Author Topic: St.Augustine Exposes Ape to Man Hoax  (Read 183 times)

Offline Ploughboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Gender: Male
  • Anglican
St.Augustine Exposes Ape to Man Hoax
« on: August 08, 2018, 10:10:22 PM »
At first I was sure where to post this. The topic deals with science fraud but this fraud is entirely politically motivated. So placed the topic here.
We have heard since the time of our youth that Darwin discovered something. We hear this all the time. We learn that through Darwin's so-called discoveries that we evolved from monkeys and apes in our ancient past. This view has become one of the world's most accepted views and its also the biggest hoax of the 20th century! I'm gonna post two translations of a quotation taken and typed in by me from St.Augustine's book City of God

 Here, Augustine is speaking about the origin and diversity of humans and some myths which have come about since ancient times.

City of God: Book XVI, chapter 8, p.663 (Penguin Classics translation),
Quote

"Some years ago, but certainly in my time, a man was born in the East with a double set of upper parts, but a single set of the lower limbs. That is, he had two heads, two chests, and four arms, but only one belly and two feet, as if he were one man. And he lived long enough for the news of his case to attract many sightseers.
In fact, it would be impossible to list all the human infants very unlike those who, without any doubt, were their parents. Now it cannot be denied that these derive ultimately from that one man; and therefore the same is true of all those races which are reported to have deviated as it were, by their divergences in bodily structure, from the normal course of nature followed by the majority, or practically the whole of mankind. If these races are included in the definition of 'human', that is, if they are rational and mortal animals, it must be admitted that they trace their lineage from that same one man, the first father of all mankind. This assumes, of course, the truth of the stories about the divergent features of those races, and their great differences from one another and from us. The definition is important; for if we did not know monkeys, long tailed apes and chimpanzees are not men but animals, those natural historians who plume themselves on their collection of curiosities might pass them off on us as races of men, and get away with such nonsense."

City of God, Marcus Dods translation:

Quote

"Some years ago, quite within my own memory, a man was born in the East, double his upper, but single his lower half--having two heads, two chests, four hands, but one body and two feet like a ordinary man ; and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore, no one will deny that these are all descended from from that one man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably trace their pedigree to that one first father of all. We are supposing these stories about various races who differ from one another and from us to be true ; but possibly they are not ; for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity their false and vainglorious discoveries."

The section of this quote in bold print tells us exactly what did happen in the late 19th century! It all began after the Crusaders retrieved the stolen knowledge of the western world back from the muslims who stole it many centuries easier. When this knowledge was back in the hands of westerners once again, the Renaissance began which was not a bad thing overall. However, with the retrieved Greek and Roman knowledge came some of their wackier beliefs which Augustine warned about before the muslims stole the knowledge for themselves. So these Greek and Roman works were read and studied and what was discovered by Darwin and others before and after him was ancient myths of humans being of the same pedigree as apes and moneys.This theory originally focused on birth defects like Siamese twins and thus these people were dehumanized. Augustine knewe that birth defects did not make anyone less human, but Darwin and the Huxley gang would change the face of philosophy and turn scientific method into a political game against the church. So even before the first so-called hominids were found, the philosophy had already been well in play long before the discoveries.

Now many atheists are saying that Darwin never taught ape to man, and Origin of Species never says such a thing. This is the atheist attempt of trying to get out of the reality that the ape to man theory was an ancient hoax turned into an inexact pseudoscience explained through the Aristotle school of systematic rhetoric. When confronted with Darwin's book Descent of Man where Darwin pushes for the ape to man idea, atheists are reluctant to admit Darwin ever believed such a thing. So while I have quoted from Augustine, I will also quote from Darwin to prove that Darwin was a scam artist using an old ancient pagan belief which dehumanized people born different from defects.

So first here are two Amazon links which provide a description for the book

Descent of Man
https://www.amazon.com/Descent-Man-Great-Minds/dp/1573921769

https://www.amazon.com/Descent-Man-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140436316/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1533789133&sr=1-1&keywords=descent+of+man+darwin

The Descent of Man, Chapter 5
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man_(Darwin)/Chapter_V

Quote
The case, however, is widely different, as Mr. Wallace has with justice insisted, in relation to the intellectual and moral faculties of man. These faculties are variable; and we have every reason to believe that the variations tend to be inherited. Therefore, if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors, they would have been perfected or advanced through natural selection.

