TV Patrol feature on human evolution slammed for not recognizing Adam and Eve

[Monseratto]

Why you shouldn't take tall tales from the bible seriously....

https://www.facebook.com/tvpatrol.ab...9850470737009/

By Coconuts Manila February 22, 2016 / 11:53 PHT

A science-themed TV Patrol feature on the possible origin of human beings posted on Facebook last Feb 16 is still getting a lot of online action. Apparently, self-proclaimed defenders of the Bible are questioning the validity of the feature done by Kim Atienza.

In particular, they claim that the feature is fake because it does not recognize Adam and Eve, who, in the Bible, are identified as the first man and first woman.

One commenter noted, "Kung tayo ay galing sa unggoy bkit may unggoy pa hanggang ngayon? kht anong gawin ng science hnd parin nito kayang sukatin at abutin ang kapangyarihan ng ating Diyos (If we descended from monkeys, how come there are monkeys up to this day? No matter what Science does, it cannot measure the power of our God)."

Yet another commenter also stated, "Unggoy pala sina Adam and Eve? Kalukuhan to di naman sa Africa ginawa ng dios ang unang tao... Ang scientists kailan lang pinanganak yan kaya mas maniwala tayo sa Bible kasi mas nauna 'to (So Adam and Eve are monkeys? This is idiocy, as the first human were not created in Africa. Scientists were only born recently so we must believe in the Bible because it came first)."

What the heck is happening?

TV Patrol feature on human evolution slammed for not recognizing Adam and Eve | Coconuts Manila

[ess]

I've seen the "if humans evolved from monkeys, then why do we still see monkeys.." argument thrown around different forums and user groups over past couple of years.
It's as if those who commented were just waiting for their chance to make use of that argument. Masaya na sila.

[macsd]

Si Pakyou galing sa monkey. Look at Dionisia. :hysterical:

[Juan Martinez]

Si Pakyou galing sa monkey. Look at Dionisia. :hysterical:

this makes sense. still, macsd for president.

[Vodka]

LOL. typical and expected response from typical pinoys

just FYI coz there are also lots of "typical" pinoys here on tsikot if you know what i mean . humans didn't evolve from present-day monkeys! but we did evolve from a COMMON ANCESTOR. so chimps branched off another way. they're our COUSINS so to speak.

i'm not here to spoon-feed the ignorant so please just look it up. it's a scientific fact. no debate. no controversy

[ClaNker]

LOL. typical and expected response from typical pinoys

just FYI coz there are also lots of "typical" pinoys here on tsikot if you know what i mean . humans didn't evolve from present-day monkeys! but we did evolve from a COMMON ANCESTOR. so chimps branched off another way. they're our COUSINS so to speak.

i'm not here to spoon-feed the ignorant so please just look it up. it's a scientific fact. no debate. no controversy

You mean a scientific THEORY, yah got it.

[Vodka]

You mean a scientific THEORY, yah got it.

yes quantum THEORY, the kind used on the microprocessor you used to post that message worked just fine didn't it even if ITS JUST A THEORY ;)

hit up your favorite search engine for "theory" coz i don't think you know what it is spare yourself from further humiliation please

[niky]

The mountains of evidence, in terms of fossils, taxonomic evidence, genetic evidence and genetic markers are pretty overwhelming.

The most any educated creationist can say is that they agree with microevolution, but still disagree that macroevolution occurs.

Which is a bit like saying: "I believe that gravity exists, but I do not believe it applied to Jesus Christ."

You mean a scientific THEORY, yah got it.

No, the theory describes the process by which speciation occurs.

That speciation occurs is a fact. ;)

-

Also, Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation is not so much a Law as a disproven theory. It is still correct, in general, but woefully inaccurate compared to Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity.

Though it's amusing that people still purposely confuse the meanings of Scientific Theory and Scientific Laws.

[Vodka]

The mountains of evidence, in terms of fossils, taxonomic evidence, genetic evidence and genetic markers are pretty overwhelming.

The most any educated creationist can say is that they agree with microevolution, but still disagree that macroevolution occurs.

Which is a bit like saying: "I believe that gravity exists, but I do not believe it applied to Jesus Christ."



No, the theory describes the process by which speciation occurs.

That speciation occurs is a fact. ;)

-

Also, Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation is not so much a Law as a disproven theory. It is still correct, in general, but woefully inaccurate compared to Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity.

Though it's amusing that people still purposely confuse the meanings of Scientific Theory and Scientific Laws.

well it's a bit unfortunate that the colloquial and scientific meanings for the word "theory" are just totally different. so it makes "theory of evolution" sound like it's Darwin's wild idea that may or may not be true

[ClaNker]

The mountains of evidence, in terms of fossils, taxonomic evidence, genetic evidence and genetic markers are pretty overwhelming.

The most any educated creationist can say is that they agree with microevolution, but still disagree that macroevolution occurs.

Which is a bit like saying: "I believe that gravity exists, but I do not believe it applied to Jesus Christ."



No, the theory describes the process by which speciation occurs.

That speciation occurs is a fact. ;)

-

Also, Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation is not so much a Law as a disproven theory. It is still correct, in general, but woefully inaccurate compared to Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity.

Though it's amusing that people still purposely confuse the meanings of Scientific Theory and Scientific Laws.

Pag evolution ang pinag uusapan dapat sabihin mo Sicientific fact and theory.

Yes I belive that evolution happend and yes the theory of natural selection is garbage.

Satisfied now?