So you think we came from monkeys

From Iron Chariots Wiki
Revision as of 20:25, 29 December 2010 by VoiceofReason90 (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

This argument usually comes from the misunderstanding of the scientific perspective. I will go into Pond soup, nothing and monkeys as 3 of the versions brought up most frequently.

1: Pond soup - This refers to the theory of Abiogenesis which generally is interpreted as a small pond wherein amino acids are formed with electricity, most probably from lightning. This claim isn't as absurd as some of the other ones around yet is still relatively wrong. There is nothing about soup in abiogenesis, and if queried further, the intellect of the theist (presumably) will become apparent. Abiogenesis explains a theory of how life came to be, not the universe (for clarification).

2: Nothing - It is plainly wrong to say that evolution or abiogenesis or even the big bang suddenly happended with no cause and nothing before it. That notion is obviously flawed and only serves as a straw man argument, known to be used by apologists such as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in an episode of 'The way of the master', a tv series hosted by the two. When the argument is used, it is usually used flippantly, without real understanding. During the big bang there was presupposing matter and energy before the singularity. Abiogenesis is the formation of life and does not have 'nothing' involved and evolution explains the diversity of life, and again, no reference to 'nothing'.

3: Monkeys/Apes - This version of the argument refers to evolution. In particular, the evolution of the human race. A common misconception about evolution is that we evolved from the monkeys and apes we see today. This ignorance led to the argument of 'if we evolved from monkeys and apes then why are there still monkeys and apes?'. In reality, we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes. Humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor, one that branched off to form a heirachy of species of which we are included in. What Creationists seem to not grasp (or flat-out refuse to accept) is that there are indeed things called species and they evolve to the left and to the right, not just in a straight line. There are numerous branches within the subspecies. There are approximately 5,400 known species of mammals on the planet which all arose and flourished after the reptiles were decimated by the presumed comet or asteroid that impacted the earth some 65 million years ago; the earliest known precursors to mice, opossums, and other marsupials were the largest mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Paleocene, and the primates arose from that point out into separate directions, left, right and forward. But some of these species hit a dead end and others didn't; some were viable. The Great Apes are a prime example of this and there are between 300 and 400 living species of primates on earth. This particular argument of 'if we came from monkeys then why are their still monkeys' can be reformed to 'If America was colonised by Europeans then why are there still Europeans?'. An equally dimwitted question to the theist question would probably be 'if Adam came from dirt why do we still have dirt?' This rewording shows precisely the falsehood of the argument.

Personal tools
wiki navigation