Now here are some lengthier quotes from Darwin in which he beats around the bush for some time but finally lets it out.

Darwin's The Descent of Man, Chapter 7
https://genius.com/Charles-darwin-the-descent-of-man-chapter-7-on-the-races-of-man-annotated

Darwin first includes as man being another animal, nothing unique or separate from the wild kingdom which right off the starts contradicts Genesis 1:28.

Quote
Now let us apply these generally-admitted principles to the races of man, viewing him in the same spirit as a naturalist would any other animal.

Ironically the Satanic Church agrees.  Moving on..

Darwin is now building up for it..

Quote
But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed.

Totally building up to it,

Quote
Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define. Cases of this kind occur in the Order which includes man, namely in certain genera of monkeys; whilst in other genera, as in Cercopithecus, most of the species can be determined with certainty. In the American genus Cebus, the various forms are ranked by some naturalists as species, by others as mere geographical races. Now if numerous specimens of Cebus were collected from all parts of South America, and those forms which at present appear to be specifically distinct, were found to graduate into each other by close steps, they would usually be ranked as mere varieties or races; and this course has been followed by most naturalists with respect to the races of man. Nevertheless, it must be confessed that there are forms, at least in the vegetable kingdom (19. Prof. Nageli has carefully described several striking cases in his 'Botanische Mittheilungen,' B. ii. 1866, ss. 294-369. Prof. Asa Gray has made analogous remarks on some intermediate forms in the Compositae of N. America.), which we cannot avoid naming as species, but which are connected together by numberless gradations, independently of intercrossing.

Quote
If the races of man had descended, as is supposed by some naturalists, from two or more species, which differed from each other as much, or nearly as much, as does the orang from the gorilla, it can hardly be doubted that marked differences in the structure of certain bones would still be discoverable in man as he now exists.

Quote
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.

Darwin now is forcing the suggestion that man evolved from an ape like ancestor.

Quote

Whether primeval man, when he possessed but few arts, and those of the rudest kind, and when his power of language was extremely imperfect, would have deserved to be called man, must depend on the definition which we employ. In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point where the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate. Finally, we may conclude that when the principle of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death.

That's a pretty clear confession to me. But we'll read on..

Darwin now says that man and monkey are related somehow.

Quote
The case of various American monkeys, both sexes of which have been kept for many years together in their own countries, and yet have very rarely or never bred, is a more apposite instance, because of their relationship to man


Besides being fellow earthlings, we have no relation to the monkey.

Speaking about the brain of man and monkeys.

Quote
But the truth that the three structures in question are as well developed in apes' as in human brains, or even better; and that it is characteristic of all the Primates (if we exclude the Lemurs) to have these parts well developed, stands at present on as secure a basis as any proposition in comparative anatomy. Moreover, it is admitted by every one of the long series of anatomists who, of late years, have paid special attention to the arrangement of the complicated sulci and gyri which appear upon the surface of the cerebral hemispheres in man and the higher apes, that they are disposed after the very same pattern in him, as in them. Every principal gyrus and sulcus of a chimpanzee's brain is clearly represented in that of a man, so that the terminology which applies to the one answers for the other.

Quote

"That the apes, and especially the orang, chimpanzee and gorilla, come very close to man in their organisation, much nearer than to any other animal, is a well known fact, disputed by nobody. Looking at the matter from the point of view of organisation alone, no one probably would ever have disputed the view of Linnaeus, that man should be placed, merely as a peculiar species, at the head of the mammalia and of those apes. Both shew, in all their organs, so close an affinity, that the most exact anatomical investigation is needed in order to demonstrate those differences which really exist. So it is with the brains. The brains of man, the orang, the chimpanzee, the gorilla, in spite of all the important differences which they present, come very close to one another" (loc. cit. p. 101).

