Human Quadrupeds discovered in Turkey. - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Human Quadrupeds discovered in Turkey. (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:18:26 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Vestigial traits and organs remain and are even functional occasionaly.

Those vestigial organs show that evolution is correct, because evolution is already true and vestigial organs can be explained by evolution.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:19:34 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
is this what happens when you let cousins f*ck?

Damn good thing the Earth was populated by more then just Adam and Eve.

There's only a problem with inbreeding when the DNA has mistakes. The first people would not have had mistakes in their DNA, so a brother and sister could (and did) marry, and there was nothing wrong with it.

Problems of inbreeding are caused by a recessive gene that both parents have. Though neither parent show that feature physically, the child will.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:20:35 AM EDT

[#3]

They have a genetic defect/disease that prevents them from walking on two legs, so they use their hands. This genetic degeneration is evidence of evolution....how?

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:22:20 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
They have a genetic defect/disease that prevents them from walking on two legs, so they use their hands. This genetic degeneration is evidence of evolution....how?

Because we all know that evolution is brought about by genetic defects. In time this family tree will probably turn back into monkeys.

Hey, makes as much sense as anything else.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:26:51 AM EDT

[#5]

The humans are evolving into hunched over monkey people! All bow to your new, genetically superior overlords! They will rule you, and vigoruously mate with your inferior women to produce more hunched over monkey people, until all inferior "uprights" die off.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:32:40 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Vestigial traits and organs remain and are even functional occasionaly.

Those vestigial organs show that evolution is correct, because evolution is already true and vestigial organs can be explained by evolution.

Do me a favor, would you? Go to Google and look up "circular logic". Then look up "mindlessly regurgitating stupid crap".

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:40:33 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
is this what happens when you let cousins f*ck?

Damn good thing the Earth was populated by more then just Adam and Eve.

There's only a problem with inbreeding when the DNA has mistakes. The first people would not have had mistakes in their DNA, so a brother and sister could (and did) marry, and there was nothing wrong with it.

Problems of inbreeding are caused by a recessive gene that both parents have. Though neither parent show that feature physically, the child will.

Your statement is likely not correct but of course there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:45:37 AM EDT

[#8]

My bet is because they were retarded they were outcasts from the remainder of the family and village in general. They were likely treated like animals and spent more time with our four legged friends than people.

Therefore, it is my speculation that they learned to walk this way by imitating animals from a very early age.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:48:35 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
is this what happens when you let cousins f*ck?

Damn good thing the Earth was populated by more then just Adam and Eve.

There's only a problem with inbreeding when the DNA has mistakes. The first people would not have had mistakes in their DNA, so a brother and sister could (and did) marry, and there was nothing wrong with it.

Problems of inbreeding are caused by a recessive gene that both parents have. Though neither parent show that feature physically, the child will.

Your statement is likely not correct but of course there is no way to prove or disprove it.

If there is no way to prove/disprove it, then how can you say that it's "likely" he's incorrect?

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:48:37 AM EDT

[#10]

The science is so scrambled in that article that I'm not even sure where to start with it. It reads more like something out of National Enquirer than anything else...

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:55:49 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
is this what happens when you let cousins f*ck?

Damn good thing the Earth was populated by more then just Adam and Eve.

There's only a problem with inbreeding when the DNA has mistakes. The first people would not have had mistakes in their DNA, so a brother and sister could (and did) marry, and there was nothing wrong with it.

Problems of inbreeding are caused by a recessive gene that both parents have. Though neither parent show that feature physically, the child will.

Your statement is likely not correct but of course there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Talk to a dog breeder

this isn't rocket science.

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:57:27 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
They have a genetic defect/disease that prevents them from walking on two legs, so they use their hands. This genetic degeneration is evidence of evolution....how?

Because we all know that evolution is brought about by genetic defects. In time this family tree will probably turn back into monkeys.

Hey, makes as much sense as anything else.

Actually i doubt the connection between this any any evolutionary sciences. But You obviously did'nt see my previous post about "retro-grade" genetic mutations, Where old Obsolete Genetic information used by our ancestors can become dominant again. This includes being born with a tail, Being born with more than two nipples in a row (like our Marsupial Ancestors or cats and dogs) and others that do not harm the person at all but give them a useless trait. (if you can only give birth to 1 child on average having 6 boobs is pointless and a waste of energy, for the woman anyway!

