[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

Perhaps I should word it this way so that you can understand it: there's a bone in the human body that was the stub of a tail."



Now, which do you think is more accurate: one book written 2000 years ago, or 500 years of scientific evidence that has been tested again and again?


You obviously don't understand evolution. Someone doesn't just give birth to a monkey and a human. Picture a large group of human-like animals. Some of them go off into the forest to live, while others live around the plains and near the river. Over the course of thousands of years, the animals who lived in the forest slowly evolved into primates, and the others evolved into people.

All this sounds incredibly far fetched.

How does something as perfect as a person spawn from some dumb animal? Humans are made in the image of God.

Genesis 1:26,27
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

Perhaps I should word it this way so that you can understand it: there's a bone in the human body that was the stub of a tail."

Perhaps I should word it this way so that you can understand:

Human bodies don't have tails and they never did.

Now, which do you think is more accurate: one book written 2000 years ago, or 500 years of scientific evidence that has been tested again and again?

A) Moses wrote in the Bible and he was alive more than 2000 years ago so we know the Bible is much older than that. Also, if you think about it, how else could a compilation of writings made by seemingly unrelated people talking about the same thing with no inconsistencies be possible if not for the Hand of God?

2) Your science 500 years ago talked about spontaneous generation, 300 years ago talked about Lamarckian evolution, 100 years ago talked about phrenology. Each one of these has been replaced by some other "scientific fact." Your hypothesis of evolution will be the laughingstock of the next century whereas the Bible will still be honored by True Christians™ worldwide.

You obviously don't understand evolution. Someone doesn't just give birth to a monkey and a human. Picture a large group of human-like animals. Some of them go off into the forest to live, while others live around the plains and near the river. Over the course of thousands of years, the animals who lived in the forest slowly evolved into primates, and the others evolved into people.

So instead of giving birth to humans, they just morphed?

Good grief, child. Do you realize how silly that sounds?

[princesshenryjosephshackleton]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

A) Moses wrote in the Bible and he was alive more than 2000 years ago so we know the Bible is much older than that. Also, if you think about it, how else could a compilation of writings made by seemingly unrelated people talking about the same thing with no inconsistencies be possible if not for the Hand of God?

And do you know where it says that it's a compilation of writings made by seemingly unrelated people? That's right, in the Bible itself.

2) Your science 500 years ago talked about spontaneous generation, 300 years ago talked about Lamarckian evolution, 100 years ago talked about phrenology. Each one of these has been replaced by some other "scientific fact."

They were never "replaced." They were built upon and made more accurate.

Your hypothesis of evolution will be the laughingstock of the next century whereas the Bible will still be honored by True Christians™ worldwide.

Really? When's the last time the general consensus was that the earth was flat?

So instead of giving birth to humans, they just morphed?

Good grief, child. Do you realize how silly that sounds?

You really don't know much about evolution, do you? How about you read up on it and come back when you actually know what you're trying to disprove.

[Catherine Moore]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

And you could have chosen any animal to claim was our ancestor. What I'm getting is why the obsession with monkeys.

If I had to be descended from an animal, I think I'd much prefer a brave lion or a cunning fox or something like that. Not some creature who, while adorable, 'communicates' by flinging its own faeces.

I think I'd be a lot more inclined to listen if you guys chose a different animal. I hope this helps - you can chat it over and let me know which one you decide on next.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

First of all, evolutionists do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys.

This is quite true. They know that God made us but if they admit that, they would have to go and find real jobs.

If there was any truth in evilution, cats would have evolved wings to catch birds.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

You really don't know much about evolution, do you? How about you read up on it and come back when you actually know what you're trying to disprove.

Obviously, you are intent on believing lies, the common currency of scientists. I therefore urge you to read this. We have an original copy in Landover Christian University Library, but is is not for general loan. This is the only copy I can find on the Internet.

The Evolution of Man
Scientifically Disproved
in 50 Arguments

By REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS, New Jersey, USA

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species.

All these facts pointing to the unity of the race in the days of Noah and of Adam are irreconcilable with the theory of evolution which denies that unity within the last two million years

We shall present these arguments more in detail. The arguments immediately following, especially the first eight, show the unity of the human race in the days of Noah, and thus present insuperable objections to evolution, and confirm the story of man's creation and his destruction by the flood. The following is the first of fifty arguments against the evolution of man.

