't honestly find anything... please share your findings.
  • Alex Blessed... 2013/02/19 16:35:40
    Alex
    God's trying to show us that he made us. Just look around you and listen.
  • Blessed... Alex 2013/02/19 16:47:33
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    nope dont see anything... maybe he isnt trying hard enough
  • Alex Blessed... 2013/02/19 16:57:05
    Alex
    Maybe you aren't looking hard enough.
  • Blessed... Alex 2013/02/19 17:08:42 (edited)
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    yeah... maybe you should learn to argue your point better. that is the laziest evidence I have heard in a while... because I said so... isn't that basically what you are saying... Or are you missing the point all together. Did you ever think about using the word faith? Either way you are not being very smart about your argument. I could look around and see evidence that Mithra created the world. It really all depends on whom I choose to put my faith in. Otherwise back in the physical world where you would require evidence, there is nothing that connects your mythology tales with reality.
  • Alex Blessed... 2013/02/19 17:14:36 (edited)
    Alex
    I'm confused, stop confusing me, and it's not mythology.Mythology is when nobody believes it anymore and tons of people do.
  • Blessed... Alex 2013/02/19 17:22:48
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    +1
    what is confusing... You are trying to tell me that faith is evidence( The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid... Fact is a thing that is indisputably the case... indisputable would mean that you can not dispute it. and being that there is no actual indisputable facts that the bible is the word of God... faith is not evidence)
    it is mythology. it is a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. Thats just the proper way to describe the bible.
  • Alex Blessed... 2013/02/19 18:27:44
    Alex
    +1
    The bible is not mythology, you can even look up the definition of mythology it is what i said. So what are you a scientist?
  • Blessed... Alex 2013/02/19 19:46:44
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    +1
    I did and it said: a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition
    myths: 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
    2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
    3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
    4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
    5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
  • Alex Blessed... 2013/02/19 20:40:13
    Alex
    +1
    1. NO demigods or deities.
    2. It has no mystical creatures.
    3. Made by more than one person.
    4. No imaginary person or thing.
    5. what is a social institution?
  • Blessed... Alex 2013/02/20 00:39:26 (edited)
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    1-Satan is a demigod
    2-mythical creatures of the bible: Abaddon, Angels, Behemoth, cherubim, Golem, Leviathan, Seaphim, Tetramorph, Ziz
    3- made by more than one person... you are joking... so one man wrote the entire bible by himself? Constantine?
    4- GOD is imaginary or at least is not and never has been a real person... (cant dispute that one)
    5-An institution is any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals within a given community — may it be human or a specific animal one. Institutions are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern cooperative living behavior.
  • Alex Blessed... 2013/02/22 17:14:22
    Alex
    1. Satan is not a demigod, he's an angel.
    2. WHat's Abaddon, Behemoth, cherubim, Golem, Seaphim, Tetramorph, Ziz. Angel's and demons could be mistooken as ghosts nowadays.And it says Leviathon in the bible, except refering to him from chinese culture.
    3. Whaty?
    4. He never has been a real person it never says he was in the bible. and he's not a thing.
    5. speak english.
  • Blessed... Alex 2013/02/22 17:23:15
    Blessed Sheep Gone Wild!
    By all technical terms it is mythology. Just because you choose to believe in it does not mean that you are stupid. It just means that you need to give responsibility to someone else.
  • Alex Blessed... 2013/02/22 17:25:44
    Alex
    it's not mythoogy, but seriously dumb down number 5
  • Torey2000 2013/02/17 02:10:58
    There is more proof that..
    Torey2000
    +1
    There is more proof that we came from God than Apes
  • Resp Torey2000 2013/02/18 03:17:04
    Resp
    +1
    Where?
  • Torey2000 Resp 2013/02/18 13:58:34
    Torey2000
    +1
    Well if you look around more people preach about the coming of god's son Jesus to save us from our sins and they preach about god creating man and land but you don't have many people... actually I have never heard anyone say apes created us believe that the apes created us!!!!
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2013/02/17 00:55:02
    There is more proof that..
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    Far more proof that we came from God.

    To be fair, no evolutionist these days dares claim that we "came from apes." They claim instead that humans are an offshoot from a proto-primate stock common to humans and apes.

    BUT:

    The geological evidence does NOT support the ages-old earth that evolution would need to have time to work its way out.

