(07-30-2024 10:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  There are still Neanderthals. I saw one today.

"Cackle!"

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

The bible has 2 different creation stories. Most people focus on just the first chapter. They don't look at the different creation story in chapter 2 that's obviously different from the first.

Your comments on evolution are...uninformed...so I'll not comment on that.

(08-01-2024 10:56 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The bible has 2 different creation stories. Most people focus on just the first chapter. They don't look at the different creation story in chapter 2 that's obviously different from the first.

Your comments on evolution are...uninformed...so I'll not comment on that.

It not 2 different accounts, this absurd claim has been debunked over and over again by so many theologians and scholars. I don't claim to be either but even I can debunk this nonsense with ease.

Genesis 1 is an account of the first six days of creation; of all things.

So lets look at chapter 2 (which is a modern creation BTW, there were no chapters before we added them in more modern times to help us quickly navigate the text). As you see right at the beginning the two "chapters" run together as one extended narrative.


Genesis 2:1

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

This verse confirms God's work is done in creation of the heavens and the earth.


Genesis 2:2-3

Verses 2-3 set aside the seventh day as the Sabbath, which God sanctified as an eternal day of rest for man.

Genesis 2:4-5

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Verses 4-5 explain that what we just read, up to this point, is an account of creation, but life hasn't been put into motion yet. Everything has been created, but nothing grows and there is no man tilling the ground.



From verse 6 onward, God expands on the creation account and gives us key insights that He wants us to know.

Genesis 2:6

"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

God waters the earth. This is huge, because without water nothing can live.

Genesis 2:7

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

God expands on the creation of man on the sixth day. In this verse we come to understand that we are created from dust and that God breathed life into us. Thus the fact that we live is a gift of God, showing we have God-given purpose.

Genesis 2:8-15

God creates the garden of Eden. Trees are put in the garden for fruit to eat and to be pleasing to the eye. The garden is on earth, it's not the whole earth.

Genesis 2:16-17

God gives Adam one commandment, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:18-24

God brings beasts of the air and field to Adam so he can name them. It was at this time that God decided that Adam needed a helper. He put Adam to sleep and created a woman from his rib. God then presented her to him.

Genesis 2:25

This verse notes the innocence of Adam and Eve, because they were not ashamed of their nakedness.


As you can see, God didn't give two accounts of creation. The "second" account is an expansion of the creation story and details things God wants us to know specifically about the focus of His creation....MAN. It describes the creation of the garden of Eden and the creation of trees for it specifically. Genesis moves on from here and gives the account of the fall of man (sin), then expands upon earth's early history and generations.

It's not debatable that Gen 1:1 - 2:3 is a different creation story account compared to Gen 2:4 - 25. Everyone who seriously studies the Torah are well aware of that. Here is one article on the subject: https://www.thetorah.com/article/genesis...ted-as-one

(08-01-2024 01:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 12:35 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

The genius who says I'm mindless makes maybe the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.

Please say that in the Joe Biden grouchy old geezer yelling voice. That would be appropriate.

I didn't say you were mindless. I said you had a mindless take, completely ignorant of evolution.
This was an even more mindless take. Having a guiding hand makes evolution fit even better. Evolution has created more and more complex organisms. Why did it have to be that way? Why did mammals thrive while dinosaurs died off instead of continuing to evolve? Evolution did not have to lead to man.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of evolution of one species to another. That is the conjecture of science. Evolution has been injected as fact when the only thing that is fact is diversity within species. There is no evidence of one species becoming another. There is great diversity and change within species but never has it been proven that an ape became a man. Nor that a TRex became a chicken. Science tells us that a snake has eyes and a brain just as a human does, well, just because.

Genetic code wrote itself guys. Now tell me it’s all just because. Somehow the science lovers sound more irrational than the Bible thumpers.

(08-02-2024 07:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  It's not debatable that Gen 1:1 - 2:3 is a different creation story account compared to Gen 2:4 - 25. Everyone who seriously studies the Torah are well aware of that. Here is one article on the subject: https://www.thetorah.com/article/genesis...ted-as-one

There are articles and debates out there that argue Jesus is Satan and Jesus is an alien.

Just because there are articles and debates you can reference does not make it legit on any level.

I don't need a link to make my argument for me, I can actually read the text and examine it for myself. This is literally one of the dumbest arguments people have ever come up with attacking the Bible.

