Apes... or adam and eve???

Question

what do you think about our ancestors? which ones were? do you think that the difference between science and religion is that the first explains HOW it happened and the second explains by WHOM?

Answer 1

mebbe adam and eve WERE apes?  that would explain both how, and by.

Answer 2

i will get flack for this.... but here goes...

i think man has evolved from the ape... i think jesus was a great man... the bible some will argue states many facts thay proove we have a creater. to them i say the bible was a poet writing that was meant to be a guide to good living and was not meant to be takin literally.

think about expressions we have today, and how would they be interpretied 2000 years from now, if takin literally.

"he blew his top"

"had a chip on his shoulder"

Science is based on facts that can be prooven...and have been prooven.... religion is based on myth and no proof has ever been established, if there was proof, there would not be many religions all interpret things totally different.. to me the church is a cruch for the week minded who need purpose in life and cant find it for themselves.

Answer 3

Without a doubt we evolved from ape-like ancestors over the course of millions of years. This is something for which we have a mountain of physical evidence. As for whether or not there is a "by whom"....your guess is as good as mine.

Answer 4

Science describes "how" evolution happens, and also explains "why" creation myths and religions came to be:

Science would explain "God(s)", "Religion" and our numerous  "creation myths" as human constructs. They were originally created to describe the unexplainable. It would rain 100 miles away and a flash flood would wipe out a village. Drought destroys a year's crops. An earthquake would hit, or a volcano would erupt. Someone would become sick unexpectedly. Prior to the application of science these experiences were quite scary for lack of understanding how they occured. The natural response by early man was to hand the responsibilty of such events over to a "greater force" and henceforth religions popped up all over the globe to allow man to move on when hit by the unexplainable. When more complicated social structures came about through the development of civilization, those who were in control of religion began to realize that they could control society and those who were in control of the state realized that they needed to have control of the society. Based on these forces, an age-old tug of war between religion and state developed. In some cases opposing religions were encompased into the threatened state (Roman Catholic Church), in other cases the state would create new religious doctrine that was more acceptable to their people (Church of England) and in yet other cases States would try to create barriers from religion (USSR) based on the simple realization of calling religion for what it is... a method of controlling people as shown in the frequently coined term "opiate of the people". This last model devoid of relegion, however, did not succeed... why? It appears that people like to be controlled more subtly by religion then by brute force of Stalin's iron fist. The point of all this being that Religion was constructed, adapted and restricted throughout our history simply as a means to manipulate society. If something terrible happened it was easier for the state to lay the blame off on "god" and to simply say "only god knows why this happened", we shall "leave it in the hands of god"... whatever, it's all the same, a scapegoat. Yet when society had successful years you can be sure that the state would claim responsibility and go about collecting their taxes as they talk about how their vague decisions improved the economy, or that their irrigation project defeated the drought. Of course the church took their cut as well, 10% for christians please! Where did that come from anyways?

With the advance of science the unexplainable began to be explained. An earthquake was no longer "gods bidding" and now the entire world knows which areas on the globe are more prone to seismic activity and can choose to live there or not and can construct buildings with this in mind to alleviate the amount of destruction that occurs. When the Tsunami hit Indonesia and when Katrina hit New Orleans a lot of christians piped up that one event was an attack by God on the primarily muslim Indonesia and that Katrina happened because of the sinful nature rampant in New Orleans. They forgot to mention that the french district was not badly damaged by the hurricane, or that many synagogues were left standing all over Indonesia due to their pillar style construction which did not create much drag from the onrushing water. At the same time christians will rave about... say a church near Paricutin Volcano in the state of Michoacan, Mexico which, although badly damaged, was the only structure remotely recognizable after a lava flow wiped out the village there. Suddenly this "act of god" is proof that god is real because their church survives the natural disaster... hey wasn't it built of stone while the rest of the buildings in that town were made of wood? It is interesting to see how similiar events are construed in completely polar directions by those biased by religion. All said, science allows a more appropriate and rational explanation of all of these events which were previously dominated by religious description. That is why there is a surge in people turning to science because people, on a whole, like explanations that have incorporate reason and allow for the development of knowledge through the scientific method that can lead to predicting and preparing for such disasters rather then mindlessly hiding under "god's wing" as we had for millenia. Now we put in Tsunami detection systems so that American or Japanese lifes can be saved if one were to hit the pacific. As I mentioned before, buildings can be constructed to withstand earthquakes of a reasonable force, again of which America and Japan are of primary advantage while villages in Iran and South America... (wait isn't S. America a bastion for Catholicism?) are being destroyed because their construction is still not as scientifically advanced.