    In fact, there is not even sufficient evidence for that common proto-primate to have come from the single cell that most evolutionists say that all life descends from. (Most, but not all. Some say that aliens left bacteria and blue-green algae on earth ages ago.)

    And: there is proof that 4400 years ago, this earth suffered an event that was truly at the extinction level. That event is responsible for ALL the fossil layers. The Cambrian Explosion alone bespeaks the simultaneous *special creation* of many kinds of life. And those were the fossils that found themselves at the bottom of the heap. The rest sorted themselves out, as different kinds of rocks would in a sedimentary mixture.

    There's too much to go into in a reply. But you can find your proof here:

    http://www.creationscience.co...

  • XQNP Temlako... 2013/02/17 02:46:27
    XQNP
    +2
    Ignoring the ridiculous confirmation bias inherent in forming a hypothesis around biblical accounts, this explanation completely fails to explain two things: the origin of said underground water, and the fact that radiocarbon dating allows us to determine that fossils formed at vastly different times. That, and if every extinct species in the fossil record were alive at roughly the same time, there would be so many overlapping ecological niches as to render a vast majority of them incapable of even feeding themselves.
  • Temlako... XQNP 2013/02/18 16:58:05
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    And you don't have confirmation bias in forming a hypothesis around atheistic accounts? Which are merely guesswork, anyway?

    You want to know where that water came from? God made the earth with a sub-crustal ocean. And you still get salt water much of the time when you prospect for oil. How do you think that happens? You don't suppose all those oil wells tap into an extension of the present ocean, do you? Not to mention: some of that subcrustal ocean is still left, and is venting into the present ocean as Black Smokers, especially along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

    And about that radiocarbon: you think you know where that comes from. You don't. The radiocarbon came from cluster decay. Subject quartz deposits to a strong enough earthquake, you get electric potentials. Strong enough to turn metal into plasma. Strong enough, in fact, to turn lead into uranium and everything in-between. And in that environment, decay can proceed very rapidly. You also get cluster decay, which is anything between alpha-beta-gamma on the small side, and fission on the large side. Carbon-14 is a very popular cluster-decay product.

    If you really think even conventional geologists try to use radiocarbon to date fossils, you're in for a real shock. They don't. They try to date the rocks, and then date the fossil...



    >



    And you don't have confirmation bias in forming a hypothesis around atheistic accounts? Which are merely guesswork, anyway?

    You want to know where that water came from? God made the earth with a sub-crustal ocean. And you still get salt water much of the time when you prospect for oil. How do you think that happens? You don't suppose all those oil wells tap into an extension of the present ocean, do you? Not to mention: some of that subcrustal ocean is still left, and is venting into the present ocean as Black Smokers, especially along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

    And about that radiocarbon: you think you know where that comes from. You don't. The radiocarbon came from cluster decay. Subject quartz deposits to a strong enough earthquake, you get electric potentials. Strong enough to turn metal into plasma. Strong enough, in fact, to turn lead into uranium and everything in-between. And in that environment, decay can proceed very rapidly. You also get cluster decay, which is anything between alpha-beta-gamma on the small side, and fission on the large side. Carbon-14 is a very popular cluster-decay product.

    If you really think even conventional geologists try to use radiocarbon to date fossils, you're in for a real shock. They don't. They try to date the rocks, and then date the fossils in relationship to them. But that sometimes gives you absurd results right there. In 1993, miners dug a fossil tree out of basalt. A team of investigators sent samples of the wood, and samples of the rock, to different labs. Results:

    Apparent age of the tree: 37,000 years.

    Apparent age of the surrounding rock: > 1M years.

    Epic. Fail.

    Finally, about whether all the species would starve: now you're forgetting where fossil fuels come from, and especially coal. Most of the lush jungle growth that prevailed before the Flood, turned into coal, and possibly into oil and gas, too, during it.
    (more)
  • Blessed... Temlako... 2013/02/19 08:24:45
  • XQNP Temlako... 2013/02/27 04:48:19
    XQNP
    There's no such thing as an "atheistic account" because, beyond the statement "no gods exist" there's no such thing as an atheistic belief. Your confirmation bias accusation therefore holds no weight, as atheism itself prescribes no assumptions about history.

    If "God did it" is a suitable answer for you, why do you care about pseudoscientific justifications at all?