When you read the text and then argue humans were created twice, it loses all credibility. You have to have the most absurdly biased agenda to pretend that is what the text says. Its like a Muslim arguing Jesus never said he was God or accepted worship in the Gospels, its totally absurd and laughable. Yet you can link up countless Muslim clerics and rabbis argue this.

Even a child can read this and comprehend the text walks you through the 7 days, then beings to expound deeper on the details man's creation and what followed (sin, the fall, and how this lays the foundation of the Gospel).

For the millionth time

Science is the interpretation of natural phenomena based on the observance of natural phenomena

Theology is the interpretation of natural phenomena through faith in the supernatural.

Start at either point and you can argue logically and reasonably.

They do not mix.

This thread could go on forever.

I cant make it any simpler.

Yall are just jerking off.

It’s OK for the materialist to believe in a creator. Even Sam Harris said everything may have been created by some super intelligent alien. Facts are never going to be proven one way or the other. The one fact that can not be argued at this point is science has not come within a million years of creating life or anything similar in a test tube despite claiming to be within a year of it twenty years ago.

Faith or not, we don’t know what we don’t know.

(08-02-2024 09:26 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  It’s OK for the materialist to believe in a creator. Even Sam Harris said everything may have been created by some super intelligent alien. Facts are never going to be proven one way or the other. The one fact that can not be argued at this point is science has not come within a million years of creating life or anything similar in a test tube despite claiming to be within a year of it twenty years ago.

Faith or not, we don’t know what we don’t know.

(08-02-2024 09:33 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 09:26 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  It’s OK for the materialist to believe in a creator. Even Sam Harris said everything may have been created by some super intelligent alien. Facts are never going to be proven one way or the other. The one fact that can not be argued at this point is science has not come within a million years of creating life or anything similar in a test tube despite claiming to be within a year of it twenty years ago.

Faith or not, we don’t know what we don’t know.

Sorry, of course you know exactly what you don’t know.

Maybe Neanderthals went extinct because they were the original globo homos?

(08-01-2024 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 01:40 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  Did y'all hear the report this week, where "climate scientists" said that 2023 was the hottest year (globally) in 125,000 years? And, that July 22nd was the hottest day (globally) in the past 125,000 years. The climate scientists were in agreement and it's all over the internet.

I mean, you can't argue with science.

Easy for them to report the "hottest year" when many, if not the majority, of the weather stations are in the middle of airports. Conveniently surrounded by tarmac.

And when they measure ocean temperatures by putting the device near the engine of the boat. They do these things because they know they don't have real science. They are true believers, fundamentalists of the Climate Cult, and so they manipulate data to try to increase membership in the Climate Cult.

Could one say similar things about genetic scientists?

If anyone is interested here is a short of Randle Carlson. He is one of those eccentric geniuses. He doesn’t just go along but brings the receipts.

(08-02-2024 08:12 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 07:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  It's not debatable that Gen 1:1 - 2:3 is a different creation story account compared to Gen 2:4 - 25. Everyone who seriously studies the Torah are well aware of that. Here is one article on the subject: https://www.thetorah.com/article/genesis...ted-as-one

There are articles and debates out there that argue Jesus is Satan and Jesus is an alien.
Okay...

Just because there are articles and debates you can reference does not make it legit on any level.
That link I provided was from a peer reviewed scholar who can review the original languages...

I don't need a link to make my argument for me, I can actually read the text and examine it for myself. This is literally one of the dumbest arguments people have ever come up with attacking the Bible.
You're not reading these texts in their original languages. We don't see the changes within the blocks of text that would show different authors. There can be hundreds of years separating the authorship of different parts of the book.

When you read the text and then argue humans were created twice, it loses all credibility. You have to have the most absurdly biased agenda to pretend that is what the text says. Its like a Muslim arguing Jesus never said he was God or accepted worship in the Gospels, its totally absurd and laughable. Yet you can link up countless Muslim clerics and rabbis argue this.
It only loses meaning to you because you are a bible literalist. Many other people can see and understand that the composition of books within the bible have been touched by different authors and editors over the life of the book.

