[Jack O'fagan]

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

Actually we do have tails. What's left of them anyways. It's called a coccyx, or a tail bone. As humans evolved with stronger and stronger legs, the need to balance with a tail became less and less. Hence why they shrunk over the hundreds of thousands of years.

My dog has four legs (one in each corner),therefore he is very stable. I have never once seen him fall over. Why does he still have a tail?


Answer. Because God made him that way.



YIC

Jack

[Dr Laurence Niles]

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

Actually we do have tails. What's left of them anyways. It's called a coccyx, or a tail bone. As humans evolved with stronger and stronger legs, the need to balance with a tail became less and less. Hence why they shrunk over the hundreds of thousands of years.

Bears don't have tails, why don't they keep falling over?

YIC

[MitzaLizalor]

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

Bears don't have tails, why don't they keep falling over?

YIC

Rhinoceroses have stronger legs than we do are we going to turn into rhinoceroses.

just in case you missed it

[Paragon of virtue]

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

I don't guess we're turning into rhino's but I've seen the atheists argue other evolutionary points with less evidence.

[MitzaLizalor]

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

I don't guess we're turning into rhino's but I've seen the atheists argue other evolutionary points with less evidence.

I wasn't having a very good day on Tuesday

I meant to write

Originally Posted by Saved_by_Universe NOW BANNED
Actually we do have tails. What's left of them anyways. It's called a coccyx, or a tail bone. As humans evolved with stronger and stronger legs, the need to balance with a tail became less and less. Hence why they shrunk over the hundreds of thousands of years.

Bears don't have tails, why don't they keep falling over?

Rhinoceroses have stronger legs than we do are we going to turn into rhinoceroses.

and then put some pictures so you could see that rhinoceroses still have a tail (even though they've "evolved" stronger legs it's just too rubbish to be true)

just in case you missed it

•

And it isn't true. We are not made out of monkeys. Majestic Adam was made out of dirt (he was not sanguine regarding the merits of rhinoceroses as companion animals so it became necessary for God to come up with a sort of Plan B, although given the number of species Noble Adam rejected during day 6 it might be more accurately called Plan 8,700,001); wretched woman was eventually made out of surplus rib tissue. From the historical record:

GENESIS 2
7a And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22a And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman
KJV . whole chapter

So there are two points. God made humans on day 6. Monkeys are not mentioned anywhere. Leg strength is obviously not a factor since according to the Darwinist the process of starting off with a human torso + monkey legs + a tail and ending up with human legs and no tail would take several million years, not four hours. Unless they're suggesting Eve had monkey legs and then evolved for a few million years while Adam stayed the same?

Slice it where you like, all ya get is baloney.


NOW THE EVOLUTIONIST CLAIMS

FROM THIS TO THIS

. . . IN A SINGLE AFTERNOON?

stop it .. just stop it .. I think I'm gonna have a stroke !

[PleaseListenToReason]

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

Evolution simply means change over time. He fact that you need a new flu shot every season is proof of evolution. The viruses that are killed by the vaccine are not able to reproduce. The ones that are resistant to the vaccine produce vaccine resistant offspring, thus causeing you to get sick the next year when you are exposed to the new , stronger generation.

We share a common ancestor with many apes. Millions of years ago, we split along the evolutionary line and grew more distant from the apes we see today, but we still share nearly 98% of our DNA. How else could you explain the extensive fossil records of not only us, but of thousands of species over millions of years showing change over time?

And as far as the big bang goes, it did not produce humans. Homo sapiens have only been around a few hundred thousand years. The big bang was about 14 billion years ago, and did not come from nothing. It was the rapid expansion of a hyper dense ball of matter which first produced the fundimental particals of matter, which as it cooled, came together to produce electrons and protons an such wich gave rise to hydrogen, the lightest and simplest element. All this swirling and colliding for billions of years, forming stars which produced heavier elements suxh as helium and iron and carbon. All this matter interacted and formed planets and everything you see in the night sky. Then on this particular planet, simple elements combined into primitive organice compounds which gave rise to the first basic form of life.

