-11 votes

Simple Questions For Evolutionists

Can someone tell me the capital of the first ape kingdom?

Who was the first ape king?

Where was the first ape government formed?

What archeological sites have been discovered of ape societies and their public institutions?

Do ape authorities issue decrees orally, in writing, or telepathically?

What methods of coercion do apes use to enforce ape law?

Has there even been an ape rebellion against an ape government?

How do ape societies deal with ape criminals?

How do immigrating apes change citizenship?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"I mean - were we created by

"I mean - were we created by an intelligence, a force, stronger and more capable by an infinite amount than we are?

The structure of the universe is far too complex not to have been intelligently assembled by something. Complex things do not just happen. They are created."

Who or what created the intelligence that created the intelligence that created the intelligence, continue this on to infinity.

"Anyone who denies the existence of God (broad definition) and thinks that they can rationalize him out of existence, is a fool (IMO)."

You can't rationalize nothing out of existence.

Phxarcher87's picture

I think he

is talking about the God of the Whole show, The alpha and omega. The beginning and the end.

What you are talking about is a created god. and the debate about a created god is a delusion

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

Two great quotes by Einstein on religion.

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

"The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

To paraprhase Inigo Montoya

To paraprhase Inigo Montoya "I do not think that quote means what you think it means."

That's nice when taken out of context, but Einstein was talking about "Spinoza's god" which has absolutely nothing to do with an omnipotent supernatural being. If you have any intellectual honesty at all you'll look this up and stop using this quote out of context.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I will admit that I was unaware of Spinoza's God, but having

looked it up I don't see any problem with it. I will need to study it further but from what I am seeing it sounds very clos to what I believe and what I would have expected rom Einstein.

Phxarcher87's picture

go ahead

and worship a man who directly contributed to the making of a bomb which killed millions. Lets flip the script and see how judging an entire group of people based on a couple peoples actions.

(i'm going to act emotional and look at people in groups here)

see how devastating science is to society. Scientist have murdered millions of people with napalm and bombs and chemical weapons. scientist are so evil and the world would be better without them.

what a load of crap right?

john C. lennox in his book gunning for God:

Albert Einstein, in a discussion on science and religion in Berlin in 1930, said that our sense of beauty and our religious instinct are: “tributary forms in helping the reasoning faculty towards its highest achievements. You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.” According to Einstein, therefore, science cannot form a base for morality: “Every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formula must fail.” Richard Feynman, also a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, shared Einstein’s view: “Even the greatest forces and abilities don’t seem to carry any clear instructions on how to use them. As an example, the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behavior has a kind of meaninglessness about it. The sciences do not directly teach good or bad.” Elsewhere he states: “Ethical values lie outside the scientific realm.”

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

I quote a man so I am woshipping him? Whoa. You have issues

I don't really care to deal with.

I hear he had a tendency to pee in people's oatmeal. He didn't get you did he? If not him than who got you?

Science is not based on YOUR morality. The God I refer to that created everything from nothing is not moral based on YOUR morality.

OUR morality is based on things like "Do nice things to other people and they will do nice things to you." No they won't. Not if they can get away with acting exclusively in their own interests. Study after psychological study has shown that the likelihood of people doing the "right" or "kind" thing is directly correlated to the chance that they will get in trouble or get caught doing the wrong thing.

Our morality is entirely hypocritical.

Much of our morality is based on "life" and "death" where the most important thing is to preserve human life. That's the foundation. Yet we have constant wars that we convince ourselves are to SAVE lives. We send people to kill other people that they have no conflict with at all to win a political battle that has no regard to human life. We turn our heads and look away when we hear that millions die of disease a malnutrition in Africa. We really don't care about life at all except OUR lives and our creature comforts.

Our "morality" is artificial and ridiculous. We don't hold to it. Though we convince ourselves that we do everyday.

Well science isn't moral either. And science doesn't hold that the greatest thing to preserve is life.

Your post suggests that any question we can't answer doesn't

have an answer when you say:

"Who or what created the intelligence that created the intelligence that created the intelligence, continue this on to infinity."

If we don't know what god is, then how can we know what created him - or that he needed creating at all.

The logic is that anything must have been created by something before it. But that depends on the constraint of "time" which is of the dominion of God too. If there is no before and no after then God doesn't need a creator.

WE are used to thinking of time flowing in a linear fashion. One thing follows another. Quantum mechanics teaches us that time doesn't have to progress that way at all. It does for us in our biological bodies. But it doesn't have to for something that doesn't depend of physicality as we know it.

Don't add "(IMO)" to my quote. I didn't say it.

