[Basilissa]

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

The reason we don't have tails i because we evolved past the need for tail because as are arm and legs grew longer we started to stop using our tails so much so after a while we just stopped having them. Legit enough for you?

Frankly, to me it sounds equally as stupid as Darwinism, but FYI: what you are saying has nothing to do with Darwin and everything to do with Lamarck. Google it.

So no, it's not legit, and even if I subscribed to Darwinism, I wouldn't deem it to be legit either.

[Science=Satan]

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

The reason we don't have tails i because we evolved past the need for tail because as are arm and legs grew longer we started to stop using our tails so much so after a while we just stopped having them. Legit enough for you?

[Oliver Brendan Hayve]

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

It is physiclly imposible for someone to rape themselves rape is sex without consent and with masturbation (if you still decide to do i even though the Bible tells you not to) you have your own full consent.

It's a little more complicated than that. If a person is tricked into thinking that an act is something other than a sex act, then legally, consent is ineffective. The principle is called "fraud in the factum."

[MitzaLizalor]

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

Monkeys almost always have visible tails.

But the reason we don't have them is because tails are very inefficient when running. Apes without tails have an advantage over monkeys with tails

..in which case, according to your bizarre logic, why were all the monkeys not eaten? Lions, in your dystopia, have had millions of years to finish them off. And yet, there are the monkeys!

[Science=Satan]

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

You're a disgusting PERVERT!!! Telling me to feel my own bottom! You should be arrested for trying to make me rape myself!!! How can you live with yourself!!!

I bet you're in cahoots with Joe Beam, the false Christian sex pervert!

You're the one that's ignorant AND you're GROSS!!!

It is physiclly imposible for someone to rape themselves rape is sex without consent and with masturbation (if you still decide to do i even though the Bible tells you not to) you have your own full consent.

[A Follower]

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

First of all, our closest ansestors are chimpanzees who are apes and not monkeys. They also do not have tails. Monkeys almost always have visible tails.

But the reason we don't have them is because tails are very inefficient when running. Apes without tails have an advantage over monkeys with tails when it comes down to running. Chimpanzees, humans and other monkeys all don't have tails because we spend more time on the ground.

As a matter of fact, we still have a coccyx or tail bone which could show that we once had one, but it got shorter over time because of the benefit when walking.

Fun fact, some humans are actually born with tails.

Ah, thank you for your explanation. I'm finally starting to see the logic behind evolution. I don't believe it, but I see why you might. If it runs on the ground chasing other stuff, like the hunting spider my wife asked me to kill this morning, that spider evolved from an an ape, because it doesn't have a tail and hunts by running and jumping on insects, while my dog that sleeps all day does have a tail, so it fits all the check marks for having evolved from a monkey.

There is only one little thing I don't get yet, how come there are apes AND monkeys, animals with tails and those without? Doesn't evolution say everything comes from one animal? Where your ancestors perhaps one of those people with half a tail?

I prefer logic and consistency: I'll believe God's answer! His answer is complete and not logically contradictory, it says God created all animals as He wanted them created, each and every one of them after their own kind.

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[Holy Henry]

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

Please find me an academic reference which states that apes are our ancestors. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

Um, sorry to disappoint you but, all among the fastest animals have tails (it could be argued that one of them is just a head with a long tail attached to it).

Nope.

Nope.

I'll assume that you meant "apes" not "monkeys" in the sentence above, but it's still false - apes spend most of their lives up on trees, and they seem to be doing fine without tails:







Fun experiment for ya: get a monkey and cut open its tail and butt (you might have to kill it first). Then do the same to a human being, and compare their bones.

Alternatively, take the biologists word on it (I dunno if you can really trust these people, but it will save you some time... in jail).

Here is a drawing of a baboon skeleton:



Here is a human skeleton:


Can you spot the difference? Hint: baboons and people do not have the same number of bones, for example: baboons have tails and people don't.

Fun fact: you're wrong. Where do you get your education, from the National Enquirer?

From Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable, but I don't think you could read anything academic on the subject):
I dunno if you understand the difference between a "tail" and a "short tail-like structure," so here is the clarification:

Wow, this thread is amazing. The facts presented here are an atheists worst nightmare.

Praise be to HIM

[Basilissa]

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

First of all, our closest ansestors are chimpanzees who are apes and not monkeys.

