Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/26/2002 3:06:49 PM EDT
With some of the topics and replies on this forum,I consider this a serious question.OOH OOH AHH AHH!
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:09:12 PM EDT
Naww, only a common ancestor.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:13:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:14:27 PM EDT by McUZI]
The notion of random evoloution is offensve to me. It's like saying if you take a bag full of metal shavings and shake them long enough, it will eventually form itself into a complete, functionial Gold Cup Nationial Match. Anyone who has taken any college level bio classes appreciates how immeasurably complex we are. To say this happened "by accident" just don't cut the mustard. However, I do believe people "evolve". For example, 1,000,000 years ago, white people were probably Negroes. Thankfully, we have evolved out of being such... But some haven't.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:16:20 PM EDT
Some scientisits say we descent from a monkey, but lets hear what dave has to say to these guys.... [img]http://www.thegeekhost.com/helfire/funnys/dave.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:18:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:23:02 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Originally Posted By McUZI: For example, 1,000,000 years ago, white people were probably Negroes.
View Quote
Speak for yourself McUZI! [:D] The beginnings of my ancestry can be traced to about (plus or minus) 7K years ago. [s]Elementary, My Dear Watson[/s] Biblical my dear McUZI, Biblical.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:21:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By McUZI: The notion of random evoloution is offensve to me.
View Quote
Why did we come down out of the trees permanently ?? Why did we decide to walk upright ?? Why did one day we decide to no longer be hunter-gatherers but to build permanent settlements ??
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:22:57 PM EDT
Although there are very close similarities to monkeys and humans, I will have to say absolutely no way were we as a human race evolved from some other species such as a monkey. God created humans, simple enough.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:23:59 PM EDT
To my knowledge, the best avaliable evidence suggests that we have a common ancestor. Creationists should note that just because we do not know the precise mechanism by which evolution occurs does not prove that a God created us all.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:28:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Why did we come down out of the trees permanently ?? Why did we decide to walk upright ?? Why did one day we decide to no longer be hunter-gatherers but to build permanent settlements ??
View Quote
Dude- That's not "random" evoloution. That's bevhaviorial modification at best. The thought of random, genetic evoloution isn't simply changing a behavior. It's growing thumbs and legs and shedding tails. Like I said. Humans are far too complex to be "random". See above metaphor. A side point... No discussion on this topic would be complete without this picture of the Reverend Albert Sharpton. Did people come from monkeys? [img]http://more.abcnews.go.com/media/Politics/images/rt_jail_sharpton_010817_nv.jpg[/img].
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:30:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mace: Creationists should note that just because we do not know the precise mechanism by which evolution occurs does not prove that a God created us all.
View Quote
The notion of creationism doesn't hinge on identifying the process of specieial progress, and genetic mutation. It's simply the most logical answer to the "Chicken or the Egg" query.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:31:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By McUZI:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Why did we come down out of the trees permanently ?? Why did we decide to walk upright ?? Why did one day we decide to no longer be hunter-gatherers but to build permanent settlements ??
View Quote
Dude- That's not "random" evoloution. That's bevhaviorial modification at best. The thought of random, genetic evoloution isn't simply changing a behavior. It's growing thumbs and legs and shedding tails. Like I said. Humans are far too complex to be "random".
View Quote
[b]Fine, behavorial modification but WHY ??[/b] (The above three questions.) (STILLS)
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:37:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 4:07:31 PM EDT by mags]
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
View Quote
Speak for yourself McUZI! [:D] The beginnings of my ancestry can be traced to about (plus or minus) 7K years ago.
[s]Elementary, My Dear Watson[/s] Biblical my dear McUZI, Biblical.
View Quote
.....So's the bible is 7k years old?[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:37:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: [b]Fine, behavorial modification but WHY ??[/b] (The above three questions.) (STILLS)
View Quote
Usually, all behaviorial modification stems from an environmental change. Example; People ordinarly wouldn't have jumped out of hte world trade center. But when they were faced with burning to death (Enviromental change) they modified their behavior. Food, water, breeding.. Shade, safety. Any of the basic human needs can be attributed toa possible explination to your above questions.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:39:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:44:32 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Why did we come down out of the trees permanently ??