Even a child can read this and comprehend the text walks you through the 7 days, then beings to expound deeper on the details man's creation and what followed (sin, the fall, and how this lays the foundation of the Gospel).
Not to be mean, but you ARE reading this as if you are a child. Because of the tradition you chose as your lens thru which you interpret the bible, you have to rationalize away obvious inconsistencies. In the 2nd story of creation - for example - you have to say "God brought animals to man to name and find a suitable partner" while in reality it's showing God is creating those animals exactly how he created Adam by bringing them out from the dirt and then Adam is giving them names plus looking for a suitable partner.

(08-02-2024 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You're not reading these texts in their original languages. We don't see the changes within the blocks of text that would show different authors. There can be hundreds of years separating the authorship of different parts of the book.

That is exactly what I have spent years now doing Miko, Studying the the Bible in 3 different languages. Both the OT and NT in their original languages and in English.

You on the other hand have never ever read most of it in your own language, much less done years worth of study in original Hebrew or Greek as well. You can't even remotely make an argument yourself you have to link other peoples arguments and speak as vaguely and little as possible because you really know little to nothing about the actual text at all.

(08-02-2024 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Not to be mean, but you ARE reading this as if you are a child. Because of the tradition you chose as your lens thru which you interpret the bible, you have to rationalize away obvious inconsistencies. In the 2nd story of creation - for example - you have to say "God brought animals to man to name and find a suitable partner" while in reality it's showing God is creating those animals exactly how he created Adam by bringing them out from the dirt and then Adam is giving them names plus looking for a suitable partner.

A "child" who has studied the text in 3 different languages for many years Miko. Meanwhile you are trying to debate a book you have not even read 90% of in just one language.

Even if you go into this theoretical P or J (Yahwehist) stuff its still just that. A hypothetical THEORY about the original document that is highly questionable, rejected by many scholars and historically about 5 minutes old. What we do KNOW is ancient rabbis universally taught this as ONE creation account, not two. Jesus, the Apostles and the church fathers of the first 2 centuries had the EXACT same Genesis we have today and universally taught it as 100% literal, and NOT 2 different creation accounts. The idea of 2 accounts never even came up until about 150 years ago.

As soon as a someone starts trying to argue man was created twice from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 you know you are in total quackville on this. No honest unbaised person can read the text in either language and say there were different 2 creations of man.

I read Genesis the same way the other 65 books of the Bible read Genesis. I read Genesis and creation the same way Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, John, James David, Solomon read it. As a LITERAL first hand account of creation. There are 65 books of the Bible that follow Genesis and reference and bring up the creation details over and over and over again and not one single time in the entire Bible is it ever presented as a parable or non literal. Every single time its is referenced as being ONE CREATION and 100% literal.

If you were actually reading the text you would know both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 say God brought forth every living creature out of the earth (dry land) and out of the ground every beast was formed. And its says this in both languages.

I'm going to be kind here because we both know you are out of your depth on this and forced to take a blind leap of faith over what someone else says that you point to. YOU can't explain or state your position at all, you don't even know what to argue. You just know you have blind faith in this for obvious reasons.

There are a couple of legit places where you can point to possible contradiction in the text of the Bible, THIS AIN'T ONE OF THEM. Its not even close.

(08-02-2024 10:44 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You're not reading these texts in their original languages. We don't see the changes within the blocks of text that would show different authors. There can be hundreds of years separating the authorship of different parts of the book.

That is exactly what I have spent years now doing Miko, Studying the the Bible in 3 different languages. Both the OT and NT in their original languages and in English.

You on the other hand have never ever read most of it in your own language, much less done years worth of study in Hebrew and Greek as well. You can't even remotely make an argument yourself you have to link other peoples arguments and speak as vaguely and little as possible because you really know little to nothing about the actual text at all.

(08-02-2024 11:04 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Not to be mean, but you ARE reading this as if you are a child. Because of the tradition you chose as your lens thru which you interpret the bible, you have to rationalize away obvious inconsistencies. In the 2nd story of creation - for example - you have to say "God brought animals to man to name and find a suitable partner" while in reality it's showing God is creating those animals exactly how he created Adam by bringing them out from the dirt and then Adam is giving them names plus looking for a suitable partner.

A "child" who has studied the text in 3 different languages for many years Miko. Meanwhile you are trying to debate a book you have not even read 95% of in just one language.

