EssentialSacrifice wrote:Religious belief requires no theories or empirical evidence.Ken wrote:
Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.
But if it's the mass cause of empirical evidence you require, that is very attainable. if you take all the sequential steps it was necessary to take for the final physical formation of our world from the beginning of time, the (big bang), including but not even closely limited to the following... add one grain of sand to the original material in the Bang and our universe never even got the kick start it needed to survive, it would have collapsed in on itself, the inflation rate either any faster, created an envelope of gas that never could have coalesced, any slower and it clumped in to matter that could not have inflated continually as is does to this day, too hot and it would always be a gas, too cold it would have been matter only, coalescence of matter of our galaxy in just he right proportion to allow for the orbital effects of all the galaxy on just our solar system, which is in just the right place within the plane of the galaxy so as to allow just the right amount of nucleic radiation so as not too much to burn everything out of existence or too little to cool the entire system so our star, a fourth generation star would never have seen the light of day because no further star formation would have occurred after the first generation. Thea never collides with the earth in just the right orbital plane so as not to destroy both planets, in fact just right so as to create the materiel and eventual coalescence of the moon. No moon no tidal effect, no 24 hour day, nor consistent earthly rotation. Neptune and Uranus switch planetary orbit around the sun, allowing for the gigantic mass gravity of Jupiter (within it's current orbit because of the switch) as our greatest protector against asteroids, comets and rougue planetary killers. 4 ice ages, 4 or 5 mass extinctions, ... this list of natural potential for falling down is literally endless ...
and we haven't even gone in to the actual manufacture of man, who has his own distinct DNA grouping, although close (95%) to a chimpanzee... (were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question that, as it turns out equals an equivalency odds rate of (for the creation of our earth and ourselves) of 10 to the minus 120th. Consider Ken, most lottery winners beat the odds (miraculously at that) of 10 to the minus 7th...
and this isn't just a one shot willie like the lottery, these odds were continued and stretched out over 14 billion years of creational odds smacking accuracy for us to be here.
and no matter what you call Him, because the "odds" of self or natural creation are so remote that, the, He who is the prime Mover who created everything, has just cause for His creation is more a matter of justifiable belief than not, and can be supported for and from over 5000 years of data gathering from reliable resources as the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud, Koran, personal and public revelation and a plethora of further knowledge compounded by literally billions of faithful followers of God...
He who was, Is and Always will be isn't just a choice of admirable faith, based on reasonable justification, it's a compendium of choice beyond reasonable justification. It's the non belief in a Prime Mover who's finger is on creation, who presumes and prefers the possibilities of 10 to the minus 120th odds for the existence of our world today via natural processes alone, and the lives we live herein.
I will assume you mean were there chimps around when man first appeared?were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question
The answer would be no, rather, that people and chimps share a common ancestor.
There were, as perhaps you know, quite a few now extinct species of apes (note that people are classified as apes) that were bipedal. Far more similar to humans than any of the non human apes of today.
One line of descent survived. Thats us.
As for "why havent they evolved into people" I guess the simplest answer is just to say that at each stage of their history, each generation of that group found that its survival favoured the mutations that took them on the path they followed. Thats how evolution works. There is no "goal" that evolution is working toward.
NOBODY has ever presented it as being that humans are descended from cbimps.
Do you feel it is entirely reasonable to dismiss as false a theory that you so little understand?