Re: Re: [biblicalapologetics] We did not evolve from Apes
>I do know that this world just didn't happen, that it had a designer and that can only be the logical conclusion.
> From: remington186@...
> Date: 2005/01/21 Fri PM 12:43:55 EST
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [biblicalapologetics] We did not evolve from Apes
> "Evangelist/Apologist, Chip Broome" <RevEvangelist@b...>, wrote,
> Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:56 am
> There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian
> interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men.
> Hello Chip,
> After more than 150 years of the theory of evolution you'd think EVERYBODY
> would KNOW neither Darwin, nor any other evolutionist, EVER POSTULATED THAT MAN
> EVOLVED FROM APES. The theory is: they evolved from a common ancestor. Again,
> no scientist says man evolved from apes. Not even Charles Darwin.
> Chip, it behooves our Christian witness not to be setting up strawmen [what
> for? To sway the popular mind?] so we - can war with ungodly scientists? Didn't
> we learn anything when The Church came close to excommunicating Gallileo?
> Didn't we learn anything from the great religious controversy over "Flat Earth"?
> What's your position on men landing on the moon? Shortly after 29 July 1969 I
> was talking to a preacher and he became quite vehement that the moon landing
> was a Hollywood production.
> Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine
> They picture furry half-men half-ape crouched in a cave next to a
> fire, drawing on
> the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common
> misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, please
> in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview. They
> are not
> necessarily the clear leading of the evidence. In fact, not only is
> there major
> opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the
> Darwinists themselves don't entirely agree with each other on the
> I really wonder, Chip, how versed you are in paleoanthropology. Darwin
> concerned himself with speciation and the the effects of speciation on developing
> changes in species. This was what he called evolution. For example, a bird that
> flew to the island of Mauritius many thousands of years ago, became fat and
> lazy and eventually flightless because it had no enemies. It was easy prey for
> the first white men that landed there in the 15th Century; and was shortly
> exterminated; the Dodo.
> For example, insects and fish that became trapped in underground caverns and
> lakes over centuries, lost the organ of sight. For example, man has bred
> changes in animals, thereby "proving" evolution.
> Unfortunately, the popular mainstream view has become this idea that
> evolved from some sort of ape, but this is certainly not the only
> It sounds like you're saying "the popular mainstream view" is not the same as
> the scientific view ... which is quite true; but I rather think, to you, "the
> popular" is the view of scientists - quite untrue.
> interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, the evidence in
> favor of this
> particular interpretation is lacking. For more information on this,
> check out:
> When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings,
> capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19-25;
> What God has done and does is indisputable [and perhaps unknowable for humans
> who are not His children, i.e., without His Spirit.]. What happens to fish
> trapped in underground lakes for generations is indisputable.
> It is almost entertaining the lengths evolutionary scientists go to
> the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshaped tooth in a
> and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave and
> over like an ape. There is no way that scientist can prove the
> existence of
> cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory and
> then they
> force the evidence to fit the theory.
> You are neither a scientist nor very knowledgable of scientific matters.
> Scientists are not eager to argue and quibble and debate with unknowledgable
> people. They have their work to do. I would assume your calling is evangelism and
> not setting up strawmen [Men evolved from Apes] to malign dedicated scientists.
> Or stir up the popular mind.
> Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were
> intelligent, and upright.
> Seems like it, huh. But of course that wasn't millions of years ago, was it.
> So those creatures [such as dinosaurs] from millions of years ago had
> absolutely nothing to do with God's creation of Adam and Eve. So why "beat at the
> Chip Broome
> Shalom, shalom,
> Remington Mandel
> Hemet CA USA
> No, I am not a scientist but really how knowledgable do you have to be to see what I have already said. Scientist's are not the absolute authority either and to appeal to them as such is a fallacy. You must not be a scientist either are you would not have had need to respond. You are trying to use a strawman argument to defeat a strawman argument according to you. There is no need to attack me but take everything to it's logical conclusion and you will see that evolution is a theory and there is no evidence for it. I do not malign dedicated scientists but I do question their theory.
Evangelist Oscar Broome Jr
Are you good enough to go to heaven? Take the test and see. http://www.livingwaters.com/needGod/001.shtml
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, remington186@a... wrote:
> Hello Chip,Hello, this is my first post to this mailing list. I'm a Christian
> After more than 150 years of the theory of evolution you'd think
> EVERYBODY would KNOW neither Darwin, nor any other evolutionist,
> EVER POSTULATED THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM APES. The theory is: they
> evolved from a common ancestor. Again, no scientist says man
> evolved from apes. Not even Charles Darwin.
and I'm interested in the topic of apologetics.
I beg to differ. In his book "The Descent of Man" (1871), Darwin not
only said that man descended from apes, but that humans specifically
descended from the "Old World monkeys", as opposed to the New World
monkeys. The statement appears in Chapter 6 of "Descent of Man" in
the penultimate paragraph. The text reads as follows:
The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the
New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at
a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe,
The statement is unmistakeable: Man "proceeded" from the Old World
If you google on ("Charles Darwin" "Descent of Man" full-text), you
will find several full-text editions of "Descent of Man" online. Here
is one of them:
In this version, you will will have to look up 3 paragraphs from the
end, not two. The paragraph in italics, which would otherwise be
represented as a footnote, is inserted into the text.
I will agree that evolutionary biologists do not *now* say that humans
descended from Old World monkeys. But it is undeniable that Darwin