Talk:Essay:Man is not the descendant of monkey

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) at 22:27, 20 March 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

I'd just like to ask, who exactly claims that Mankind evolved from monkeys? I've been seeing it as "Mankind and monkeys have a common ancestor" most of the time... Jjameson 20:36, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, who? Who claims man descends from monkeys? Anybody that preaches evolution. The who is ....all secular Western cultures, most atheist-led countries. Man evolved from ape, from beasts, is just leftwing indoctrination. The result is to dehumanize man, make less than worthy, create classes and label them sub-human species. The origins of man are God and all men are created equel.--jpatt 21:03, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
Could you please cite some examples? Jjameson 21:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

People tend to use "monkey" and "ape" very generically, unlike "gorilla", "chimpanzee", and etc. which are more specific.

In a sense, Jjameson is correct in questioning the claim: evolutionists don't claim that man evolved from a monkey or ape; but that humans and apes had a common ancestor from which both evolved.

On the other hand, as "monkey" and "ape" are general terms, that supposed common ancestor, if found, although being classified as a different species by scientists, would likely be referred to by laymen as a "monkey" or "ape" anyway. So in that sense, Jpatt is correct.

Philip J. Rayment 10:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

What I find interesting is that it presupposes a worldview that somehow monkeys are "less worthy". Aren't ALL God's creations wondrous? Why must we always want to be considered "better" than all of the rest of Creation, all of which is God's work? There's an implicit arrogance there that reeks of species insecurity, in my book. KBinbota 11:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
You are lowering the value of mankind to the level of a monkey. If people are no more valuable than animals, then they can be killed when they don't do what you want. Ever eat a cheeseburger or swat a mosquito?
Why must we always ignore Genesis 1:28 wherein God gave us dominion over all the rest of His creation? --Ed Poor Talk 12:01, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
Actually, no - I do not eat any animal products or byproducts, nor wear leather. And like many like me, I do actually worry about stepping on ants and the like. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I try my best and am upset when it happens. I don't wish to have dominion over other people, or animals. I want to live amongst all of God's Creation as One. KBinbota 12:51, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
What religion is that? Buddhism? --Ed Poor Talk 13:03, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
No no, I'm a (vegetarian) Anglican Christian. KBinbota 13:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
God created all of the world, but only man in His image. That's a fundamental distinction worth respecting.--Andy Schlafly 12:05, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
Doesn't that seem just a little too convenient? Kallium 15:42, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
"Too convenient"? The Bible explicitly says that man was created in God's image, as Andy said. Man is the only one like this. And as Ed said, man was given dominion over the rest of creation. Man is the "federal head" of creation, so that when man sinned, the whole of creation (Romans 8:22, NIV) was 'cursed'. And for KBinbota, although it wasn't God's original intention, He specifically told us that we could eat meat (Genesis 9:3). And ants are likely not even considered 'alive' in a biblical sense (as distinct from a modern scientific sense; see classification system).
So the question is not whether it's "too convenient", but whether the Bible is correct or not.
Philip J. Rayment 18:27, 20 March 2009 (EDT)