There remains, then, no dispute as to the resemblance in fundamental characters, between the ape's brain and man's: nor any as to the wonderfully close similarity between the chimpanzee, orang and man, in even the details of the arrangement of the gyri and sulci of the cerebral hemispheres. Nor, turning to the differences between the brains of the highest apes and that of man, is there any serious question as to the nature and extent of these differences. It is admitted that the man's cerebral hemispheres are absolutely and relatively larger than those of the orang and chimpanzee; that his frontal lobes are less excavated by the upward protrusion of the roof of the orbits; that his gyri and sulci are, as a rule, less symmetrically disposed, and present a greater number of secondary plications. And it is admitted that, as a rule, in man, the temporo-occipital or "external perpendicular" fissure, which is usually so strongly marked a feature of the ape's brain is but faintly marked. But it is also clear, that none of these differences constitutes a sharp demarcation between the man's and the ape's brain. In respect to the external perpendicular fissure of Gratiolet, in the human brain for instance, Professor Turner remarks: (71. 'Convolutions of the Human Cerebrum Topographically Considered,' 1866, p. 12.)

Quote

Again, as respects the question of absolute size, it is established that the difference between the largest and the smallest healthy human brain is greater than the difference between the smallest healthy human brain and the largest chimpanzee's or orang's brain.

Moreover, there is one circumstance in which the orang's and chimpanzee's brains resemble man's, but in which they differ from the lower apes, and that is the presence of two corpora candicantia—the Cynomorpha having but one.


Quote
"So far as cerebral structure goes, therefore, it is clear that man differs less from the chimpanzee or the orang, than these do even from the monkeys, and that the difference between the brain of the chimpanzee and of man is almost insignificant when compared with that between the chimpanzee brain and that of a Lemur."


Quote
In the paper to which I have referred, Professor Bischoff does not deny the second part of this statement, but he first makes the irrelevant remark that it is not wonderful if the brains of an orang and a Lemur are very different; and secondly, goes on to assert that, "If we successively compare the brain of a man with that of an orang; the brain of this with that of a chimpanzee; of this with that of a gorilla, and so on of a Hylobates, Semnopithecus, Cynocephalus, Cercopithecus, Macacus, Cebus, Callithrix, Lemur, Stenops, Hapale, we shall not meet with a greater, or even as great a, break in the degree of development of the convolutions, as we find between the brain of a man and that of an orang or chimpanzee."

Quote
To which I reply, firstly, that whether this assertion be true or false, it has nothing whatever to do with the proposition enunciated in 'Man's Place in Nature,' which refers not to the development of the convolutions alone, but to the structure of the whole brain. If Professor Bischoff had taken the trouble to refer to p. 96 of the work he criticises, in fact, he would have found the following passage: "And it is a remarkable circumstance that though, so far as our present knowledge extends, there IS one true structural break in the series of forms of Simian brains, this hiatus does not lie between man and the manlike apes, but between the lower and the lowest Simians, or in other words, between the Old and New World apes and monkeys and the Lemurs. Every Lemur which has yet been examined, in fact, has its cerebellum partially visible from above; and its posterior lobe, with the contained posterior cornu and hippocampus minor, more or less rudimentary. Every marmoset, American monkey, Old World monkey, baboon or manlike ape, on the contrary, has its cerebellum entirely hidden, posteriorly, by the cerebral lobes, and possesses a large posterior cornu with a well-developed hippocampus minor."

Quote

It is further established, that the degree of asymmetry of the convolution of the two sides in the human brain is subject to much individual variation; and that, in those individuals of the Bushman race who have been examined, the gyri and sulci of the two hemispheres are considerably less complicated and more symmetrical than in the European brain, while, in some individuals of the chimpanzee, their complexity and asymmetry become notable. This is particularly the case in the brain of a young male chimpanzee figured by M. Broca. ('L'ordre des Primates,' p. 165, fig. 11.)

Quote
Again, as respects the question of absolute size, it is established that the difference between the largest and the smallest healthy human brain is greater than the difference between the smallest healthy human brain and the largest chimpanzee's or orang's brain.

