Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Limbaugh: "If We Were The Original Apes, Then How Come Harambe Is Still An Ape"?

jbluhm86

By jbluhm86
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

jbluhm86 Enthusiast

jbluhm86

Posted
Posted

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/05/31/rush-limbaugh-baffled-evolution/210639

 

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "This woman obviously has not read Genesis, and even if she did it wouldn't have any impact on her. But human beings travel all over the world to gawk at animals precisely because they're unusual, they're interesting, some are cute, some are deadly. There's no way human beings are going to not be interested in animals. Gawking at them. Out on safari, hunting them or what -- By the way, you know there's another factor in this, Snerdley? A lot of people think that all of us used to be apes. Don't doubt me on this. A lot of people think that all of us used to be gorillas. And they're looking for the missing link out there. The evolution crowd. They think we were originally apes. I've always -- if we were the original apes, then how come Harambe is still an ape, and how come he didn't become one of us? "Well, that's why were looking for the missing link, Mr. Limbaugh, your question is absurd."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blowe Newbie

blowe

Posted
Posted

common ancestor? - And they're looking for the missing link out there.

 

the burden of proof is on you libtards to SHOW us just how we are "evolved"?

 

well-we-re-waiting-o.gif

The burden of proof is not on liberals to prove something believed by just about anybody in the scientific community and refuted by the religious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
Posted

Since humans discovered gorillas we've notably evolved to be, on average, taller, stronger, and faster and they, to the best of my knowledge, have not evolved much if at all.

Modern Humans have evolved stronger, faster, taller more so because of better health care, diet, and hormones in the food. At least if you're using modern in the sense of the last few hundred years or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

I wish he would just shut up already and stop giving us decent intelligent repubs a bad name.

He and many others, on both sides. Trouble is, as you can see with FairHooker, it does rouse the base in a meaningless way; meanwhile, there are actual issues that could benefit from some passion in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

https://www.icr.org/article/3109/

 

No, they say apes came to existence at the same time as man came to existence from...

 

something.

 

"First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered."

 

Rush was actually correct. Libs hate correctness - it doesn't work with their emotional knee jerkie.

 

Truth is, apes DISCOVERED Tarzan, he didn't evolve from them. :)

 

No missing link ...because it isn't true we "evolved" from apes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LogicIsForSquares Enthusiast

LogicIsForSquares

Posted
Posted

https://www.icr.org/article/3109/

 

No, they say apes came to existence at the same time as man came to existence from...

 

something.

 

"First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered."

 

Rush was actually correct. Libs hate correctness - it doesn't work with their emotional knee jerkie.

 

Truth is, apes DISCOVERED Tarzan, he didn't evolve from them. :)

 

No missing link ...because it isn't true we "evolved" from apes.

Cal, you don't think that the Institute for Creation Research might be a touch biased?

 

I heard from ifls.org (Institute for Liberal Superiority) that George W. Bush had a steady diet of foreign babies. Every meal. haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

While the idea of a Supreme Being clapping his hands and creating all the creatures of the world intact at once sounds like a fairy tale to me I still find it almost equally hard to believe that in a linear progression from protozoa to homo sapiens would not have lots more examples of incremental steps along that evolutionary road.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

While the idea of a Supreme Being clapping his hands and creating all the creatures of the world intact at once sounds like a fairy tale to me I still find it almost equally hard to believe that in a linear progression from protozoa to homo sapiens would not have lots more examples of incremental steps along that evolutionary road.

 

WSS

It does. They are documented. There is no "missing link."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jbluhm86 Enthusiast

jbluhm86

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://www.icr.org/article/3109/

 

No, they say apes came to existence at the same time as man came to existence from...

 

something.

 

"First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered."

 

Rush was actually correct. Libs hate correctness - it doesn't work with their emotional knee jerkie.

 

Truth is, apes DISCOVERED Tarzan, he didn't evolve from them. :)

 

No missing link ...because it isn't true we "evolved" from apes.

You and the evolutionists in your article are correct in saying that we did not evolve from apes. The leading scientific theory is that Humans, gorillas, chimps, monkeys, baboons, etc, all evolved from a common primate ancestor millions of years ago:

 

b99eb425caa50fa2fda91da1fcb3b33b.jpg

 

In the case of humans and gorillas, it is believed that they both evolved from a common primate ancestor roughly 8-9 mya; Nakalipithicus nakayamai is one of the leading candidates of being that common ancestor.

 

However, it's a bit disingenuous to claim that this is what Rush Limbaugh meant. The fact that he mentioned the book of Genesis in his speech, coupled with his past statement supporting the idea of creationism leads me to believe that he was denying biological evolution in his speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jbluhm86 Enthusiast

jbluhm86

Posted
  • Author
Posted

While the idea of a Supreme Being clapping his hands and creating all the creatures of the world intact at once sounds like a fairy tale to me I still find it almost equally hard to believe that in a linear progression from protozoa to homo sapiens would not have lots more examples of incremental steps along that evolutionary road.

 

WSS

I think a good way to possibly answer your conundrum is a metaphor that Richard Dawkins used in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable". I'm paraphrasing here, but it goes roughly like this:

 

Dawkins used a metaphor of a mountain; at the base of the mountain sits a simple organism, such as a bacterium or protist, with a more highly complex organism, such as an animal or human, at the peak of the mountain. On one side of the mountain, there is a sharp, steep cliff going from the base to the summit; this represents the creationist viewpoint. To them, the steep cliff is insurmountable, and they can see no way that the simple organism could've climbed the evolutionary mountain, and therefore claim that God is the only way that humans or other complex organisms came to be at the summit.

 

However, on the other side of the mountain, is the scientific viewpoint. In this case, there is a long, but gentle slope from the base to the summit. In this example, the simple organism can more easily scale to the summit of the evolutionary mountain by slow, small changes over a long period of time, culminating in the more highly complex organism at the summit

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

Cal, you don't think that the Institute for Creation Research might be a touch biased?

 

I heard from ifls.org (Institute for Liberal Superiority) that George W. Bush had a steady diet of foreign babies. Every meal. haha

Are you surprised though? It is a common theme with his "sources".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...