1. Typically you hear of ape ancestors as "cavemen". However regardless of that idea, why did apes decide to live in "caves" and elsewhere, rather than their prior comfortable environment? Yes animals migrate, however that kind of migration doesn t make sense.
2. Why, how and when did evolving apes lose their fur, and instead wear clothes. Firstly, losing fur sounds like devolving (and no they didn t lose fur because of their environment). Secondly, it s impossible to gain the moral sense of nakedness through evolution.
3. They say the earth is 4.5b years old and the first organisms appeared 3b years ago. 3b years ago the suns mass would ve been exponentially larger, earth would be closer to the sun from the gravitational pull. Then how could these organism s survive, let alone evolve in those conditions?
4. Do you really believe there was a chemical soup that zapped chemicals into a living organism?
- Anonymous11 months agoFavorite Answer
Monkeys evolved from humans.
See how ridiculous that sounds?
If monkeys and humans had the same ancestor then why didn't monkeys develop into being something more than lice picking, feces throwing primates given to canabalism?
Fish eggs are still fish eggs and chicken eggs are still chicken eggs. Things can only reproduce within their kinds (speciation). No creature has ever transformed into another creature except caterpillars to butterflies, and that takes hours, not millenia...
The word 'dinosaur' came from two Greek words that mean 'terrible lizard'... a word made up in the 1800s to describe reptile fossils.
Under the forces of EXTREME PRESSURE everything that was engulfed in mud during the world-wide flood turned into stone.
For about a year and a half silica (mostly) permiated plant and animal tissue. The mud also became stone as it compressed under the weight of billions of tons of water.
Stone cannot be dated.
When a fish or an animal dies it rots, turns to dust or gets eaten... it does not turn into a fossil. Every fossil in the world is the result of the flood. Period.
Before the flood everything lived ten times longer - that's why tusks, antlers, fangs, trees and reptiles grew huge. I used to work with reptiles.... among many things I learned about them was that they NEVER stop growing as long as they live.
Pre-flood the air had 50% more oxygen in it. Like a hyperbaric chamber, everything lived longer because of the air quality. We know this because we have air samples from before the flood; extracted from bubbles trapped in fossilized sap (amber). Adam lived until he was 930. Noah was 600 when he built the Ark (Google Noah's Ark Turkey - a tourist attraction since the 1970's A.D.).
Believing in lies about evolution makes you guilty of making God out to be a liar. This is spiritual treason.
You've heard of bacteria 'evolving'? No such thing: simply, the hardier bacteria were never killed off by the antibiotic in the first place. The weaker bacteria were. All that's left is 'resistant' bacteria. They were never subject to antibiotics to begin with. They never 'evolved'.
PS. If God wants to raise children for Abraham from the stones He can do it. He doesn't need any of us. He can change what is in the blink of an eye.... He doesn't need millenia.
- SmegheadLv 711 months ago
1. No you don't. Not from anyone who knows what they are talking about, anyway. "Cavemen" is not a scientific term, and has never referred to apes. Caves are an ideal spot for preserving human remains, and so we have found a lot of evidence of early humans in them, but no one has ever believed that they exclusively lived there.
2. The loss of body hair is thought to have evolved as part of the transition from life in trees to life on the plains. Fur is great if you don't move a lot, but if you're doing a lot of running, such as if you're hunting animals like the current inhabitants of the African plains, it inhibits the evaporation of sweat. Thus, this: "and no they didn t lose fur because of their environment" is completely wrong, because that is EXACTLY what happened. A new lifestyle in a new environment is greatly and directly helped by the loss of fur.
3. "3b years ago the suns mass would ve been exponentially larger, earth would be closer to the sun from the gravitational pull." <--- Complete and utter nonsense. I have no idea why you think this would be true.
4. You realize, yes, that this is exactly what happens every time fertilization happens? But anyway, apart from ignoring the several hundreds of millions of years, the intense complexity of the primordial soup, the hard evidence we've found of the building blocks of life being common in the universe, the possibility of liquid-solid interfaces acting as natural catalysts of important types of reactions, and the cyclical input of energy via weather phenomena and tidal forces, then yes. You have vastly oversimplified the process in a roughly not-entirely-incorrect way.
- L. E. GantLv 711 months ago
1. It's not typical, except from the uninformed (people who try to simplify the process to a meaningless level). As for the environment -- it changes over time, just as we are seeing today with the ideas of climate change. If the environment changes to need caves for survival, you can bet your A*** that a species will change its habits.
2. It's the wearing clothes (or other animal's furs) that led to our branch losing its fur. The moral sense came later, because of the "fad" of wearing clothes.
3. No, the sun's mass was not exponentially larger 3 billion years ago. And the gravitational pull is much the same now as it was then. And, geology suggests that the earth was warmer back then. However, why would there be a great Oxygen Explosion about 2.5 billion years ago, if life in some form did not exist? There are organisms that live on the edge of volcanic vents, deep under the ocean that don't require oxygen, and they would have been plentiful before the Great Oxygen Explosion.
4. Why not? there's methane in the asteroids, on Jupiter and the other gas giants. Even comets from the solar system's Oort cloud have been shown to have methane and other carbon gases on them. In other words, all the things suggested as precursors to living organism. Something could have stirred the mix of proteins and so on to give life -- we just don't know what the trigger was.
BTW, IF life was found on other planets (especially exo-planets), what would that do to the assumptions of most religions and their belief that life came from a god or gods?