In the end, the final battle between science and religion comes down to "infinity". Scientifically, we know what this term means, but within our minds it is an impossible term to truly wrap your brain around. It is this single word that will ensure that relegion pushes on. The reason why I pick this word is beacause no matter which force you believe to be responsible for our existence, they both depend on infinity. The Big Bang relies on an either A) an infinite time frame allowing for the expansion and contraction of the Universe in a cyclical pattern recreating itself in an infinite amount of space over and over an infinite number of times (if the mass of the universe is enough that gravity reverses our expansion) or B) has encountered one Big Bang and will expand for infinity but this begs the question of what was before the initial Big Bang. (if the mass of the universe is not enough such that our universal expansion is not reversed) Religion, on the other hand, rests solidly on "infinity" as well, by doing what our species has always done, turning the unexplainable over to, you got it, "GOD the infinite". I don't know if we'll ever be able to fully wrap our brains around this term, I doubt it, and so long as it exists as such a powerful word, God will still have the power that this word lends him.

Answer 5

I believe God placed Adam and Eve here and we are their ancestors...  but, I do think evolution had taken it's course...  I'm thinking people mistakenly think we could have evolved from apes but not true...  perhaps Adam and Eve were just really hairy and resembles what we know as cavemen or apes...

Answer 6

science explains how and why based on empirical evidence, religion explains how based on myths

Answer 7

I believe in the search for the truth.  Interestingly both science and religion seek to find these.  Religion is more about telling and retelling a truth.  Science is more about discovery yet sometimes scientists can get stuck in the mud as well.   People, including scientists, have much more that they don't know than they do know.  Studying science has taught me that the earth's plates move and have for millions of years, animals change and have for millions of years, and the earth changes and has for, you guessed it, million of years.  The change in animals and our probable ascestors is documented in the sediments that become hardened into rock.  Although the history is incomplete since we have only found a tiny percentage of those few animals that were fossilized, it shows that we are indeed descended from animals.  Recent technological breakthroughs in DNA, and istopic dating have only strengthened those theories.

Answer 8

I think this a matter of belief.  If you believe that men came from apes (though it is not yet proven, Charles Darwin theory has still some missing links), then who created the Apes. If God created the Apes then why will he wait for the Apes to become men.  For me, I believe that God created all the animals then afterwards He created men.  For your other question, science is man's method of rationalizing things but even today with very advance technology there are myriad of things that can't be explained by science.

Answer 9

I'm sticking with Adam and Eve

Answer 10

I would say that science explains the how and that religion explains the why.Remember that God is behind every door that science opens.,

The Bible teaches salvation history and not necessary history in our modern sense of the world. It is okay to look  to science to explain scientific concepts as long as they do defy or insult the nature of God.

Answer 11

The myth of Adam and Eve was created in a day and age when they did not have the means to find the scientific truth.

Answer 12

Apes. Modern humans and modern apes share a common ancestor, although this ancestor lived millions of years ago. Science, primarily through evolutionary theory in this case, explains how. There is no by whom. It is unrealistic to believe that there is some person like you and I out there deciding to make things, as if the world is a Playdo Playground. And about as silly.

Chick-a-dee's answer can best be described as a lie. Perhaps an unintentional lie, but a lie nonetheless, and one intended to deceive people, perpetuating lies, murder and mayhem, and causing us to miss the true beauty and wonder of the world around us.

Answer 13

Why not both,science says that we evolved from ape over time.And the bible says God made Adma and Eve and the world in 7 days.What we forget God says that he is the alpha & the omega,the start and end of time,to him 1 second can be 1000 years and 1000 years is like 1 second.

so He could have made all of the above in His time.Why can't Homo erectas be a prototype of us.

Answer 14

Such an interesting question!

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.



(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.



(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.



Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.



Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.



Sometimes it is said that the fossil record shows a sudden generation of species at random points in time throughout the fossil record, and that such data poses a challenge to the theory of creation just as much as it does to the theory of evolution.



However, there can be various explanations for such questions that may arise during the course of any detailed investigation. For instance, many scientists believe that the evidence of the fossil record is simply the result of Noah’s Flood because their empirical demonstrations and flood models can explain all of the data sufficiently.