Moreover, there is one circumstance in which the orang's and chimpanzee's brains resemble man's, but in which they differ from the lower apes, and that is the presence of two corpora candicantia—the Cynomorpha having but one.

In view of these facts I do not hesitate in this year 1874, to repeat and insist upon the proposition which I enunciated in 1863: (74. 'Man's Place in Nature,' p. 102.)

"So far as cerebral structure goes, therefore, it is clear that man differs less from the chimpanzee or the orang, than these do even from the monkeys, and that the difference between the brain of the chimpanzee and of man is almost insignificant when compared with that between the chimpanzee brain and that of a Lemur."

Quote
In the paper to which I have referred, Professor Bischoff does not deny the second part of this statement, but he first makes the irrelevant remark that it is not wonderful if the brains of an orang and a Lemur are very different; and secondly, goes on to assert that, "If we successively compare the brain of a man with that of an orang; the brain of this with that of a chimpanzee; of this with that of a gorilla, and so on of a Hylobates, Semnopithecus, Cynocephalus, Cercopithecus, Macacus, Cebus, Callithrix, Lemur, Stenops, Hapale, we shall not meet with a greater, or even as great a, break in the degree of development of the convolutions, as we find between the brain of a man and that of an orang or chimpanzee."

To which I reply, firstly, that whether this assertion be true or false, it has nothing whatever to do with the proposition enunciated in 'Man's Place in Nature,' which refers not to the development of the convolutions alone, but to the structure of the whole brain. If Professor Bischoff had taken the trouble to refer to p. 96 of the work he criticises, in fact, he would have found the following passage: "And it is a remarkable circumstance that though, so far as our present knowledge extends, there IS one true structural break in the series of forms of Simian brains, this hiatus does not lie between man and the manlike apes, but between the lower and the lowest Simians, or in other words, between the Old and New World apes and monkeys and the Lemurs. Every Lemur which has yet been examined, in fact,has its cerebellum partially visible from above; and its posterior lobe, with the contained posterior cornu and hippocampus minor, more or less rudimentary. Every marmoset, American monkey, Old World monkey, baboon or manlike ape, on the contrary, has its cerebellum entirely hidden, posteriorly, by the cerebral lobes, and possesses a large posterior cornu with a well-developed hippocampus minor."

At this point there's no denying Darwin's ape to man theory:

Quote
So far as the structure of the adult brain is concerned, then, the very considerable additions to our knowledge, which have been made by the researches of so many investigators, during the past ten years, fully justify the statement which I made in 1863. But it has been said, that, admitting the similarity between the adult brains of man and apes, they are nevertheless, in reality, widely different, because they exhibit fundamental differences in the mode of their development. No one would be more ready than I to admit the force of this argument, if such fundamental differences of development really exist. But I deny that they do exist. On the contrary, there is a fundamental agreement in the development of the brain in men and apes.

Quote
and so close to the orang, that very competent naturalists have placed it among the anthropoids. Mr. Huxley, for example, does not hesitate on this point. Well, it is on the brain of a fetus of Gibbon that Gratiolet has seen TEMPORO-SPHENOIDAL LOBE CIRCUMVOLUTIONS ALREADY DEVELOPED WHEN IT DOES NOT ALSO EXIST ON THE FRONTAL LOBE. It was therefore well authorized to say that in man the convolutions appear from a to w, while in the monkeys they develop from w to a. "), And the other of a human fetus at the 22nd or 23rd week of uterogestation, in which Gratiolet notes that the insula was uncovered, although that of anterior lobe incisions, a shallow fissure indicates the separation of the occipital lobe, very reduced, from elsewhere from that time. The rest of the brain surface is still absolutely smooth. "


Full confession of ape to man theory:

Quote
Taking the facts as they now stand, it appears to me that the order of the appearance of the sulci and gyri in the foetal human brain is in perfect harmony with the general doctrine of evolution, and with the view that man has been evolved from some ape-like form; though there can be no doubt that form was, in many respects, different from any member of the Primates now living.