Even if you go into this theoretical P or J (yahwehist) stuff its still just that. A THEORY about the original document, not something they have or ever will even come close to proving. What we do KNOW is ancient rabbis universally taught this as ONE creation account, not two. Jesus, the Apostles and the church fathers of the first 2 centuries had the EXACT same Genesis we have today and universally taught it as 100% literal, and NOT 2 different creation accounts. The idea of 2 accounts never even came up until about 150 years ago.

As soon as a someone starts trying to argue man was created twice from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 you know you are in total quackville on this. No honest unbaised person can read the text in either language and say there were different 2 creations of man.

I read Genesis the same way the other 65 books of the Bible read Genesis. I read Genesis and creation the same way Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, John, James David, Solomon read it. As a LITERAL first hand account of creation. There are 65 books of the Bible that follow Genesis and reference and bring up the creation details over and over and over again and not one single time in the entire Bible is it ever presented as a parable or non literal. Every single time its is referenced as being ONE CREATION and 100% literal.

If you were actually reading the text you would know both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 say God brought forth every living creature out of the earth and out of the ground every beast was formed. And its says this in both languages.

I'm going to be kind here because we both know you are out of your depth on this and forced to take a blind leap of faith over what someone else says that you point to. YOU can't can't explain or state your position at all, you don't even know what to argue. You just know you have blind faith in this for obvious reasons.

There are a couple of legit places where you can point to possible contradiction in the text of the Bible, THIS AIN'T ONE OF THEM. Its not even close.

You are approaching the Bible as some kind of history text. That is not its purpose.
Does it change any of the meaning if Joshua lead 70,000 Hebrews or 700,000?

Was there really a prodigal son? Or was Jesus just teaching you about God?

A divinely inspired Word does not have to be copied 100% correctly to retain 100% of the relevant meaning.

And the Catholic Bible has 7 extra books that the Protestant doesn't. Those books were accepted by the early Christians.

These irrelevant differences shouldn't threaten your faith.

(08-02-2024 11:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  
You are approaching the Bible as some kind of history text. That is not its purpose.
Does it change any of the meaning if Joshua lead 70,000 Hebrews or 700,000?

Was there really a prodigal son? Or was Jesus just teaching you about God?

A divinely inspired Word does not have to be copied 100% correctly to retain 100% of the relevant meaning.

And the Catholic Bible has 7 extra books that the Protestant doesn't. Those books were accepted by the early Christians.

These irrelevant differences shouldn't threaten your faith.

Where is this fantasy law written that Genesis is not historical text? (and yes I noticed you are trying to move the goalposts and bring up multiple others things we weren't event talking about)

The ancient rabbis treated Genesis as a historical text, all the OT books treated it as historical text, Jesus, Paul, Peter and all the Apostles treated it as historical text.

Why does it being a historical text threaten you so much?

Why are you so hell bent on disregarding that your Lord and Savior and all His Apostles viewed and taught it as such? Why are you so hell bent on disregarding with God's Word on this topic? You think God has the power to speak time, space, matter and the whole universe into existence but somehow lacks the power to keep a book straight? How silly of a view would that be?

Are you remotely aware of the depth of study and the depth of 2000+ year old manuscripts we have today and the miraculous accuracy that has been maintained? There is no other book in antiquity that even comes close, God CLEARLY preserves His Word as He promised us He would. Why are you so hell bent on attacking that based on nothing but your "feels"?

I've already stated a gazillion times here Genesis is not a salvation issue. But it is an issue that goes directly to the validity of God's Word, which actually can lead to a salvation issue when people begin to disregard whatever in the Bible doesn't suit them.

You seem to have this overwhelming need to go against the words of Jesus, the Apostles and the entire Bible on this so you can pretend its not a historical account and go with mans theories he can't even fully prove.

And NO, the early church of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries did not all accept the 7 additional books, that is just flatly untrue. Those 7 books played virtually no role at all in the early church, they were focused on the 4 Gospels, Acts and the Church epistles. Even if we ignore that and pretend they did they have no bearing on any Christian doctrine at all, its a comeptley meaningless straw man.

(08-01-2024 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...?