View Quote
Who said we hung out in trees? Only monkeys and other Prehensile Tailed animals do that(I'm sure many others do too). If we evolved from monkeys, then why are THEY still around?
Why did we decide to walk upright ??
View Quote
We always walked upright.
Why did one day we decide to no longer be hunter-gatherers but to build permanent settlements ??
View Quote
I still have not found a permanent settlement. I rent! [BD] I even hunt and gather on occasion.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:39:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By McUZI:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: [b]Fine, behavorial modification but WHY ??[/b] (The above three questions.) (STILLS)
View Quote
Usually, all behaviorial modification stems from an environmental change. Example; People ordinarly wouldn't have jumped out of hte world trade center. But when they were faced with burning to death (Enviromental change) they modified their behavior. Food, water, breeding.. Shade, safety. Any of the basic human needs can be attributed toa possible explination to your above questions.
View Quote
Your answer suxx but I don't have a clue either !! (Crimson Tide)
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:43:57 PM EDT
It would certainly seem that, irregardless of skin color, some people certainly are.....
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:47:49 PM EDT
*-*-*-* thumps chest, The thought of being a descendant of a lower life form doesn't offend me. Nature is all about trial & error and Life or death. If something cant hack it, nature has a way of cleaning the filter of the gene pool. I think its rather pompous to think that we as a species just instantly appeared from nothing to what we are as a species today. Theres too much physical evidence to come to any other realistic conclusion . IMO
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:50:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:53:10 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Originally Posted By mags: So's the bible is 7k years old?[rolleyes]
View Quote
If you study the Bible long enough you will see a general timeline. I'll let you do the math. I can tell by the "roll eyes" smiley that you really don't care what I think, but I answered your question. Fair enough?
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:51:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: It would certainly seem that, irregardless of skin color, some people certainly are.....
View Quote
psst lib '86....irregardless is not a word. Can't be any more regardless than....regardless. irregardless would be an illogical double negative.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:54:37 PM EDT
Yes but,according to mcuzzi,black people are the missing link.I believe in no such racial B.S.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 3:57:29 PM EDT
Not monkeys. Bears. Salmon fear my shadow.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:00:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By araddict: Yes but,according to mcuzzi,black people are the missing link.I believe in no such racial B.S.
View Quote
Of course you don't believe it. You are an idiot, and can't see things that you don't want to or have been trained not to see. Now, even though you have started this thread, it has become a good example of evoloution itself, and has evolved past what you are capable of discussing. Let's face it. Complex issues aren't for non-complex people. So, I now claim this thread as my own, and ask you to leave it.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:08:39 PM EDT
[b] Mace wrote: To my knowledge, the best avaliable evidence suggests that we have a common ancestor. Creationists should note that just because we do not know the precise mechanism by which evolution occurs does not prove that a God created us all.[/b] Proof, we have precise proof what the mechanism by evolution occurs is and it does prove that The one and only God created us all. Your proof is written down in Genesis which is the first book in the bible.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:11:31 PM EDT
God made man, but he used a monkey to do it. Are we not men? We are DEVO, D-E-V-O
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:15:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 4:17:13 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Originally Posted By McUZI: Of course you don't believe it. You are an idiot, and can't see things that you don't want to or have been trained not to see. Now, even though you have started this thread, it has become a good example of evoloution itself, and has evolved past what you are capable of discussing. Let's face it. Complex issues aren't for non-complex people. So, I now claim this thread as my own, and ask you to leave it.