    The origin of carbon-14 is irrelevant. Samples that formed recently register as younger, and vice-versa.

    Carbon-14 is used to date organic material, not rocks, as carbon is common in living organisms.

    I fail to see how plants turning into oil solves the problem of ecological redundancy. It's not a matter of not having enough to eat, it's a matter of different species competing to "eat" similar things. Some plantlife, for example, is better than other plantlife at acquiring requisite nutrients (that's why weeds can kill gardens). If every plant ever known were alive at the same time, an incredibly vast number of them would be out-competed by their more competent relatives almost immediately. The same goes for all other classes of organism.
  • Nicholas DeShane 2013/02/10 12:23:39
    There is more proof that..
    Nicholas DeShane
    +1
    We did not come from apes neccesarily they have been evolving as well. A scientific theory is a hypothisis that has yet to be falsified. You may believe it has been at some point but it has not, those that believe they have falsified it have not used valid scientific processes. There is no proof that we came from God as there is no proof of God, thats not to say I do not believe in a higher power, I can do this because of a little thing called faith. If there proof of the validity of a religions dogma then it would not take faith to believe it.
  • Emo Rocker 2013/02/08 04:09:15
    There is more proof that..
    Emo Rocker
  • nicesteve 2013/02/08 02:13:16
    In my opinion..
    nicesteve
    +1
    We came from God. Period. End of story.
  • ProudProgressive 2013/02/07 14:08:15
    There is more proof that..
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    There is ample proof that homo sapiens and other primates had common ancestors, and there is no proof that humans came from God. Religion is a matter of faith, not science.

    And besides, I don't think that the fact that we evolved from lesser species in any way contradicts our faith in God. For all we know, God INTENDED us to evolve from apes. The Bible says that God created man, but it doesn't exactly say how He did it. So why not through evolution that took millions of years?
  • Susai 2013/02/07 11:55:32
    There is more proof that..
    Susai
    +2
    We have similar characters to apes
  • taylordoesntdeserve 2013/02/07 02:20:57
    There is more proof that..
    taylordoesntdeserve
    +1
    Humans and apes have a common ancestor, that was not like "monkeys" that people say in modern times.
  • Jackie 2013/02/06 21:44:38
    There is more proof that..
    Jackie
    +1
    That we came from God. There is no proof we came from apes.
  • boognis... Jackie 2013/02/07 03:16:45
    boognish989
    +2
    only if you ignore the evidence. since you place such a high importance on evidence, what is your evidence for god?
  • taylord... Jackie 2013/02/07 18:34:30
    taylordoesntdeserve
    +1
    Science is not based on "proof", it is based on evidence. Proof insinuates that...there is one cause, or an absolute truth. Science does not necessarily deal with absolute truths, because the fields are always changing. There is always new information coming out, changing what was known before.
  • boognish989 2013/02/06 20:59:52
    In my opinion..
    boognish989
    +1
    first, let's start with the evidence that we were created by a god: bronze age sheep herders who thought that the moon gave off light said so.

    now some evidence that we share a common ancestor with other modern apes:

    -morphological similarities
    -nearly 99% genetic similarity with chimps
    -extensive fossil record showing divergent changes of all species, not just primates
    -other apes have 24 sets of chromosomes, humans only 23. one of the human sets looks exactly how you would expect it to look if 2 of the 'ape' pairs fused
    -studies of exogenous retroviruses show clear evidence of common ancestry
    -and finally:
    ccc
  • taylord... boognis... 2013/02/07 02:21:55
    taylordoesntdeserve
    +1
    Aw..it always makes me sad when people compare monkeys to presidents they don't like. I am sure those monkeys are very kind, and never indirectly killed hundreds of thousands in a war.
  • boognis... taylord... 2013/02/07 03:13:03
    boognish989
    +1
    it was certainly not my intention to make you sad, and i meant no offense to the chimps; the comparison was to the morphological similarities only. i've seen enough nature documentaries to know that chimps have more 'humanity' (and intelligence) in them than W does. i will make more of an effort to show respect to my fellow primates in the future. those that deserve it, anyway. it is still open season on the likes of george II.
  • taylord... boognis... 2013/02/07 18:23:09
    taylordoesntdeserve
    +1
    Yes, it is very disrespectful to the chimps. Thank you. :)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 41 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2013/05/24 02:12:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals