It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


And Evolution is OUT of the Picture!

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:01 PM
you go back to the earliest record of man & see that mans basic instincts have always been the same.

need to find shelter, different from monkeys
need to hunt for food, not normal for monkeys
need to cover ourselves, not NEEDED for ANIMALS
need for making weapons, not needed for any animal(even defenseless ones)
the desire to control fire, desire to cook dead animal for food, although not need for early man but he had a desire to be able to do so.
need to use ANIMALS as transportation, source of clothing, as companions..
you could go on & on pointing out the differences in our basic INSTINCTS that dont so much evolve yet make us what we are. A fragile creature that needs to make our own shelter & clothing to survive. even the hairiest among us still find the need to wear some sort of clothes some of the time.
it just makes sense to me that evolution from MONKEY to MAN is in fact out of the question


posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:07 PM
need to find shelter, different from monkeys
need to hunt for food, not normal for monkeys
need to cover ourselves, not NEEDED for ANIMALS

Take no Offence to this,
But have you attended School ever?
Im not sure what more to say.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:09 PM
Man and monkey had a common ancestor. Man did not evolve from monkey.

29 evidences for macroevolution...

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:18 PM
zerodeep, maybe in your world monkeys kill animals and make headdresses out of them.
sorry I wasnt taught that.

and you talk about school, thats the place they teach you man evolved from inferior animals. I'm sure you learned alot there.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:19 PM
Perhaps you could do some research on Modern theories of the early development of humanity. Instead of making assumptions.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:21 PM
zerodeep, you must've been way too high when you watched jay & silent bob strike back.
psst...monkey dont wear clothes!!

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:24 PM
Well, im not gonna say anything to you.
Your own words say just about enough on your level of inteligence.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:29 PM
zerodeep, getting back on topic, have you seen the physical evidence of the missing link?

and just to clear it up, I have an associates, not that it means anything.

I also never learned of monkeys dressing themselves to survive, if you have please let me know about it.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:37 PM
Here read for yourself.

I really dont think Monkeys need to Dress them selves to keep warm, thanks to thier fur.
And some primates are known to use tools to break open fruits to get to the inner seeds.
Im not to educated on "Monkeys" but I do know that some are extremely inteligent.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:39 PM
Scripture, go and study up on modern theories, then perhaps you won't sound so ignorant next time.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:39 PM
Oh yeah,
I never actaully have seen monkeys dress themselves.
But I have seen one speak sign language.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:52 PM
well i taught my dog to sit, that doesnt mean we share an ansestor.

zerodeep, I never mentioned tools I said they dont make weapons to hunt for food.

and kano the thread was about evolution taught as fact in school text, read the thread so u dont sound so ignorant next time.

the proof of ancient man proves nothing about man & ape stemming from the same animal.

believe what you want, I know I'm superior to animal not equal. apparently you have trouble recognizing the difference.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:56 PM
So if God Created Man in his perfect Image,
Why is it that I am of Indian descent and have a different skin tone than that of yours ( assuming that yours is white/black/etc.)
Why do most other religions not believe this?

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:57 PM
If you're superiour to animal, then how come your DNA is almost identical to that of a chimp???

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:10 PM

and kano the thread was about evolution taught as fact in school text, read the thread so u dont sound so ignorant next time.

Erm, the thread was about Evolution being challenged because the piltdown man was a hoax. Then it just became a general attack evolution thread.

If you want to attack evolution, do it on less ridiculous grounds. Learn what you are attacking.

There is not a single evolutionary theory that involves Monkeys all of a sudden wearing clothes, using tools, conquering fire any of the other rambling ideas you posted there. If you had any knowledge of the theories whatsoever you would be aware of this.

believe what you want, I know I'm superior to animal not equal.


posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:13 PM
human dna is also almost identical to a pigs or any animal for that matter. I know I'm superior because we're having this conversation right now. if i were'nt than i wouldnt be able to fathom the thought of typing vocabulary in the form of a conversation and sending it electronically to other people that dont seem to have the same understanding as myself.
Im surprised so many of you take man from animal idea as fact.
why would you care about anything written in the bible or about Revelation, or anything of relevance. if we're all animals, then nothing matters. whats the relevance of intelligent conversation?

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:25 PM
deep, i dont think any religion can dismiss the fact people come in more than one color, thats probably not what is meant by in his image, going by the definition in Websters, image is a natural resemblence, not necessarily a specific skin color. all humans differ somewhat but are still human the same. its up for debate for sure. I still won't ever believe humans derived from animal or that animal derived from human.
my belief, I'm sure you have yours.
enough for now, im horny and my girl is naked.
we'll talk some other time



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
It is mainly Christians that have this view.
My religion has never had any problems with Homosexuals and Evolution.

I dont give a damn about your religion or anyone elses.
Dont go and say Christians this and Christians that.

WE aren't talking about religion, or beliefs. This board is about facts.


Where is the evidence of a fern that existed for a billion years evolving into a rose?
There is none.

MicroEvolution has been proved...YES such things as getting resistences to certian things like pesticides.

The theory about Having 3 birds that come from the same bird. But each bird is wingless and is trapped on an island...they all look a bit different though, bigger beaks, etc, they look different.

Thisi s because they were each trapped on their own island at one time, unable to ge off..and the strongest survived and past on thier characteristics. 1 bird was better suited and would survive better with a beiger beak, while anotehr would survive on it's specific island better if it had a smaller, more slender beak, while anotehr would survive better if its beak was left the way it was.....

They got these different beaks because the strong survived and they had dominant genes of a type that had a slender beak, bigger beak, etc.

All 3 of them have the same genetic code....though on some islands the birds that had the genes that were dominant and let them survive better, survived and bred. leaving that gene dominant.

Now if something were to happen on an island that the big beaked bird was on, but it really needed a smaller beak to survive, it would die off as the only birds of thier kind on that island have big beaks. Though maybe there are a few birds on there who have a little bit smaller beaks and the gene is't as dominant in them, and they breed, and they could survive.

The thing is that Genetics proves to us that we lose our genetic material, not evolve it.

The body wont make new genetic material.

Just say us humans would be better suited to survive in an environment where we were able to hide, blend in to the environment as best as possible. The ones who couldn't blend into the environment around us were killed by alien hunters..jsut say..

OVer time the only ones left surviving and breeding would be people who have a skin colour or a genetic trait that is better able to survive, such as being smaller, or having a different colour skin that is able to blend in. It doesn't mean we will have a genetic mutation amongst us that on eperson is born with and they have chamelion skin that changes colour and blends into the surroundings and then they breed and pass on thier genetic trait onto the rest of the population, and soon the only ones living are the camelions. What a load of BS!

Zerodeep: it has nothing to do with religion, faith, belief. But everything to do with genetics, DNA.

I think Humans closest relative is the Orangatang...we originated from them? Doubt it.

We have something like 10% genetic or the same DNA as a banana. Does that mean we evolved from them? Or maybe they evolved from us?

I tell you this. Genetics proves we wil turn into a bunch of sludge and lose our genetic material. Not evolve.

You cant beat genetics. You cant beat the way the body works, the way things are.

Prove me wrong. And dont call me Christian or say Christian this and that. What total BS. Deep. You are ignorant if u dont look at every situation/possibility.

Do not classify people. Coz i can sure as hell classify you as well.

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:59 PM
Dammit man!!! Im sure as hell glad I didnt join in on this one.

(In a contributing way i meant)

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 11:34 PM
Maybe I should make yourself clear.
It is Chrisitans that mainly disaprove Evolution.
I dont disaprove Christians.

Go through this, and tell me if it is not mostly the Christian bias that is against Creation.

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in