You are right that apes to humans is not true. But you are implying evolution says that. That is actually not true. That is a concept that has been adopted by those who have not taken the time to really research the multiple sides of this. You need to have a very thorough understanding of genetics and the history of genetics theory to understand evolution, which you don't learn in high school.

But anyway, evolutionists don't try to say that humans evolved from apes. They are 2 completely different species. That way of thinking implies that our modern day apes will one day evolve into humans, which is not right. The theory of evolution believes that our modern day apes and modern day humans had a common ancestor. This means that there was a creature millions of years ago. These creatures migrated to different areas that had different environmental changes (like you mentioned). This caused them to adapt differently. They continued to develop differently in accordance to different environments. In one area, they slowly developed into sapient beings to our modern humans. Others developed into our modern day apes. 

So like I said, evolution does not say we evolved from apes. That is just bull-hockey spread by people who don't understand it or refuse to consider it as a possibility. 

rcarter2 : sorry....i guess i never thought about it like that. it's just that that's the first thing that comes to mind when i think of evolution . i didn't say i thought it was true. so, other than that, what do you think about evolution?

Popeye116 : Yeah, it is hard to think of anything else when there is that stupid evolution chart with the ape on the left and the human on the right. I hate that evolution chart as it is very misleading.

I believe in it fully. I have actually seen that evolution actually supports the book of genesis almost to the T. I'll show you what I mean.

Personal views on how God did it depends on how you interpret scripture. I interpret it as 6 days not meaning our literal 24 hour period as that is a very self centered point of view. As I stated in my last post, why assume what the amount of time it takes for the world to spin one time is what is a day in God's eye when there was no concept of a day for earth before it was created because there was no earth? The Bible said 6 days. Not 144 hours. It is a matter of scripture interpretation. I believe that the first organism all the way up to the the present day creatures all happened in the days of Genesis. The land started all as aquatic life. This is believed by scientists and stated in Genesis as the 5th day. The 6th day is when the land acquired animals. This is the same thing as science saying that aquatic animals adapting to live on land so they aren't out competed in the water. At the end of the 6th day, man is created. The evolution of aquatic animals to amphibians was the beginning of the 6th day. Later in the day, the amphibians that weren't doing well competing in water and adapted to purely life on land (reptiles). After the first Ice Age, the large reptiles (dinosaurs) could no longer survive due to being ectothermic and lower food supply. The smaller reptiles were able to survive because though they weren't best suited for cold, they were able to survive long enough because they didn't need as much food to survive as the giant dinosaurs. Those who could not live in the cold had find another means of temperature regulation, in which the body put more energy to endothermic heat regulation (mammals). Through further adaptations in response to changing environments and having to compete with other organisms, we have the variety of animals we have today (including man), which concludes the 6th day of genesis. Basically, Genesis and evolution only have to be seen as two different things if you decide to interpret the 6 day thing as what we perceive as six days. Otherwise, they are pretty much saying the exact same thing, but the Bible wasn't as specific about the details on how it all happened. The Bible shouldn't have to do into those details because those details are not the point of the Bible.

rcarter2 : wow. that was a great answer! i completely agree!

Evolution is the result of experimentation through knowledge. That is how technology and civilizations have evolved over the years.  Anything can evolve if you have the knowledge to progress it. I know there are mad scientists out there who are mixing creatures with one another, humans with sheep and monkeys with man. Maybe apes did not turn into man but that does not mean they did not play a role in the creation of man. A lot of things on this earth look like experiments done by higher intelligence in order to evolve us. The dinos and old ancient religious and past civilizations can be some evidence of such experimentation because there are plenty of signs of superior intelligence existing in primitive times. Maybe god gave the aliens the knowledge to create us and all animals, it is a possibility, more so then monkey into man.

Global Moderators : should this be closed? i'm satisfied with the given answer from rcarter2, but maybe other people would like to debate about it.

Well, if your goal was to find an answer you liked, I suppose this can be closed if you feel the purpose of it is fulfilled. But if you would like to hear other opinions, it can stay open. It is really up to you. let me know if you decide you do want it closed.

*whistles and wonders if anyone will ever read her post on this issue*

Singelli : I have, and I hate to break it to you, but your argument is flawed from the start. You define evolution as something it isn't; as I explained here, the theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. The theory of abiogenesis, the origin of life through inorganic means, is obviously compatible with the theory of evolution, but evolution does not depend on it by any means.

Evolution simply describes the changes in life forms through successive generations, and, like you said, you already believe in that. As such, you are arguing against something you believe in by redefining it as something you don't, which accomplishes nothing.

Now, if you want, I could ignore this problem and do a more thorough analysis of your arguments, but we'll have to agree on our definitions before we proceed. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere.

this can stay open.

evolution is really, at this stage, undisputable.
I happen to have a copy of darwins origin of species here.
Iv not finished it yet however i could see from page 3 that if it wasnt evolution, there were some remarkable coincidences.
One good example: 2 farmers had started a flock of sheep.
They got there starting sheep from the one farmer.
Exact same breed, near enough the same time.
The 2 farmers ended up with such different flocks people thought they were different breeds.
Most people aknowledge that these changes occur.
But certain individuals (for the most part, being religious people) try to claim that since after generations, a dog is still a dog, a sheep is still a sheep, that animals only change basic characteristics.
However that too is false. At what point does one species become another? Evolution hypothesises that these changes are gradual, requiring many centurys.
Given humans, in our current condition, can be traced for around 3000+ years, and we didnt start farming and breeding animals succesfully until much later, the changes that have occured are remarkable.
Birds are one of the first we bred, and pigeons alone deviate so much.
In the origin of species darwin looks at pigeons especially.
Through selective breeding they are exceptionally distinct, even having different numbers of bones, such as on the ribcage.
That is not a simple characteristic change.

