It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I am always amused how creationists suggest that they think mankind evolved from fish or monkeys

It really is silly if you think that, see evolution explains we come from a common ancestor
Something further down the tree of life, some animal that existed long ago and was not a fish, not sure what it was though, definetly not a monkey or a fish so they teach us what we must believe according to their assumptions

The truth of evolution is not a monkey or a fish, ultimately our common ancestor was dirt and water

They may complain that Creationists believe we evolved from monkeys and fish, though they have no qualms we have all, all life, evolved from dirt and water

Figure that out if you can



+1 more 
posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You decide.

edit on 4-3-2016 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You're right! We didn't evolve from fish or monkeys - we evolved from an earlier hominid species. (Monkeys are not hominids).



Of course if you go back far enough you'll find all species share a common origin.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Your title seems to be right because man didnt evolve from fish or monkeys.

Im close to halfway my Biology II class and I've learned that we amniotes share a common ancestor with the guy you have in your picture.
edit on 4-3-2016 by danielsil18 because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Errr sorry, do you know what "creationists" means?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Oooo! A topic made my Raggedyman himself! I must stalk it! (inside joke) (or.... is it a joke at all?!?!?!)

I would respond with a little more content, but other members here have already done a fine job at showing the basic concepts of what the OP is referring to.

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this thread is, other than troll baiting.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Care to explain an alternative?

Oh, don't forget the proof so we can compare it with the proof for evolution.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Keplero
a reply to: Raggedyman

Errr sorry, do you know what "creationists" means?


Yeah, at least I hear you! Methinks Donald Fart is online


Oops! I nearly forgot the most important bit, regardless of the whacky opening post, Creationism is a belief system, while Evolution remains a theory, albeit a pretty good one.
edit on 4-3-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

Haeckel's drawings are fraudulent. They exaggerate similarities and remove differences. They continue to be published only to expound on the history of embryology. They are part of the iconography of the Church of Science.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Josephus
a reply to: Mianeye

Haeckel's drawings are fraudulent. They exaggerate similarities and remove differences. They continue to be published only to expound on the history of embryology. They are part of the iconography of the Church of Science.


Church of science?

Ooooooh! I want to be a member.

Whose our deity?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

More importantly, when do we get the paperwork for our tax exempt status?



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TerryDon79

More importantly, when do we get the paperwork for our tax exempt status?



AND where do we get our bumper stickers, mug, t-shirt, and bible? You know, the important things.




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I suspect the common ancestor was a type of Lemur.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I suspect the common ancestor was a type of Lemur.



That can't be, it's more like Lemurs ate our antcestors, along with the Sloths and the boyos with the long noses.
Tricky stuff this evolution thingy.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I suspect the common ancestor was a type of Lemur.



I wonder if THAT's where they got the idea for the Madagascar films?

Kind of makes sense if you think about it



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Scientists find the 'missing link': A 47million-year-old lemur that could revolutionise how we see human evolution
Her name is Ida, she is three feet tall and if scientists are right, she could be a common ancestor of apes and monkeys - and you.
Researchers yesterday revealed the beautifully preserved remains of the lemur-like creature who died in a lake 47million years ago.
Scientists claim she is an important 'missing link' in mankind's family tree and will shed light on a crucial part of evolution.




Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: TerryDon79


Scientists find the 'missing link': A 47million-year-old lemur that could revolutionise how we see human evolution
Her name is Ida, she is three feet tall and if scientists are right, she could be a common ancestor of apes and monkeys - and you.
Researchers yesterday revealed the beautifully preserved remains of the lemur-like creature who died in a lake 47million years ago.
Scientists claim she is an important 'missing link' in mankind's family tree and will shed light on a crucial part of evolution.




Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


(First, I would like to say, this is in no way meant to be in any disrespect to your personally)

DailyMail? Really?

Apart from being the DailyMail, they use the term "missing link". There's no such thing.

They also use a lot of "could be's" and "might be's".

I think I'll get my information from somewhere a little less...tabloidy.
edit on 043404/3/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh for heavens sake, its the first article I pulled on it. Being lazy


Look up David Attenborough Lemur.

Here is BBC, snobby enough for you?

news.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 4-3-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
dp
edit on 4-3-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh for heavens sake, its the first article I pulled on it. Being lazy


Look up David Attenborough Lemur.

Here is BBC, snobby enough for you?

news.bbc.co.uk...


Still a newspaper


I know what you're on about though, I'm just yanking ya chain


It was interesting when I read about it years ago. The only problem is they never really made a decision either way and it basically got left as a maybe or might be (if memory serves me correctly).



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join