[James Dewitt]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Ultimately, life is descended from a common ancestry through a long series of these speciation events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3.5 billion years of life on Earth.
Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior, that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.

How else can you explain the differences between Black and White people?

The highlighted portion of your post proves that you are wrong! The earth, universe in fact everything that God created is a little over 6 thousand years old.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

its because evolution is a slow process taking thousands of years. we dont have tails because over this process they became useless to us therefore the slowly shrank until they became the coccyx or tail bone at the base of our spines.
and besides not all apes have tails anyway the chimpanzee, the gorilla, the orang-utan are examples of this.

Didn't bother to read the entire thread, did you? This has already been debunked. Because if this was true then dogs that have had their tails bobbed over the last 300 years wouldn't have tails. Especially when you look at the fact that a human generation is 20 years (give or take) and a dog generation is 2 years. So 300 years of "doggy evolution" would be equivalent to 3,000 years of human evolution.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

How else can you explain the differences between Black and White people?

Keep your racists theories to yourself scoundrel! There is no room for racism here at Landover!

[donttellme]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

So I have a related question. How is Creation different from the Big Bang? Because one took 6 days and one was immediate? They sound like the EXACT SAME THING to me. God created existence = Big Bang.

By the way, no evolutionist thinks humans evolved from CURRENT apes, but that there is a common ancestor. AND you only lose appendages (like tails) if they are HARMFUL for you (our appendix doesn't really hurt us). Breeding is random unless some trait is useful for survival or attractive to a mate. Supposing an ancestor of humans DID have a tail, it is still not a problem. The tail was a hinderance to "humans" and not to dogs or monkeys based on the niche is which they occupy. That also explains why there can be two decendants from a common ancestor, they diverged to occupy different niches.

Seems to me like it makes a lot MORE sense that God would create beings that can change and adapt rather than make everything exactly as it currently is. I think God was smart enough to create the potential for living creatures TO evolve and that is probably the whole point of breeding and possibly even death. So we can grow and change (with each generation) and not get over-populated.

IF God made everything exactly as it is (I think he made it, but not as it currently is), why do we have children? Why don't we just immediately have the best crop of people possible? I think what is best changes, and God made us able to change with our enviornment (through the generations) as a result.

[Lisa H]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

So I have a related question. How is Creation different from the Big Bang? Because one took 6 days and one was immediate? They sound like the EXACT SAME THING to me. God created existence = Big Bang.

By the way, no evolutionist thinks humans evolved from CURRENT apes, but that there is a common ancestor. AND you only lose appendages (like tails) if they are HARMFUL for you (our appendix doesn't really hurt us). Breeding is random unless some trait is useful for survival or attractive to a mate. Supposing an ancestor of humans DID have a tail, it is still not a problem. The tail was a hinderance to "humans" and not to dogs or monkeys based on the niche is which they occupy. That also explains why there can be two decendants from a common ancestor, they diverged to occupy different niches.

Seems to me like it makes a lot MORE sense that God would create beings that can change and adapt rather than make everything exactly as it currently is. I think God was smart enough to create the potential for living creatures TO evolve and that is probably the whole point of breeding and possibly even death. So we can grow and change (with each generation) and not get over-populated.

IF God made everything exactly as it is (I think he made it, but not as it currently is), why do we have children? Why don't we just immediately have the best crop of people possible? I think what is best changes, and God made us able to change with our enviornment (through the generations) as a result.

Atheist scientists stole Gods creation and called it the Big Bang. They then modified it and then added the stupid evolution theory.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

So I have a related question. How is Creation different from the Big Bang? Because one took 6 days and one was immediate? They sound like the EXACT SAME THING to me. God created existence = Big Bang.

So you're saying everything happened the way creationists say it happened, but since you hate God, God couldn't have done it.

By the way, no evolutionist thinks humans evolved from CURRENT apes, but that there is a common ancestor. AND you only lose appendages (like tails) if they are HARMFUL for you (our appendix doesn't really hurt us). Breeding is random unless some trait is useful for survival or attractive to a mate. Supposing an ancestor of humans DID have a tail, it is still not a problem. The tail was a hinderance to "humans" and not to dogs or monkeys based on the niche is which they occupy. That also explains why there can be two decendants from a common ancestor, they diverged to occupy different niches.

So what was so harmful about tails? Personally I would find one quite handy.

Seems to me like it makes a lot MORE sense that God would create beings that can change and adapt rather than make everything exactly as it currently is. I think God was smart enough to create the potential for living creatures TO evolve and that is probably the whole point of breeding and possibly even death. So we can grow and change (with each generation) and not get over-populated.