SteveMT's picture

The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal

We are only one-step away from the jungle from whence we came. It would not take much for us to return.


Q: Can someone tell me the capital of the first ape kingdom?
A: Ooohh, Ooohhh, Eeeeehhh! Roughly translates to "Big Tree on Hill."

Q: Who was the first ape king?
A: The great and majestic King Hoo-Haa.

Q: Where was the first ape government formed?
A: Ooohh, Ooohh, Eeeeehh. It was authoritarian and patriarchal.

Q: What archeological sites have been discovered of ape societies and their public institutions?
A: There are no public institutions. As laid out by the Great King Hoo-Haa on the hollow tree, written with poo, all institutions belong to the male who can kill the others at will... or at least bluff the best.

Q: Do ape authorities issue decrees orally, in writing, or telepathically?
A: Orally through a series of calls and physically through body language. That's actually a very accurate answer.

Q: What methods of coercion do apes use to enforce ape law?
A: Beatings.

Q: Has there even been an ape rebellion against an ape government?
A: All the time. It's how they establish dominance and crown their new "king."

Q: How do ape societies deal with ape criminals?
A: Beatings.

Q: How do immigrating apes change citizenship?
A: They don't recognize citizenship... just family groups.

Glad I could help...

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Are you aware that fully formed human being have been on the

planet for 200,000 years according to anthropologists?

Yet we know nothing about what they were doing more than 5,000 years ago.

So what about the 195,000 years that preceded that?

They lived in small groups, there were small populations and they spent most of their time just trying to survive. They weren't really interested (apparently) in making permanent monuments.

The Great Sphinx of Gaza is one of the oldest monuments we know of. It was built 4,500 years ago (195,500 years after humans first appeared) and will likely be an undetectable sand dune within another couple thousand years.

What were the first kingdoms like? Who knows? What sort of record could they have left that would have survived?

That's a fascinating subject

Given the advanced construction of the sphinx and the great pyramid, one would wonder how advanced were the ones that came before? People live now, as they always have, very near the coastal areas and those ancient lands are now under hundreds of feet of water. Whole civilizations would have risen and declined in that 195,000 years. The salt oceans have a way of destroying any remaining evidence that may be left. An interesting question to speculate on, what could they have done given the technology we know they would have been capable of?
I'm thinking the flush toilet was invented years before Thomas Crapper came up with the idea in 1596. LOL

When people refer to possible technology known by the Egyptians

and used to build the pyramids that wee no longer know today, this is what they are referring to.

If some secret of quantum physics used to allow us to move large objects on top of other large objects had been discovered accidently (or through careful research for that matter) during the 195,000 years of known human existence, before the most recent 5,000, its entirely possible that the knowledge was lost over time especially if its use was complicated not generally known by everyone, and specific to moving very heavy objects.

I am sure learned and forgotten a lot over the years that we might someday rediscover.

I'm not sure the age of pyramids and the sphinz

are accurately determined. There was some discussion that geologists noted water weathering and corrosion on them, if that's true they may well be much older and date back to a time the area was tropical. The other thing that's intriguing is the machine marks on the blocks appear to have been made with tools the Egyptians did not have.

Puma Punku

Look up the place called "Puma Punku" even older me thinks.

But about myself I will not boast, except as it concerns my weaknesses (2 Cor 12:5). Let the unbelievers seek praise from each other; I wish that which is from God alone.

I did refer to the Sphinks as "one of the oldest". Not "the


Simple Question for Religious Lunatics

If GOD created us humans in his own image, and that same GOD is supposed to be all knowing, unquestionably great, and totally flawless, why did he make us humans not the same all knowing, all great or even all good, and flawless, but instead most of us flawed in many many ways? Nothing like GOD at all?


Another Simple Question for Religious Lunatics, of the persuasion who have extreme disdain for science

Was your computer & internet - that you use to spew, spread and promote your Religious Lunacy - created by Man using science & math, or by GOD using GOD "stuff"?

*soda pop*

See, I like many religious folks. I'm not trying to bash all religious folks. I also believe in a good GOD, but not the way the Bible says. I just have a problem with Religious Lunatics, particularly the kind of Religious Lunatics that hate and bash science, yet use computers & internet created by Man using science & math, to hate and bash science. The group of Religious Lunatics that the OP clearly belongs.

answer to 2nd half

Straw man argument.
Disagreeing with a scientific theory that requires more faith than some religions on account of glaring inaccuracies is hardly disagreeing with or possessing disdain for science it self.

This is the same argument progressives use against any one that does not agree in the fallacy of significant man made global warming.

Not believing in a badly flawed theory does not make one a Luddite.