The learned gentleman goes on at length and, I think, will answer all your questions.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Actually, have you ever wondered where your "tailbone" got it's name? It's because that's the "leftover" bit from evolving. Also, I've already said that evolutionists don't believe that we descended from monkeys; they believe that us and primates shared a common ancestor.

Monkeys don't share anything. Have you never heard the saying 'monkeys are greedy'?

What do they teach you at school, these days?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Dr Laurence Niles]

And you could have chosen any animal to claim was our ancestor. What I'm getting is why the obsession with monkeys.

If I had to be descended from an animal, I think I'd much prefer a brave lion or a cunning fox or something like that. Not some creature who, while adorable, 'communicates' by flinging its own faeces.

I think I'd be a lot more inclined to listen if you guys chose a different animal. I hope this helps - you can chat it over and let me know which one you decide on next.

If I had to come from an animal I would choose the ratell over some damn dirty ape!

Why so called evilutionistics want to come from animals that can't do anything but shit in their hands and fling it a people trying to feed them I'll never know.

YIC
Posted via Mobile Device

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

HUMANS DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS

Well for once you're right.

[The Lord's Sword]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

I'd like some help from the True Chistians of this forum.

I've read a few comments from the evilution loving monkey worshippers this site seems to attract (as an aside - its ironic isn't it that a site devoted to the TRUTH attracts so many supporters of evilution. Do they not have their own websites devoted to lies? God's bandwidth is surely unlimited but I imagine that part He has granted to us has limits)

But I'm distracting myself. We women do so love to prattle on.

What I didn't understand is - why is it always monkeys they think we're descended from? Why never cats or partridges or snakes? Are they getting confused because we're the same sort of basic shape as a monkey (two arms, two legs, one head)? Because, really, we're the same sort of basic shape as a frog if you want to look at it like that. Is it just that evilutionists as a group think monkeys are adorable?

I have to be honest, I find monkeys quite adorable. I like it when they smoke. But that doesn't mean I want to be descended from one!

What is is about monkeys that attracts them so much?

ASK YOUR HUSBAND.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

I think I'd be a lot more inclined to listen if you guys chose a different animal. I hope this helps - you can chat it over and let me know which one you decide on next.

Indeed Miss Moore! I think this is a truly gracious comment!

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

It's an open secret that the vast majority of evolutionists have sexual desires for monkeys, apes and chimpanzees. This goes all the way back to their "god" Charles Darwin who quietly married an ape and tried (unsuccusefully) to produce offspring with his new bride. This would have given some believability to his rabid rantings about descending from monkeys, but of course God in His Infinite Wisdom would never allow that to happen.

Sad but true.

YiC,

Z. Smyth
Posted via Mobile Device

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

It's an open secret that the vast majority of evolutionists have sexual desires for monkeys, apes and chimpanzees. This goes all the way back to their "god" Charles Darwin who quietly married an ape and tried (unsuccusefully) to produce offspring with his new bride. This would have given some believability to his rabid rantings about descending from monkeys, but of course God in His Infinite Wisdom would never allow that to happen.

Sad but true.

YiC,

Z. Smyth
Posted via Mobile Device

That is basically what science is -an excuse for men to attempt reproduction with apes to prove the hypothesis of evolution. They will never succeed, of course, but they will have lots of sex with monkeys.

[Holyfield]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

What evilutionists believe: Over time, primates evolved to become more and more human-like.

What real scientists believe: all fossils found are either ape or human. Nothing in between.

Australopithecus = ape
Homo habilis = ape (could be a fake made up by desperate "missing link" evilutionists)
Homo erectus = human
Neanderthal = human

Many indigenous populations today are more ape-like than homo erectus. Here is an example of one:

[Catherine Moore]

Re: Why Monkeys - Help Needed

It's an open secret that the vast majority of evolutionists have sexual desires for monkeys, apes and chimpanzees. This goes all the way back to their "god" Charles Darwin who quietly married an ape and tried (unsuccusefully) to produce offspring with his new bride. This would have given some believability to his rabid rantings about descending from monkeys, but of course God in His Infinite Wisdom would never allow that to happen.

Sad but true.

YiC,

Z. Smyth
Posted via Mobile Device

My word, I did not realise that. I guess that explains it.

I'm sorry I asked now. Disgusting.