View Quote
[size=3][b]LOL!!![/b][/size=3] [img]http://www.thegeekhost.com/helfire/funnys/owned%2520baby.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:18:15 PM EDT
We are only their cousins. When God created us he used evolution to do it. Its not my place to question His wisdom.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:29:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:30:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 4:46:21 PM EDT by Taurus92AF]
Originally Posted By MinuteMan3: Your proof is written down in Genesis which is the first book in the bible.
View Quote
Man wrote the Bible. Man can write anything. If I write that my Chevy can do 500 mph does that make it so?
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:31:50 PM EDT
We share a common ancestor. Evolution is not a theory anymore. Virus' do it all the time. That's why we cannot cure AIDS or the common cold. Modern biologists and geneticists have forced microbes to evolve in the lab and have done it to fruit flies. The ostrich is evolution in progress. It has a foot that is part birdlike and part hooflike. The fossill record shows them with complete bird feet relatively recent in their history. They are in the process of transition to a cloven foot which is much better for walking and running than a birds foot. As for divine intervention, isn't evolution the perfect mechanism for an ever changing environment? Who could have thought up a better way? 7000 years ago? Explain the fossil record of human and non human species. Carbon-14 is wrong? Why is it so hard to combine faith and hard scientific fact? We are animals. Highly intelligent yes but animals just the same. I happen to beleive that life is like pollen thrown to the galactic wind. Cosmic collisions may have brought single cell organisms here from who knows where. What will all the naysayers do when or if we find DNA based life in the polar ice of Mars or in the waters of of Titan? What if this life has common genes? That meteor from Mars was no joke. The jury is out on it still because of the ramifications of what it represents, not because of shakey evidence. If evolution is such bunk explain why we share a series of genes that are common to almost every life form on the planet? I think it is found in mitochondrial DNA of almost every living cell(bio majors help me here). The problem with evolution is that the nonbelievers do not understand how long a million years really is and how many generations can occur in many and many of millions of years. It is like imagining how large a galaxy really is. It is very difficult. Yes random mutations occur, if they are benefitial then the survivor seeds the offspring with the mutated gene, so on and so forth. It IMO is the reluctance to accept the reality of our existance that will prohibit the human race to survive long enough to get off this dying planet. We will succumb to disease and starvation because we are to afraid to let researchers explore our genetic possibilities. We are right now on the threshold of becoming immune to almost every sickness ever known, of being able to restore damaged nerve and brain tissue, cure genetic deficiencies, to extend our life span three maybe four times what it is now. All with the help of some embryonic stem cell research and experimentation of cloning human DNA. My daughter could easily live to see the next century if we could get this divinity of the masses out of the way of science.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:54:25 PM EDT
Very Well spoken Valkyrie!! I've been lurking here wondering if I would add to the mix or not, But I think You've pretty well summed up what I was going to say. Well done! Tall Shadow
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:55:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 5:01:55 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
As for divine intervention, isn't evolution the perfect mechanism for an ever changing environment?
View Quote
Devine intervention was not a process, it was a command. God did not create the monstrosity of a humanoid that scientists have dug up and called our mother/ancestor. God may have [i]allowed[/i] the creation of [b]it[/b] though, but that's another theory. God's creation was perfect from the second the command was given. He is not the author of chaos, or the author of those humanoid looking THINGS that have huge heads and brows that hobbled along pathetically.
Carbon-14 is wrong?
View Quote
The process of dating an object with carbon-14 in relation to where it is found in the depth of the soil has been challenged many times over, WEIGHED AND FOUND WANTING.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:55:32 PM EDT
My God is not so small as to need explaining by ignorant people. I find zero conflict between evolution and "creation". The first is a tool used to accomplish the second. To attach a literal meaning to an old oral tale used to provide an answer to a complex question from people who still thought the Sun revolved around the flat earth is no service to my religion or anything else!
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 4:58:33 PM EDT
How come, if God is so all powerful, He's broke all the time?
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:06:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 5:08:01 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: I find zero conflict between evolution and "creation". The first is a tool used to accomplish the second.