Please find me an academic reference which states that apes are our ancestors. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

But the reason we don't have them is because tails are very inefficient when running.

Um, sorry to disappoint you but, all among the fastest animals have tails (it could be argued that one of them is just a head with a long tail attached to it).

Apes without tails have an advantage over monkeys with tails when it comes down to running.

Nope.

Chimpanzees, humans and other monkeys all don't have tails because we spend more time on the ground.

Nope.

I'll assume that you meant "apes" not "monkeys" in the sentence above, but it's still false - apes spend most of their lives up on trees, and they seem to be doing fine without tails:

As a matter of fact, we still have a coccyx or tail bone which could show that we once had one, but it got shorter over time because of the benefit when walking.

Fun experiment for ya: get a monkey and cut open its tail and butt (you might have to kill it first). Then do the same to a human being, and compare their bones.

Alternatively, take the biologists word on it (I dunno if you can really trust these people, but it will save you some time... in jail).

Here is a drawing of a baboon skeleton:



Here is a human skeleton:


Can you spot the difference? Hint: baboons and people do not have the same number of bones, for example: baboons have tails and people don't.

Fun fact, some humans are actually born with tails.

Fun fact: you're wrong. Where do you get your education, from the National Enquirer?

From Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable, but I don't think you could read anything academic on the subject):

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[14] This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old.[15] The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.
In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.[16][17]

I dunno if you understand the difference between a "tail" and a "short tail-like structure," so here is the clarification:

Infrequently, a child is born with a "soft tail", which contains no vertebrae, but only blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, although there have been several documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae.[4]

[FrancisJohnson]

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

Tails are very inefficient when running. Apes who spend time on the ground have a benefit chasing other animals when they don't have tails. How exactly that works I wouldn't know. If you are truly open to a possible explenation, you should ask experts.

[FrancisJohnson]

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

I was thinking about this today. According to the Darwinists, we came from monkeys. Monkeys have tails. So if why came from monkeys, why don't we have tails? WHERE IS MY TAIL, EVILUTIONISTS?!? I don't have one! 100% PROOF that EVILUTION IS A LIE!!!

First of all, our closest ansestors are chimpanzees who are apes and not monkeys. They also do not have tails. Monkeys almost always have visible tails.

But the reason we don't have them is because tails are very inefficient when running. Apes without tails have an advantage over monkeys with tails when it comes down to running. Chimpanzees, humans and other monkeys all don't have tails because we spend more time on the ground.

As a matter of fact, we still have a coccyx or tail bone which could show that we once had one, but it got shorter over time because of the benefit when walking.

Fun fact, some humans are actually born with tails.

[MitzaLizalor]

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

How do you reconcile progressive creationism with Genesis 1?

acpl4life seems to have disappeared so I'll take over for a few minutes and suggest acpl4life = day/age revisionist. In that case, we are still in day 6 [ignoring that we'd also still need to be in days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5] with God "directing evolution" all around us.

DAY 6
• the beast of the earth
• cattle
• thing that creepeth upon the earth
• man in our image, after our likeness
source

That would also mean that we have yet to reach Day 7 which, in itself, is a direct contradiction of:

II Chronicles 15:15 And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about. KJV

If God has not yet created rest, because we are still in Day 6, that would be impossible.

Genesis 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made KJV

[Pim Pendergast]

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

I am a Christian, but I subscribe to progressive creationism, that we evolved based on God's design and desire.

How do you reconcile progressive creationism with Genesis 1? What makes you think Genesis 1 isn't meant to be taken literally? God created everything to reproduce after its kind (Gen 1:11-12, 21, 24-25). How does this allow for evolution?

Scientific proof of evolution is profound, but it's not enough to shake my underlying belief in Jesus. It's called Faith! If you have faith, why fear the arguments evolutionists put forward by becoming enraged and hurtful when you can't answer one of their questions rationally.

If you had to reinterpret the Bible to make it fit with science, your faith has already been shaken.

Just holding up your bible and spouting a verse or two proves nothing, just that you are an idiot who can read!

It all the proof anyone could need.

Yes they will walk away when cornered, but ask yourself why? Usually it's because you don't even attempt to answer their question, you just ask another one. It's called frustration! Like talking to a wall. If someone asks me a question about "my God", if I can't answer it I don't become offensive and spiteful like a lot of people on this site, I try to find the answer.