Furthermore, it is possible that the fossil record is actually a reflection of two catastrophic floods.



Moreover, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility and/or death. Therefore, we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life-forms, perhaps even new species; the Bible only limits changes in life-forms to basic “types” or “kinds.” That is why, for example, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat mutate into a horse, no matter how much time you allow in the evolutionary equation.



(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.



Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.



(5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.



Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.



(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.



Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.



(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.



(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.



(9) Recent discoveries in astronomy also prove that the universe was created, not evolved. For example, the presence of microwave radiation throughout the universe proves, according to scientists, the validity of the "big-bang" theory of creation while disproving the possibility that the universe has always existed in a relatively-unchanged condition.



Likewise, the fact that the galaxies of stars are shooting out into space away from each other indicate a common point of origin at the beginning of their existence, once again proving the theory of creation.



Evolutionists sometimes argue the universe is "oscillating" in nature, meaning that the galaxies of stars expand and contract continuously in the amount of space they occupy, thereby restarting the process of evolution at the beginning of each expansion cycle.



But this is impossible because astronomers have discovered that the galaxies of stars in our universe, which are shooting out into space away from each other, have less than ten percent of the mass which is necessary to generate sufficient gravity-pull to cause them to slow down and then contract upon each other. So, obviously the theory of an oscillating, evolutionary universe can not possibly be true.



Although the Bible provides very few details concerning the original creation of our universe, it does declare that God’s Kingdom will increase or expand in size forever (Isa. 9:7) (Isa. 60:22). That means there will always be an increasing number of planets forming within our universe forever, i.e., an ever-expanding universe which is consistent with the "big bang" theory mentioned previously.



(10) One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.



Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.



(11) Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor — but no free oxygen.



Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started.



(12) Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!



Moreover, although vestigial appendages sometimes appear temporarily during the embryonic stages of development for human beings and animals, that is not the issue at hand. For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.



(13) Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included:



* Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the "Piltdown Man"



* Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the "Piltdown Chicken"



* "The Orgueil Fall"



* Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning "Western ape-man"



* Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"



* Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."



The sad reality is that school children often are still taught that the aforementioned frauds prove the theory of evolution beyond any doubt.



Sometimes people will say that science and religion do not meet within the realm of human existence because they touch on completely different, unrelated levels of reality. Hence the assertion that science can not prove or disprove the validity of religious belief. Meanwhile, others will claim that science actually disproves the validity of Christian faith.



However, my immediate response to all such assertions is this. If the evidence of history, science, ethics, values and psychology did not prove the truth claims of biblical Christianity beyond any reasonable doubt for an intellectually-honest person, I would not even be a Christian.



Our worldview of reality should encompass the entirety of human experience in a comprehensive coherent whole.

Answer 15

This question is one of the hardest to ask due to people's beliefs.  But the thing is there is so much evidence that there was evolution.  The bible (which was written by man) basically says the Earth is only about 6,500 yo but there is Mitochondrial Eve that is dated to be 140,000 yo.  How can something that old be found if Earth is only 6,500 yo?  And then the Dinosaurs, where the h**l did they come from?   Give me proof that there is a God without your beliefs or your experiences.  The thing is you can’t get a straight answer with someone saying it is just faith. Look at the link I posted below Becoming Human.

Answer 16

Who says Adam and Eve weren't early hominids?  Science and religion can coexist...

The problem is science can be backed up by evidence, and the existence of supreme beings and divine plans would be well beyond our level of comprehension even if we did find evidence.

Answer 17

I haven't had or met anyone who has had personal attention by a higher power. If there is an all powerful god, why does he require faith to real himself? Isn't that a limit to his power?

Answer 18

i belive in darwin-ism all the way.  adam and eve dont explain evolution, because they were perfect when made. i dont think there should be any issues with teaching theroy of evolution in schools only because it is all science! religon is a glorified story, not proven fact.

Answer 19

You're on the right train of thought, though not entirely there yet.

There's no question (in my mind) that every living thing as evolved from something else.  I do not find it degrading to believe that humans are just another animal upon the planet, related to others who look similar in appearance.  That's the way it is - so why all the fuss?

The trouble stems from those who seek a hidden agenda; (like answerer Chick a dee) believe they are better than everyone else; and so stir up a frenzy with unsubstantiated claims, half truths, double talk and downright baloney.  

The Bible contains a lot of scientific truth, but one has to sift out the religious dogma to find it.