View Quote
Your saying God did not make a perfect creation the first time? Aren't you setting limits on Gods ability, and questioning the record, Genesis? (If the Bible is what you believe in. I may be wrong to assume that)
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:09:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By liberty86: It would certainly seem that, irregardless of skin color, some people certainly are.....
View Quote
psst lib '86....irregardless is not a word. Can't be any more regardless than....regardless. irregardless would be an illogical double negative.
View Quote
regardless, the fact of the matter stands..
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:18:09 PM EDT
Beer is the reason humans decided to settle down to farm and start communities. Some womminz (much hairier than modern womminz) discovered that grain mixed with a little water fermented into a drink that gave them great power over the men. Men wanted more. And besides, now they were too drunk to drag all the junk the womminz always wanted to take along to the next camp. So the men got together and decided to hang around the creek bottoms and grow lots of grain for beer. And that's how civilization started.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:19:05 PM EDT
ita easier for me to believe in a creator. than to believe we are just an accident. if you can believe all of this is just an accident of nature than go right ahead. there will never be 100% scientific proof that there is a GOD. IMHO
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:20:39 PM EDT
I cannot believe this topic isnt locked yet. I know that I did not evolve from apes. If I had, there would be no more apes because they would have evolved...LOL Darwin and Einstein both believed in God AND Science...get over it.
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:22:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: I find zero conflict between evolution and "creation". The first is a tool used to accomplish the second.
View Quote
AGREED !!
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:27:08 PM EDT
Monkey men, I can give you many more, this is just a taste. The more intelligent we become, the harder it is to refute that god exists! Following is my first rebuttal to Dr. Scott Page. I will show that both papers Page cited do not support his argument. In fact, the first paper he cited actually strengthens the creationist argument against human/ape shared ancestry! I will address this paper first. "Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome"1 In the late 50s the famous evolutionist JBS Haldane addressed the cost of substitution for mammalian species, a problem that is referred to as Haldane’s Dilemma. Haldane estimated that at most, one beneficial mutation on average could become fixed in a population every 300 generations (which means that no more than 1667 beneficial mutations could have accrued in the evolution of man from an ape/man ancestor 10 million years ago)2. The genetics paper offered by Page estimates that a mere 10 generations per beneficial substitution on average is what occurred since an alleged split from old-world monkeys 30 million years ago.3 Page takes this as a refutation of Haldane’s estimate. There are several reasons why Page is mistaken: Circular Reasoning The authors of the genetics study arrive at their divergence estimate by comparing intra-species DNA sequences of humans (to determine SNP frequencies), to analogous DNA sequences of old world monkeys. They assume that "positive selection is expected to increase the number of high frequency compared to common SNPs. This effect should be stronger for A than for S". What they are essentially saying is that some proportional increase in high-frequency amino-acid-altering differences ‘A’ in relation to the number of synonymous differences ‘S’ would be evidence of positive selection at work. Synonymous differences ‘S’ would be expected to be neutral with no selection working on them. Deleterious mutations would be expected to persist at low frequency due to negative selection. Thus, high frequency SNPs would represent an indication that positive selection is at work, as represented by a larger A/S ratio. So what is the problem here? The authors of the genetics study are arriving at their estimate of 10 generations by first assuming that man and ape share a common ancestor. Their DNA sequence comparison work is based on this belief. If this assumption is not true, then their calculation is worthless. Haldane’s estimate of 300 generations per substitution is based on a mathematical model that need not rely on such assumptions of the validity of evolution. Here is the rest:[url]www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:29:13 PM EDT
Who needs centuries of evidence to support the logical branches our species has evolved from? I mean really, who needs knowlege when you have a 2000 year old book of histo-mythology to explain it all? We all know how informed those genius's were back then...lets just stick to what they dreamed up. Ahhhhh.....no thanks. Common sense just wont allow me to jerk myself off itellectually like that. [img]chem.lapeer.org/Bio1Docs/Images/Evolution.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:39:16 PM EDT
Here is another link, if you are open minded. [url]www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:45:45 PM EDT
