Lula, I don’t know why you don’t listen to me but you don’t.
That's just it...I DO listen to you.
You seem more interested in telling me what I believe a real feet in itself.
Actually, you do a pretty good job telling us what you believe..and then some!
I and others have explained that man didn’t come from apes at all...
I know you have said that man didn't come from apes.
But, in this discussion you said that we humans are animals.
To which I probed into that asking, if Almighty God and His Judaic/Christian Religion is not the basis of our morality, where does our sense of right and wrong come from.
I said I have asked this question before of other Atheists and one gal said our sense of right and wrong came by way of evolution but upon further questioning, she clammed up, and would not/could not explain her answer any further.
To which you replied:
She was exactly right Lula....... Evolution is the only answer. And if one believes in evolution and I see no reason not to, there is no reason to think ours came from anywhere else either.
See the confusion??? First, you say we are animals and that Evolution is the only answer...but that man didn't come from apes although if one believes in Evolution, then our inner sense of right and wrong came from Evolution.
That's why I posted the Evolution "from apes to mankind" icon. It says it all. You may not believe what that picture signifies, (I certainly don't) namely that man evolved from apes, but that is exactly what Evolution posits in the dictionary definition, science textbooks and videos. In short, it's what the teachers are teaching.
Evolutionary theory and the Evolutionary "from ape to mankind" icon comes from Charles Darwin's, "The Descent of Man," 2nd ed. Collier & Son. 1905.
"In forming a judgment on the head with reference to man, we must glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided by almost all naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys...and into the Platyrhine group or New World monkeys... Now man unquestioningly belongs in his dentition, in the structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World division. ....There can, consequenstly, hardly be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, he must be classed with the Catarrhine division. (Vol.I, pg. 205.
"The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hiar, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles.... The foot was then prehensile, judging from the condition of the great toe in the foetus; and our progenitors no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, and frequented some warm, forest-clad land" page 214.
"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World monkey and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded. (pg. 220).
"Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature."pg.759.
"The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many...." pg. 796.
This Pope made this dogmatic declaration just ten years after the first publication of Darwin’s book when science as we know it today was still in its infancy. This also means that he was scientifically illiterate too.
Ah no! It's the Evolutionists who took what Darwin wrote, made a theory from it, made picturesque icons, published it in science textbooks and taught it as scientifically true.
We have an abundance of empirical data to support evolutionary theory,
No you don't. Truth is, there is no empirical data to support or validate Evolutionary Theory. Scientific authorities will back that the fossil remains are either fully animal or fully human. Although science textbooks contain fanciful pictures of "apemen", there are no true fossil remains, no skeletons, nothing found of an "apeman". Plenty of frauds and forgeries and imaginative pictures though.
Then supply the data which supports your claim that "Evolution is the only answer as far as where/how our inner sense of right and wrong" came.
It's not enough that disbelief in God is proof of Evolution. Your arguments are not for the validity of Evolution but rather just deny God. What you are doing won't do...By supposedly proving Evolution, while denying the existence of God, you then charge that Evolution must be have occurred, as there is no other option.
There is nothing you have stated here that even points to ‘man from apes’ as your picture seems to indicate. The book you are using was written for the express purpose of debunking evolution based on theological dogma … not for explaining it.
I am well aware of Mr. Wells and his work and I am not about to read his book, there are other ways.
Again, I just wanted to point out that you're wrong in saying Well's was debunking evolution based on theological dogma when he was doing no such thing. His book has nothing to do with theological dogma. He argues from science and those who have misrepresented science to push Evolution as true to school kids.
Evolutionary theory is taught in biology … what else should they be taught in biology?
I know I have the textbooks and seen some of the videos. The problem is they present Evolution Theory as fact to be believed rather than as a hypothesis still being tested.