A total straw man argument from Darwin to boot! Very vague but politically expedient for him to do so.
Quote

Von Baer taught us, half a century ago, that, in the course of their development, allied animals put on at first, the characters of the greater groups to which they belong, and, by degrees, assume those which restrict them within the limits of their family, genus, and species; and he proved, at the same time, that no developmental stage of a higher animal is precisely similar to the adult condition of any lower animal. It is quite correct to say that a frog passes through the condition of a fish, inasmuch as at one period of its life the tadpole has all the characters of a fish, and if it went no further, would have to be grouped among fishes. But it is equally true that a tadpole is very different from any known fish.

In like manner, the brain of a human foetus, at the fifth month, may correctly be said to be, not only the brain of an ape, but that of an Arctopithecine or marmoset-like ape; for its hemispheres, with their great posterior lobster, and with no sulci but the sylvian and the calcarine, present the characteristics found only in the group of the Arctopithecine Primates.

Darwin is very clearly arguing in favor of ape to man evolution.

Last paragraph of chapter 7 ends with,

Quote
But it is important to remark that, whether Gratiolet was right or wrong in his hypothesis respecting the relative order of appearance of the temporal and frontal sulci, the fact remains; that before either temporal or frontal sulci, appear, the foetal brain of man presents characters which are found only in the lowest group of the Primates (leaving out the Lemurs); and that this is exactly what we should expect to be the case, if man has resulted from the gradual modification of the same form as that from which the other Primates have sprung.

How many people in the last 150 years have been deceived by this ancient mystical belief than humans share the same pedigree as monkeys and apes? St.Augustine in the 4th century A.D. called this one out over 1000 years before the hoax was carried out. Augustine very clearly states that these natural historians, while unstable, are clever deceivers.

Was Darwin on to something? Did Darwin discovered something? Indeed he did discover something. Its called classical Greek and Roman literature! The classical era is full of many philosophical debates and every single view we discuss today was also discussed and debated during the classical era. Even things like string and M-theory were discussed -- indeed, every single aspect of modern evolution as we understand it today had already been well defined during the classical era! The early church fathers debated evolution theory all the time. The only thing new about the theory is the name itself (evolution theory). All dogmas of evolution are found in various ancient pagan literature. It was actually Aristotle who came up with the framework for spontaneous generation which would become an early part of modern evolutionary biology until Dr.Louis Pasteur proved it could not happen. Without spontaneous generation, biological evolution doesn't have a place to begin.

So when atheists try to hide behind the guise of science it should be pointed out that (a) modern science was a Christian endeavor and no atheists were present when modern science was established, and (b) atheists draw all their beliefs from from various pagan philosophers who had no association to modern science and who's hollow philosophies did not give rise to modern science.
"The heauens are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundation of the rounde world, and al that therin is."
~ Psalm 89:11, 1537 Matthew-Tyndale Bible

Offline Ploughboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Gender: Male
  • Anglican
Re: St.Augustine Exposes Ape to Man Hoax
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2018, 09:17:12 AM »
I see my post was moved from the political section to the religion section. Sorry moderator. I guess I posted in the wrong place. Religion will do.
"The heauens are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundation of the rounde world, and al that therin is."
~ Psalm 89:11, 1537 Matthew-Tyndale Bible

Offline Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Militant Libertarian
Re: St.Augustine Exposes Ape to Man Hoax
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2018, 10:00:31 PM »
The way some people act in public, they have gone back to ape
First Amendment isn't just Freedom Of Speech, it's Freedom Of Conscience.

Who made you the arbiter of morality? You are not Government but you sure are acting like North Korea.

Offline Ploughboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Gender: Male
  • Anglican
Re: St.Augustine Exposes Ape to Man Hoax
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2018, 01:53:55 PM »
The way some people act in public, they have gone back to ape

But not because they were once apes, but because they have lost all human morality which sets us apart from the animals who live solely by instincts. But even the animals are better behaved that some of these liberals today. Animals may live by instinct, but they act with a purpose. When people lose morality they act solely out of the sinful nature.
"The heauens are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundation of the rounde world, and al that therin is."
~ Psalm 89:11, 1537 Matthew-Tyndale Bible

 

Powered by EzPortal