You should always know the answer for why you believe what you believe.

1 Pet 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

If I offended you, my apologies. As for the Word and my belief, it seems as if I go anywhere, people tend to have differing opinions on God's Word. I know you will say it's all there, just read it. You are correct, but in the norther part of the U.S., it seems as if they are far less fundamental about the Word. In the South, it's far more boisterous and in your face. I'm using this as an example of how one interprets the Bible. You may call it spirit, others may call it fanaticism. As for the KJV Bible, since it's translation it has been misquoted and mistranslated so much it no longer resembles the original Latin text it was taken from. The important fact is there is God, Jesus, he loves us regardless of sin, heaven is there for those who seek it, and my Bible gets plenty of reading. The difference is, I try to understand it, some just read it as a quaint story.

God's word is not open to interpretation.

2 Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

It is to be read and obeyed. You don't need to "try to understand it." If the Bible says the earth was created in six days, then it was created in six days. What can't you understand about that?

The KJV was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

[MitzaLizalor]

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

This is a very common mistake among the uneducated peoples in biology. We did not come from monkeys. Millions of years ago monkeys and human bipeds had a common ancestor. This ancestor has since become extinct. The facts are that this common ancestor had two mutations of offspring that survived. The monkeys and or apes went in one direction and humans went in another. Evolution is a very long process one in which our lifetimes are but a blink of an eye in comparison to how long it takes for mutations to become better adapted and then become the norm of the species.

The earth did not exist millions of years ago.

Why are you arguing over such a trivial item? Who cares? Do you live in the U.S.? If so, isn't freedom of religion one of your basic tenants? Why try to change other people all the time? I am a Christian, but I subscribe to progressive creationism, that we evolved based on God's design and desire. Scientific proof of evolution is profound, but it's not enough to shake my underlying belief in Jesus. It's called Faith! If you have faith, why fear the arguments evolutionists put forward by becoming enraged and hurtful when you can't answer one of their questions rationally. Just holding up your bible and spouting a verse or two proves nothing, just that you are an idiot who can read! Yes they will walk away when cornered, but ask yourself why? Usually it's because you don't even attempt to answer their question, you just ask another one. It's called frustration! Like talking to a wall. If someone asks me a question about "my God", if I can't answer it I don't become offensive and spiteful like a lot of people on this site, I try to find the answer.

OK, so we have a progressive creation which is ongoing and I suppose you subscribe to "day/age" theories, or some sort of "gap" hypothesis. Therefore you have a problem.

How is evolution by natural selection prevented by God from producing outcomes NOT in accordance with God's design and desire? Take the spotted hyæna for example. Females are particularly involved in the "selection" process in this species but once-upon-a-time, the evolutionist announces, there were no spotteds or stripeds or browns, there were just common ancestors. And as they selected their mates one might prefer the look (or smell or gait or anything else) of a slightly spotteder or stripeder or browner proto-hyæna and they would become progressively more spotted or striped or brown over millions of years. That's called Natural Selection. It could lead anywhere, so what mechanism does God employ to prevent naturally occurring selection from producing undesired outcomes?

There must be one, for your theory to hold water..

What is it?

[Donovan A. Mordecai]

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

This is a very common mistake among the uneducated peoples in biology. We did not come from monkeys. Millions of years ago monkeys and human bipeds had a common ancestor. This ancestor has since become extinct. The facts are that this common ancestor had two mutations of offspring that survived. The monkeys and or apes went in one direction and humans went in another. Evolution is a very long process one in which our lifetimes are but a blink of an eye in comparison to how long it takes for mutations to become better adapted and then become the norm of the species.

Before you continue to spray everything in this Holy Forum with a thin mist of your unfounded claims and personal opinions, would you be so kind as to make your own thread in the introduction forum?

YiC
DAM

[blazequal]

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

This is a very common mistake among the uneducated peoples in biology. We did not come from monkeys. Millions of years ago monkeys and human bipeds had a common ancestor. This ancestor has since become extinct. The facts are that this common ancestor had two mutations of offspring that survived. The monkeys and or apes went in one direction and humans went in another. Evolution is a very long process one in which our lifetimes are but a blink of an eye in comparison to how long it takes for mutations to become better adapted and then become the norm of the species.