This isnt hard to understand. All the principles that these theories are based of of are easily tested and confirmed. How do you people not see this? How is the idea of some being kicking this vast, orderly universe into existance full of millions of life forms, just for us, more satisfying? How can you deny blatant, testable and reproducible evidence that is sitting right in front of you?

How can you sit on your computer and argue against the very rules that allow you to post here? How can you go fill up your gas tank and deny all those ancient animals and plants that you are burning ever existed?

I dont understand how these logical fallacies in your arguments aren't blatantly obvious?

[Zechariah Smyth]

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

Evolution simply means change over time. He fact that you need a new flu shot every season BLAH BLAH BLAH

Two kinds of people get flu shots:

1. People who feel that prayer isn't good enough for them, and

2. People who try to thwart the Will of God.

Of course there is considerable overlap between these two groups.

Also, please make a thread of your own in the Introduction Forum telling us why you reject the sacrifices Jesus made for you.

Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[Pim Pendergast]

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

Evolution simply means change over time. He fact that you need a new flu shot every season is proof of evolution. The viruses that are killed by the vaccine are not able to reproduce. The ones that are resistant to the vaccine produce vaccine resistant offspring, thus causeing you to get sick the next year when you are exposed to the new , stronger generation.

But the flu is still the flu. No one has ever observed a virus evolving into a bacteria or some other new form of life. And like evolution, the germ theory of disease is only a theory anyway.

We share a common ancestor with many apes. Millions of years ago, we split along the evolutionary line and grew more distant from the apes we see today, but we still share nearly 98% of our DNA. How else could you explain the extensive fossil records of not only us, but of thousands of species over millions of years showing change over time?

Yes, but why don't we have tails? Why don't we speak monkey? Why don't we give birth to monkeys? Why aren't we covered in hair? Why don't monkeys give birth to humans?

And as far as the big bang goes, it did not produce humans. Homo sapiens have only been around a few hundred thousand years. The big bang was about 14 billion years ago, and did not come from nothing. It was the rapid expansion of a hyper dense ball of matter which first produced the fundimental particals of matter, which as it cooled, came together to produce electrons and protons an such wich gave rise to hydrogen, the lightest and simplest element. All this swirling and colliding for billions of years, forming stars which produced heavier elements suxh as helium and iron and carbon. All this matter interacted and formed planets and everything you see in the night sky. Then on this particular planet, simple elements combined into primitive organice compounds which gave rise to the first basic form of life.

Were you there?

This isnt hard to understand. All the principles that these theories are based of of are easily tested and confirmed. How do you people not see this? How is the idea of some being kicking this vast, orderly universe into existance full of millions of life forms, just for us, more satisfying? How can you deny blatant, testable and reproducible evidence that is sitting right in front of you?

Has Creation ever been tested or reproduced? Of course not. So you can't prove it's wrong, then, can you?

Creation is much more satisfying because it means we're not animals and have dominion over the earth (Gen 1:28).

How can you sit on your computer and argue against the very rules that allow you to post here? How can you go fill up your gas tank and deny all those ancient animals and plants that you are burning ever existed?

Denying the existence of God is akin to denying the existence of air, breathing it all the while.

I dont understand how these logical fallacies in your arguments aren't blatantly obvious?

What logical fallacies?

[MitzaLizalor]

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

.. fact that you need a new flu shot every season is proof of evolution. The viruses that are killed by the vaccine

Vaccines do not "kill viruses"

..get sick the next year when you are exposed to the new , stronger generation.

It is not a "stronger generation" of the same virus. It is a different virus.

We share a common ancestor with many apes.

No we don't.

Millions of years ago, we split.. (might as well say atoms)

There are not "millions of years" just check out the Jewish section of your nearest cemetary

along the evolutionary line and grew more distant from

Ever heard of affirming the consequent?

