Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So the ape-humans were the only species that did not increase in numbers until reaching their complete human form... how convenient.
The information is readily available on the internet, if you refuse to educate yourself that is hardly my fault.
BTW. Over 90% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are extinct. Is that convenient too?
Of course, too, there were unknown numbers
of different kinds of dinosaurs for what, 100+
million years, all over the world, and the bones are like,
big.
But yes, waste of time.
How do you know that there were other species that used to live on this planet before they went extinct?
Fossil evidence. Again the information is freely available if you are willing to learn.
You think that insults from people who believe that fish transformed into humans actually means anything?
View attachment 25008
Good meme, it shows all life evolved from a common ancestor.
Btw. Mammals evolved from a rat like creature that lived around 150 million years ago.
These Rodent-Like Creatures Are the Earliest Known Ancestor of Humans, Whales and Shrews
Exactly. Now where is the fossil evidence for all of the “evolutions” that we went through?
View attachment 25009
Trust me, I’ve been looking and I haven’t been able to find a thing.
[BBC]
We have still not found the missing link between us and apes (May 18, 2017)
Yes well, ive been looking and found something, see my avatar? Cro magnon skull. Fully human, lived 22000 years ago. There are marked evolutionary differences between early humans and modern humans.
Thanks for being receptive to fact.
And of course, the fossil record does go back to ape like creatures. I suggest you have not really been looking. Here is a simple one, comes up #1 on a google search for "evolution of humans"
Human evolution - Wikipedia
I hope the link helps but i suspect you will just ignore them
Where are the fossils to substantiate this? There should be a fossil record that corroborates these claims of “evolution”.
I can catch a butterfly and say that it evolved from a cricket, but does that mean it is true?
That’s funny because I posted this link from BBC not too long ago:
We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
Yes i knew you would ignore it. Not surprising.
So never mind a sensationalist media outlet, how about a scientific one
Timeline: Human Evolution
Or another scientific site
Timeline of human origins revised: New synthesis of research links changing environment with Homo's evolutionary adaptability
If the serpent, shouldn’t be taken literally, then Genesis 1 & 2 shouldn’t be taken literally.1. Yes.
2. No, it is not implausible — because God, the creator of the universe did it.
How is implying that you believe fish evolved into humans a straw man? Isn’t that what evolution claims? “Something” > fish > apes > humans? I know it sounds stupid, but that’s what “evolution” is.
The “serpent” in the bible isn’t referring to a literal serpent. The thing about people like you is you have no idea what the bible is talking about.
I bet that you think Adam and Eve were actually “naked” too, don’t you?
Lmao!!!
If the serpent, shouldn’t be taken literally, then Genesis 1 & 2 shouldn’t be taken literally.
You are really ignorant, Hadar Judah, because either the whole story is allegory, then creation of Adam and the talking serpent are both myths, or they are literal and could have potential to be historical.
But you cannot one part of story “allegory” and one part ”literal”, which is what you are doing, and that’s contradictory.
It is you who don’t understand how to interpret your own scriptures.
But you are ignoring mine too. The first link that you posted is dated 2006 and the second one is dated 2014. And on top of that, there is no mention of any fossil evidence. The sites are just people making claims about supposed creatures that were supposedly alive during certain time periods.
But the link that I posted is dated 2017.
We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
^ why would BBC make an article saying that if it were not true?