Maybe this one? Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates Fred Williams April 2000* Abstract Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry. Over the last 20 years, studies have shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3. These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting evidence. Exposing the cards Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later). What is not adequately conveyed to the reader is just how bad this problem is for evolution. It is related to the renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's reproductive cost problem that Walter Remine so eloquently elucidated in "The Biotic Message"4. What we will determine is how many offspring are needed to produce one that does not receive a new harmful mutation during the reproduction process. This is important since evolution requires "beneficial" mutations to build up such that new features and organs can arise (I say "beneficial" loosely, since there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome, though there are some that under certain circumstances can provide a temporary or superficial advantage to a species5). If over time harmful mutations outpace "beneficial" ones to fixation, evolution from molecules-to-man surely cannot occur. This would be like expecting to get rich despite consistently spending more money than you make. So, to determine the reproductive impact, let p = probability an individual's genome does not receive a new defect this generation A female is required to produce two offspring, one to replace herself and her mate. So, she needs to produce at least 2/p to pay this cost and maintain the population. Let B represent the birth threshold: B = 2/p The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution, B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female! What pray tell does this mean? What are the authors failing to make crystal clear? It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! A rate less than 10 means certain genetic deterioration over time, because even the evolutionist's magic wand of natural selection cannot help (in fact Eyre-Walker & Keightley had already factored in natural selection when they arrived at a rate of 1.6) The rest is here:[url]www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 5:54:59 PM EDT
I am not giving up. Chapter 8 - Fossil Man? Separating People from Apes 1. Do fossils of prehistoric man-like creatures prove the evolution of apes to ape-like men to modern man? Answer: Most of our alleged fossil ancestors were merely animals having no connection with the human race. Some of the fossils which are true human remains completely contradict the theory of human evolution. Several famous fossil finds were frauds upon the scientific world and the public. If human evolution from ape to primitive cave man to modern man had really occurred, the fossils should have been found in that order from the lower to the higher rock strata or layers. That is, the more ape-like fossils should be found in rocks dated as older, and the fossils more similar to modern man should be found in the rocks dated younger. Contrary to what is presented in the the textbooks, newspapers and television, this is not always so. The actual picture is not so simple. 2. Have true human fossils been found in the wrong strata to support the evolution theory? Answer: Yes, but for the most part fossil finds not fitting the theory are ignored or explained away. Fossil remains the same or essentially the same as modern man which were found buried very deep or in strata dated very old have been ignored and are no longer reported to the public. Examples are the Calaveras, Castenedolo, and Olmo skulls. British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith in his book, The Antiquity of Man, described these and other like fossil-man finds in detail and stated that they would have been readily accepted by scientists if it were not for the fact that these fossils, because of their locations in the strata, contradicted the accepted theory of human evolution.1 3. Are there cases of fraud in the history of fossil man finds? Answer: The Piltdown fossil found in England in 1912 was shown in 1953 to be a cleverly contrived hoax.2 The greater part of the scientific world had accepted the fraud for forty years. 4. Have the various fossil candidates for a place in our human ancestry stood the test of time? Answer: One by one, various fossil man finds have flashed across the front pages of the newspapers and been the subject of many scientific studies and reports, only to be at last either discredited or just forgotten, replaced by newer finds which also eventually fade away. In 1981 British scientist John Reader commented on this Hollywood character of some of our former alleged ancestors: Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast. ...We already know that the fuss attached to some revealed more of human nature than of human origins; eventually we will know the truth about them all.3 5. Were the Neanderthal people really crude, hunched over, bestial creatures that evolved into modern man? Answer: For many decades most anthropologists were completely wrong. Neanderthal has now been found to have been an intelligent human being who walked perfectly upright, not a stupid, hunched-over half-ape-half-man. Human remains were discovered in 1856 in Germany in a cave in the Neander Valley, which was the source of the name, Neanderthal.4 A Neanderthal skeleton found in 1908 was the model for textbook drawings and museum displays of Neanderthal men and family groups used for decades afterwards. These illustrations portrayed them with bestial features, bull necks, hunched-over posture, and knees which could not be straightened. In 1956 respected evolutionary scientists reexamined the bones and concluded that they were of an elderly man who suffered from severe skeletal malformation resulting from rickets and arthritis. They determined that Neanderthals walked as upright as we do and that, dressed in modern clothes, they would probably draw no special attention among the crowds in the New York subway.5 Other evidence shows that the Neanderthals were intelligent, skillful, artistic people who believed in life after death. They were true men, Homo sapiens. We would speculate that the Neanderthals were a branch of Adam's race which through the effects of environment and other factors suffered changes in the shape of their skulls, a character of the human body which is actually somewhat plastic. In fact, a number of the man fossils may represent peoples which had suffered degeneration as the result of sin, crude pioneer living conditions, and inbreeding in small frontier population groups after the Flood. See the rest:[url]www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder8.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 6:01:42 PM EDT
saying that god made us to evolve from apes is such a cop out. chose one side or the other!!!