98% of our DNA

I thought that was Neanderthals.

How else could you explain the extensive fossil records of not only us, but of thousands of species over millions of years showing change over time?

There were no "changes" nor "millions of years" [handy hint: biologists refer to "billions" of these "years"]. Jesus never changes.

And as far as the big bang goes, it did not produce humans.

That's not what Lawrence Krauss says.

The big bang was about 14 billion years ago, and did not come from nothing.

Krauss says it did.

It was the rapid expansion of a hyper dense ball of matter which first produced the fundimental particals of matter, which as it cooled , , etc,

No

All the principles that these theories are based of of are easily tested and confirmed.

No they're not.

some other stuff

I don't sit on my computer and oppose rules. I post because of electricity, a Christian revelation ("invention" in your looking-glass-land).

Two great British scientists dominate the intellectual landscape of electrical science, and indeed all of physics, in the nineteenth century, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. It would be hard to imagine two more contrasting personalities.
Faraday was English; Maxwell Scottish. Faraday was the son of a poor blacksmith; Maxwell's father had inherited a substantial estate and hardly needed to practice the law in which he had been trained. Faraday had no formal education; Maxwell had the finest education available. Faraday never held a university position; Maxwell held professorships at three of the major British universities. Faraday was one of the most popular scientific lecturers of his day; Maxwell gained a poor reputation in the class-room. Faraday knew practically no formal mathematics; Maxwell was one of the finest mathematicians of his time. Faraday's research dominated electromagnetic experiments; Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. The contrasts between these men could be multiplied on and on. Yet they had one experience in common. Both were committed Christians.

check it out here

deny all those ancient animals

They did not exist.

[Bjorn Jensen]

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

Homo sapiens have only been around a few hundred thousand years.

So you think that homos existed hundreds of thousends of years even before the world was created?

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

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

Evolution simply means change over time. He fact that you need a new flu shot every season is proof of evolution. The viruses that are killed by the vaccine are not able to reproduce. The ones that are resistant to the vaccine produce vaccine resistant offspring, thus causeing you to get sick the next year when you are exposed to the new , stronger generation.

We share a common ancestor with many apes. Millions of years ago, we split along the evolutionary line and grew more distant from the apes we see today, but we still share nearly 98% of our DNA. How else could you explain the extensive fossil records of not only us, but of thousands of species over millions of years showing change over time?

And as far as the big bang goes, it did not produce humans. Homo sapiens have only been around a few hundred thousand years. The big bang was about 14 billion years ago, and did not come from nothing. It was the rapid expansion of a hyper dense ball of matter which first produced the fundimental particals of matter, which as it cooled, came together to produce electrons and protons an such wich gave rise to hydrogen, the lightest and simplest element. All this swirling and colliding for billions of years, forming stars which produced heavier elements suxh as helium and iron and carbon. All this matter interacted and formed planets and everything you see in the night sky. Then on this particular planet, simple elements combined into primitive organice compounds which gave rise to the first basic form of life.

This isnt hard to understand. All the principles that these theories are based of of are easily tested and confirmed. How do you people not see this? How is the idea of some being kicking this vast, orderly universe into existance full of millions of life forms, just for us, more satisfying? How can you deny blatant, testable and reproducible evidence that is sitting right in front of you?

How can you sit on your computer and argue against the very rules that allow you to post here? How can you go fill up your gas tank and deny all those ancient animals and plants that you are burning ever existed?

I dont understand how these logical fallacies in your arguments aren't blatantly obvious?

You confuse me, young man. I tried to make sense of what you wrote. It could not. First you say that we (humans) split away from the apes along some "evolutionary line" millions of years ago. A few lines later you state that humans have not been around for millions of years, but only a few hundred thousand. But if that is so, how did humans get the chance to split from apes along the evolutionary line millions of years ago, if they were not around yet? By your logic, these magical non-existent humans managed to split and then to grow distant from the apes! I would rather believe in God and His Word, that tells me about Creation. Genesis 1:1-31.