IF God made everything exactly as it is (I think he made it, but not as it currently is), why do we have children? Why don't we just immediately have the best crop of people possible? I think what is best changes, and God made us able to change with our enviornment (through the generations) as a result.

You seem to not remember the Bible. God did create perfect humans to live in a perfect world with no death. Even screwed that up for us, and here we are. It's been downhill ever since.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

IF God made everything exactly as it is (I think he made it, but not as it currently is), why do we have children?

Because God made us that way. Duh!

[F. Nietzsche]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

According to Big Bang Theory, our universe is a bomb.

I wonder if mooslims like this theory. They definitely like bombs...

That isn't what it says at all.

The Big Bang is simply the result of following the process of the expansion of space-time to the earliest observable point, noting that the universe emerged at a discrete point in time we call the singularity.

[A Follower]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

That isn't what it says at all.

The Big Bang is simply the result of following the process of the expansion of space-time to the earliest observable point, noting that the universe emerged at a discrete point in time we call the singularity.

And who made it emerge? And from where comes the singularity? And into what did it explode? Big bang is not an answer, it is just one tiny bit of the scientist conspiracy to obfuscate the true meaning of existence.

[F. Nietzsche]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

And who made it emerge? And from where comes the singularity? And into what did it explode? Big bang is not an answer, it is just one tiny bit of the scientist conspiracy to obfuscate the true meaning of existence.

That's difficult to say because the laws of physics as they stand cannot work in an effective manner once one crosses the threshold of Planck time. The reason for this might in part be explained for the fact that the Big Bang provided for the expansion of both space and time, which implied that the universe spilled into a true void both in the sense of being absent of matter and energy, but also time (and causality.)

Concurrently, it might be possible to say that before that point, neither time nor the very concept of "existence" existed. Of course, you cannot have causality without time either, meaning that whatever mechanics did bring about the birth of the universe were essentially bound outside the general principles of causality as we observe it.

As for what caused that. It might be impossible to know fully, though some theories in need of testing might provide an effective solution to that problem. M-theory is perhaps the most promising, but will need some exceptional efforts in testing it.

[A Follower]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

That's difficult to say because the laws of physics as they stand cannot work in an effective manner once one crosses the threshold of Planck time. The reason for this might in part be explained for the fact that the Big Bang provided for the expansion of both space and time, which implied that the universe spilled into a true void both in the sense of being absent of matter and energy, but also time (and causality.)

Concurrently, it might be possible to say that before that point, neither time nor the very concept of "existence" existed. Of course, you cannot have causality without time either, meaning that whatever mechanics did bring about the birth of the universe were essentially bound outside the general principles of causality as we observe it.

As for what caused that. It might be impossible to know fully, though some theories in need of testing might provide an effective solution to that problem. M-theory is perhaps the most promising, but will need some exceptional efforts in testing it.

Thank you for giving a better example of scientism obfuscation than I could ever provide.

[F. Nietzsche]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Thank you for giving a better example of scientism obfuscation than I could ever provide.

It's not too complex. Just that it's almost impossible to know since before the Big Bang, time itself did not exist, meaning that the concept of "cause and effect" that we observe did not exist, which in turn means our physical models based off "cause and effect" don't work before a fraction of the second after the Big Bang.

[John Scopes]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

It's not too complex. Just that it's almost impossible to know since before the Big Bang, time itself did not exist, meaning that the concept of "cause and effect" that we observe did not exist, which in turn means our physical models based off "cause and effect" don't work before a fraction of the second after the Big Bang.

As always sir you are a beacon of light in an otherwise dismal place. My formal training is not in physics but I do appreciate the sharing of knowledge that you impart.

[Lisa H]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

It's not too complex. Just that it's almost impossible to know since before the Big Bang, time itself did not exist, meaning that the concept of "cause and effect" that we observe did not exist, which in turn means our physical models based off "cause and effect" don't work before a fraction of the second after the Big Bang.

If you are so smart, then why are talking about the Big Bang in a thread about evolution. "If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?"

[A Follower]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

It's not too complex. Just that it's almost impossible to know since before the Big Bang, time itself did not exist, meaning that the concept of "cause and effect" that we observe did not exist, which in turn means our physical models based off "cause and effect" don't work before a fraction of the second after the Big Bang.

Indeed, it is not complex: you have no idea what caused the world to exist, you have no idea what caused the universe to exist and you have no idea what was before. The only idea you have according to your previous post is the hope that at some point in the future some scientist will think up a theory that is so ridiculously stupid that no Christian will bother disproving it, so you will accept it as truth.