I've long loathed DNA tests, but due to some health issues several years ago I had a full genetic DNA test done that is associated with the 23 and me testing. Privacy issues aside, there's tons of interesting things in those reports. I have 83% more Neanderthal DNA than the tested population. There are a total of 3,731 genetic markers associated with Neanderthal ancestry, I have 9. Kind of wild that having just .2% of the markers puts me in the 83rd percentile. While there was certainly co-mingling, it probably wasn't as prevalent as we assume it would have been. Some of my markers include a preference for salty over sweet, resistance to mosquito bites and reaction(by far the most useful), distance runner over sprinter, heightened sense of direction, lack of fear of heights, etc.

Overall I'm 95.8% Northwestern European and .5% sub-Saharan African

If that is NW Europe & England means you are Anglo Saxon with some French Norman. Descending from Barbarians nice.

(08-02-2024 11:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-02-2024 11:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  
You are approaching the Bible as some kind of history text. That is not its purpose.
Does it change any of the meaning if Joshua lead 70,000 Hebrews or 700,000?

Was there really a prodigal son? Or was Jesus just teaching you about God?

A divinely inspired Word does not have to be copied 100% correctly to retain 100% of the relevant meaning.

And the Catholic Bible has 7 extra books that the Protestant doesn't. Those books were accepted by the early Christians.

These irrelevant differences shouldn't threaten your faith.

Where is this fantasy law written that Genesis is not historical text? (and yes I noticed you are trying to move the goalposts and bring up multiple others things we weren't event talking about)

The ancient rabbis treated Genesis as a historical text, all the OT books treated it as historical text, Jesus, Paul, Peter and all the Apostles treated it as historical text.

Why does it being a historical text threaten you so much?

Why are you so hell bent on disregarding that your Lord and Savior and all His Apostles viewed and taught it as such? Why are you so hell bent on disregarding with God's Word on this topic? You think God has the power to speak time, space, matter and the whole universe into existence but somehow lacks the power to keep a book straight? How silly of a view would that be?

Are you remotely aware of the depth of study and the depth of 2000+ year old manuscripts we have today and the miraculous accuracy that has been maintained? There is no other book in antiquity that even comes close, God CLEARLY preserves His Word as He promised us He would. Why are you so hell bent on attacking that based on nothing but your "feels"?

I've already stated a gazillion times here Genesis is not a salvation issue. But it is an issue that goes directly to the validity of God's Word, which actually can lead to a salvation issue when people begin to disregard whatever in the Bible doesn't suit them.

You seem to have this overwhelming need to go against the words of Jesus, the Apostles and the entire Bible on this so you can pretend its not a historical account and go with mans theories he can't even fully prove.

And NO, the early church of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries did not all accept the 7 additional books, that is just flatly untrue. Those 7 books played virtually no role at all in the early church, they were focused on the 4 Gospels, Acts and the Church epistles. Even if we ignore that and pretend they did they have no bearing on any Christian doctrine at all, its a comeptley meaningless straw man.

I'm not threatened. I don't think your literal interpretation will send you to hell.
But I think you sell the Bible short by being literal. I think its far more amazing than a literal interpretation makes it. It retains all its value as a guide despite imperfect human attempts to copy and translate it.

(08-01-2024 11:03 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:55 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So Eric, you believe Methuselah lived to be 969 years old.

Goodness gracious. Those texts have been written and rewritten by those in power from time to time and translated and mistranslated and interpreted and misinterpreted since Noah wore short pants (way before he lived to be like 950...lot of candles on that cake). Wonder how he'd feel about possibly being mistaken for a Neanderthal?

That is factually dead wrong.

We have thousands of copies of the Old Testament over 2300 years old still in the original Hebrew and have thousands of copies of the NT in the original Greek.

You can pull up on your phone right now interlinear Bible tools that show the Hebrew and Greek from the 2000+ year old manuscripts and compare it word by word, line by line with the modern KJV and see the words and books have not changed.

Not to be argumentative but you know as well as I sometimes languages just can’t retain the same meaning when translated.

Greek to English being one. Greek has four types of love to English one


Another such case is where KJV reads impossible but Greek Lexicon reads almost impossible

Is best to cross reference

(08-01-2024 10:56 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

The bible has 2 different creation stories. Most people focus on just the first chapter. They don't look at the different creation story in chapter 2 that's obviously different from the first.

Your comments on evolution are...uninformed...so I'll not comment on that.

I thought humans had chromosomes apes don’t so no way can you get evolve when there is a missing link