[Pastor Ed Lowman]

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

Evolution simply means change over time. He fact that you need a new flu shot every season is proof of evolution. The viruses that are killed by the vaccine are not able to reproduce. The ones that are resistant to the vaccine produce vaccine resistant offspring, thus causeing you to get sick the next year when you are exposed to the new , stronger generation.

We share a common ancestor with many apes. Millions of years ago, we split along the evolutionary line and grew more distant from the apes we see today, but we still share nearly 98% of our DNA. How else could you explain the extensive fossil records of not only us, but of thousands of species over millions of years showing change over time?

And as far as the big bang goes, it did not produce humans. Homo sapiens have only been around a few hundred thousand years. The big bang was about 14 billion years ago, and did not come from nothing. It was the rapid expansion of a hyper dense ball of matter which first produced the fundimental particals of matter, which as it cooled, came together to produce electrons and protons an such wich gave rise to hydrogen, the lightest and simplest element. All this swirling and colliding for billions of years, forming stars which produced heavier elements suxh as helium and iron and carbon. All this matter interacted and formed planets and everything you see in the night sky. Then on this particular planet, simple elements combined into primitive organice compounds which gave rise to the first basic form of life.

This isnt hard to understand. All the principles that these theories are based of of are easily tested and confirmed. How do you people not see this? How is the idea of some being kicking this vast, orderly universe into existance full of millions of life forms, just for us, more satisfying? How can you deny blatant, testable and reproducible evidence that is sitting right in front of you?

How can you sit on your computer and argue against the very rules that allow you to post here? How can you go fill up your gas tank and deny all those ancient animals and plants that you are burning ever existed?

I dont understand how these logical fallacies in your arguments aren't blatantly obvious?

So I gathered from all of that rambling that you see nothing wrong whatever in mating with apes? If we are so close to apes, then why not shack up with them? You have no moral code and so there is no reason not to.

[Use your logic]

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

We DID evolve from monkeys, the only logical answer I have to this question is we don't have tails because when we were monkeys having a tail was like having an extra arm, and over time after monkeys had developed the ability to use their hands more delicately and accurately, this effectively replaced the tail over time because they just started to focus on training their hands, not their tail.
Over a few generations of not using the tail, monkeys lost their skill and strength with their tail, which made using their hands easier and more effective.
This eventually led to monkeys losing their tails.

I do not believe we are decendants of monkeys, rather I believe that monkeys were an early subspecies that split off of the human race millions of years ago.

[Mary Etheldreda]

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

We DID evolve from monkeys, the only logical answer I have to this question is we don't have tails because when we were monkeys having a tail was like having an extra arm, and over time after monkeys had developed the ability to use their hands more delicately and accurately, this effectively replaced the tail over time because they just started to focus on training their hands, not their tail.
Over a few generations of not using the tail, monkeys lost their skill and strength with their tail, which made using their hands easier and more effective.
This eventually led to monkeys losing their tails.

I do not believe we are decendants of monkeys, rather I believe that monkeys were an early subspecies that split off of the human race millions of years ago.

You're all kinds of confused, friend! First you say we did evolve from monkeys, then you say we did not! And you seem to have forgotten that monkeys do have tails, so apparently they haven't lost their skill. God made them just the way He wanted!

Glory!

[Dr Laurence Niles]

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

We DID evolve from monkeys, the only logical answer I have to this question is we don't have tails because when we were monkeys having a tail was like having an extra arm, and over time after monkeys had developed the ability to use their hands more delicately and accurately, this effectively replaced the tail over time because they just started to focus on training their hands, not their tail.
Over a few generations of not using the tail, monkeys lost their skill and strength with their tail, which made using their hands easier and more effective.
This eventually led to monkeys losing their tails.

I do not believe we are decendants of monkeys, rather I believe that monkeys were an early subspecies that split off of the human race millions of years ago.

If that is true how come chimps don't have tails?

Jesus wins again

God bless