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 6:02:04 PM EDT
Come on. Someone try to refute any of this. EVIDENCE #4 The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of `finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids. The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull. "Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!" Famous Paleontologist Richard Leakey. "There is a strong tendency for fossils to be presented as if they were lucid texts to be read unambiguously rather than scrappy fragments of unknown morphologies." Famous Paleontologist Misia Landau upon realizing how poor the fossil evidence was. ([14], p.?) "`We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those.' Why? `Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.' That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History. ([10], p.74) Several of the supposed finds have relied on mere tooth or jaw fragments. These include Piltdown man, Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, and Hesperopithecus. (see picture #1) ([9], p.42; [15], p.44) Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval. Picture #1: Ramapithecus, considered the first `hominid' for twenty years by evolutionists, was based only on these teeth. ([14], p.212) Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years. (picture #2) ([8], p.24-25) Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval. Picture #2: Scientists often demonstrate an utter inability to interpret their finds with any accuracy. This hoax, a human skull placed with an ape jaw, was not recognized as a hoax by the field for forty five years. During this time, they declared it to the public as being a human ancestor. ([8], p.25) Ramapithecus lasted twenty years as considered to be the first in-between of humans and apes by judgment based only on teeth. He is now know to be an extinct baboon. (picture #1) Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years. (picture #3) Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval. Picture #:3 Evolutionists often base their conclusions on such small `evidences' as a single tooth. They reconstruct creatures on this basis alone as pictured here. Similarly, hominids (supposed in betweens) are declared on the basis of such things as a piece of a leg bone, a hip, or a knee piece, etc. (see picture #4) ([12], p.111; [2], p.51; [9], p.157) Sorry, no picture yet -- awaiting publisher's approval. Picture #4: An example of the poor evidence that evolutionists use is this hip bone `find' that they say marked a `hominid'. Orce man was based on the skull cap of a donkey. The famous find named Lucy placed together looked nothing more than picture #5 yet it was regarded as a hominid without reservation. [url]emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid4.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 6:10:11 PM EDT
if we evolved from monkeys and apes, then how come we still have monkeys and apes? as for me , i was created in the image of my creator
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 6:14:46 PM EDT
I was created in the image of my creators-my parents.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 6:20:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Valkyrie: We share a common ancestor. Evolution is not a theory anymore. Virus' do it all the time. That's why we cannot cure AIDS or the common cold.
View Quote
But the viruses, first of all, are not alive, and second of all, do not actually change into something else. They are always a cold virus or an AIDS virus.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 6:57:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 7:05:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Tall_Shadow: Very Well spoken Valkyrie!! I've been lurking here wondering if I would add to the mix or not, But I think You've pretty well summed up what I was going to say. Well done! Tall Shadow
View Quote
Indeed!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top