There are far too many people who state its bogus, and yet havent even read, or even investigated the book.
If you dont know whats in the book that pretty much shaped how we currently explain lifes progression, then there arguments against it arent really worth paying attention too.
The most iritating is the statement, we are apparently descended from monkeys.
No where is that stated.
Clear print, black and white, common ancestor.

If we arent related to apes its very weird that we share 99% of there dna structure, same root characteristics, appearances and social structures, isnt it? That is just several massive coincidences?

A common argument for religion is that it cant be categoricaly disproven, yet the fact we havent discovered (and proven to be valid) what we refer to as the missing link (common ancestor), is used as an attack on the vailidity.
Given that the creatonist theory has only the bible as proof (and written by men) id expect people to be more open minded.
Evolution has a man written book and a theory so far supported by science. And the book itself dosent even bother making moral or atheistic claims.
In fact, i dont think the bible even details what the first humans, adam and eve, were like.
Its not a major leap to believe it in the grand scheme of things.
In the infanacy of the universe, its a very minor detail.

Q : ...
LOL  No offense, but I don't think you read my whole post.  hehe. 

First of all, I defined SEVERAL types of evolution, and they weren't my own definitions I made up for the fun of it.  Nor did I state that every theory of evolution describes the origin of life.  In FACT, I stated, towards the end of one section:" Punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinism, and micro- or macro- evolution theories each seem to only represent the progress and development of life. ((Insert own note:  This does NOT mean origin of life. This means growth.... not birth.))  So why are these evolution theories offered as explanations for the origin of life? "    I gave the definitions of various types of evolution based off the scientists and studies that formed them. Those are definitions and descriptions from actual scientists, researchers, and professors.  "Some of you are attempting to mix these ideas with ideas of Darwinism....." I can't change what the ACTUAL scientific definitions of these ideologies even if I want to.

Second of all, I'm not arguing against ALL forms of evolution as you noticed.... because I'm sticking to the ACTUAL definitions I did not make up. I never stated (from my recollection) that I agreed or disagreed with all forms.  In fact, I left that last post unbiased.  That I DO remember stating, because I asked for thoughts in THAT thread before providing the next part of the research, saying that I was going to list facts and not opinions.

((The research was done through many documents, scientific studies and experiments, and interviews of many professionals, for a paper I had to write in order to get a college degree.  My facts were checked for authenticity, and I received an A from five different professors grading it as a group.  They were all liberals who did not believe in creationism, and they said that my paper was accurate and unbiased.  As stated, it'd be a hassle, but I can go find all those scientific studies again to list them as resources for your own perusing.  It'd be awfully hard though, since they were in a university library which I no longer have access to.))

You act as though I typed a bunch of opinions when all I did was provide the -actual- definitions of many types of evolution, and the scientific studies that were used to support them.... LOL ^.^

But I want to keep the discussion I started in its original thread, so I won't come back to this one.  ^.^

Q :
Also, I haven't forgotten about the other thread I told you I would post in.  I have ten scientific studies saved to my computer now, but I'm still combing through them so that I can provide you with some facts.  I was unexpectedly taken out of town this week (and still am), so I wasn't able to complete the post.  That's why I've been so inactive for the past few days.

Evolution is a complete lie. Society improving with technology is one thing. Man evolving from apes is a down right lie.Heck all it takes for society to lose its beloved technology is to not pass down what they know to younger generations. As for people believing we evolved from apes why don't you go live in the zoo with them. But all jokes aside allow me to explain to you by using some things that we all can agree on was created by someone with intelligence. First off lets look at a pair of shoes. Now you know shoes were made and would of never formed into a pair of shoes without someone with intelligence making them. I'm sure the purpose for a pair of shoes is to protect your feet and to look good while doing it. The purpose of a car is to reduce travel time. Same with the airplane which reduces even more travel time. Who gave these things a purpose? The people that made them right. Now lets take a look at the human body. What is the eye for? Obviously the answer is to see with of course. Now instead of the word for, you could also say purpose, because in this case the two words mean the same thing. You could say the purpose of the eye is to see with. That statement would be true as well. But wait a minute if the eye has a purpose, who gave it that purpose? For something to have a purpose, someone has to give it one. Someone with intelligence is the one who gave the eye a purpose, and His name is God. And there is so many other examples that could be used for just the human body, but for the sake of time that's all I'm going to say for now. There is so much order and complexity in the development of the human body that it just amazes me. Truly you can see His hand in the total craftsmanship of the human body. Indeed I am fearfully and wonderfully made by God. Evolution is a deception from the devil. He is trying to get as many people to go where he is going as possible, and that's to a fiery judgement. And really I don't care what a person with some degree is saying when its common sense the evidence of Gods' handiwork is all around us.You can look at the beauty of the earth and space and see that God made all these things.

I belive evolution is so far the best theory describing how species have originated and evolved and it continues to be one until there is a better theory. Though I doubt it will be more than an extension to the one Darwin already posed. There are ofcource lots of evidence and examples if you care to look in to it and just basic biology. Nothing wrong or scary about it.