The THEORY of evolution is a joke that requires more faith than Christianity. I will not speak for other religions.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

take your picture

does that picture have your knowledge or ability? no its just an image. Considering how far above a picture we are, how far above us is God when God considers us just an image?

I love science, especially engineering, I just dont think everything called science is actually science. For instance last night there was a story in the daily mail about how this guy has a theory that life existed 10 million years after the big bang. How the blank could anybody test, repeat, or even observer that? Science demands testable repeatable processes, and evolution is neither testable or repeatable.

SteveMT's picture

An empty suit or nouveau riche come to mind.

Romney, Perry, etc. are the empty suits. You can dress them up and take them, but don't ask them any questions. The nouveau riche are Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, etc. The light is on, but nobody is home. Wisdom is what is lacking in these people. No wisdom. I don't think anyone has yet found a "wisdom gene."

Well since everything

in the natural world oozes with mathematics, biology, physics, etc. I would say it was in place long before some guy coined the term "science".

But about myself I will not boast, except as it concerns my weaknesses (2 Cor 12:5). Let the unbelievers seek praise from each other; I wish that which is from God alone.

100% agree


I'm not really a Christian, but come on, I have to step in here.

"If GOD created us humans in his own image, and that same GOD is supposed to be all knowing, unquestionably great, and totally flawless, why did he make us humans not the same all .."

Apparently you don't know what the word "image" means. A photograph is an image of a person. Does that mean a photograph is identical to the living breathing person? Of course not.

The Bible doesn't say God made us identical to himself.

Mouth, meet foot ...

"The group of Religious Lunatics that the OP clearly belongs."

Nice. I have no problem taking an insult. If your comment has merit you ought to have no problem providing one example in my comment history where I have bashed math, science, or reason. If you can't Flake off in advance ...

If you think this thread is an example perhaps you ought to review my comment in this thread below. Some people argue that government is the default state of nature. I am engaged in a present exchange below where heirarchy, as a basic form of government, is theorized to be the default state. We all know it is impossible for any government to have ever formed if there originally no individuals to form it.

However reproduction is natural and reproduction is an important aspect of the bonobos conversation below and preserving heirarchy. Yet reproduction can not be said to preserve governments because if that were the case Rome would still be around.

Furthermore, there are other implications if all men are or are not created equal but unequally endowed. On what basis can any rule of law be just if its intention is to make equal that which is unequal?

You can keep playing armchair religious critic all you want. I am interested in the default state of nature. Is it individual or collective and why?



You're trying to imply that evolution, apes, humans are not connected. If your questions were truly what you claim the purpose is, you wouldn't have chosen apes & evolution to contrast with man & societal & governmental things. Since you're therefore trying to imply that humans are not evolved from apes - because apes & humans don't share the exact same intelligence or society / government structure - you're a science denier that shows clearly evolution is real and we are descended from apes. So you're a Religious Lunatic, plus you didn't answer any of my questions.

Would you be referring to the same science

which is not even sure what evolution is? I recall a video posted on DP recently of a nice older British gent giving a talk in Asia about the errors of neo-darwinism. Don't lecture me about science as if it is some infallible absolute because if there is one thing science has proven ... is that it has been wrong time and time again. The only reason science gets better is because it errors so much. Given the long history of errors in science you have to be a pure idiot to accept any science as gospel. A healthy dose of skepticism for any science is perfectly rational. I am certainly not a reason denier and Religious Lunatic who believes in my own man made infallible God of science.

I will take science denier as a compliment over any religious belief or faith in an infallible science if denial of its errors is heresy.

I picked apes because if man did in fact evolve from apes and the default state of nature is government then surely there must be some early signs of society/government structure. The concept of evolution is not spontaneous random existence of something entirely new that does not derive from something.

If you want to discuss any theory of apes evolving into man or the evidence of any such theory start a thread on it. Heck, I think I would like to read the discussions in the comments.

Here's a theory, the reason

Here's a theory, the reason so many christians don't believe in evolution is because they aren't taking part in it.

define evolution


Google it.

You have access to volumes of online curriculum to help you define it for yourself. I have not "yet" found any persuasive arguments that even come close to convincing me that the theory of evolution is an error, and not for lack of trying.

I have

see there is actually debate over what evolution is.

The definition of change over time is kind of broad. Cause it does not define what kind of change, for instance puberty is a change, does that mean that we all evolve when we are teenagers? the next part is time, how much time is enough time to evolve? A second a day a week a year a thousand years a billion years?

I am not even trying to convince you that the theory of evolution is wrong because at this point the theory of evolution could practically cover every thing. How can someone prove evolution is wrong when you can not even define it.