) Another Thing to consider is 'anatomical vestiges' these are things that ARE NOT a freak mutation but are condsidered normal within the species but still have little or no function for the current species. For example Snakes at one time had four legs, They still have them undeveloped on thier body. Cave species are the most obvious of this. They evolved from a surface species then lost their useless (in a cave) abilities though the "remanants" still remain. Given time (Millions of years), even these remanents would dissappear.
For example they lose thier optic nerve (eye sight) but the Lens and occular cavity still remain (cave fish). Why would God create a Blind fish with a useless Eyelens? For fun?
For Example all Whales at one time Walked on the land then eventually became coastal creatures (like seals) then finally went full time into the deep Ocean. Proof? They still breathe oxygen, Not enough time has gone by for them to develop Gills again. Their "fins" are not Fins at all, in relation to fish fins. They have five fingers and five toes and these have just become "webbed" but they bear no relation to Fish fins. Another thing is that they actually nurse thier young, No fish or reptile does this or even has "boobs" but Whales do. Here is a link for some more vestigels.
vastiges

Posted: 3/7/2006 11:57:29 AM EDT

[#13]

How do they see where they're going? It looks awfully painful. I'd at least TRY to walk on 2 legs...they must be able to sit????

too wierd.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:00:11 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
is this what happens when you let cousins f*ck?

Damn good thing the Earth was populated by more then just Adam and Eve.

There's only a problem with inbreeding when the DNA has mistakes. The first people would not have had mistakes in their DNA, so a brother and sister could (and did) marry, and there was nothing wrong with it.

Are you suggesting that DNA replication in the first humans was error-free?

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:06:37 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They have a genetic defect/disease that prevents them from walking on two legs, so they use their hands. This genetic degeneration is evidence of evolution....how?

Because we all know that evolution is brought about by genetic defects. In time this family tree will probably turn back into monkeys.

Hey, makes as much sense as anything else.

Actually i doubt the connection between this any any evolutionary sciences. But You obviously did'nt see my previous post about "retro-grade" genetic mutations, Where old Obsolete Genetic information used by our ancestors can become dominant again. This includes being born with a tail, Being born with more than two nipples in a row (like our Marsupial Ancestors or cats and dogs) and others that do not harm the person at all but give them a useless trait. (if you can only give birth to 1 child on average having 6 boobs is pointless and a waste of energy, for the woman anyway! ) Another Thing to consider is 'anatomical vestiges' these are things that ARE NOT a freak mutation but are condsidered normal within the species but still have little or no function for the current species. For example Snakes at one time had four legs, They still have them undeveloped on thier body. Cave species are the most obvious of this. They evolved from a surface species then lost their useless (in a cave) abilities though the "remanants" still remain. Given time (Millions of years), even these remanents would dissappear.
For example they lose thier optic nerve (eye sight) but the Lens and occular cavity still remain (cave fish). Why would God create a Blind fish with a useless Eyelens? For fun?
For Example all Whales at one time Walked on the land then eventually became coastal creatures (like seals) then finally went full time into the deep Ocean. Proof? They still breathe oxygen, Not enough time has gone by for them to develop Gills again. Their "fins" are not Fins at all, in relation to fish fins. They have five fingers and five toes and these have just become "webbed" but they bear no relation to Fish fins. Another thing is that they actually nurse thier young, No fish or reptile does this or even has "boobs" but Whales do. Here is a link for some more vestigels.
vastiges

Third nipple!

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:07:08 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
is this what happens when you let cousins f*ck?

Damn good thing the Earth was populated by more then just Adam and Eve.

There's only a problem with inbreeding when the DNA has mistakes. The first people would not have had mistakes in their DNA, so a brother and sister could (and did) marry, and there was nothing wrong with it.

Problems of inbreeding are caused by a recessive gene that both parents have. Though neither parent show that feature physically, the child will.

Your statement is likely not correct but of course there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Talk to a dog breeder

this isn't rocket science.

This takes me back a long ways....but let me see....

The comment regarding rececive genes is partially correct. There are introns and extrons. Introns are genes that are not expressed (reccesive) and extrons are genes that are expressed (dominant). For example, say you have blue eyes, there is a gene for blue eyes that is recessive, it takes both parent to have this recessive gene for it to show up in their children. That is why blue eyes are more rare than brown. Brown eyes can result from various combinations of genes.

So, not all reccesive genese are bad. However, the problem that arises when sisters and brothers procreate is that there introns and extrons tend to align better than do those from unrelated parents. Simply put more dominant genes are paired along the DNA and similarly more recessive genese are paired along the DNA. Therefore, because more reccesive genes are able to be expressed there is a higher likelyhood that "bad" traits will show up in the offspring.

This should have been the case even with the first "people" and would always be an issue. This is one reason or theory that there seemed to be a prevalence of crazy people in the lines of Kings and Queens. They wanted to keep the blood lines pure, so inbreeding was common, and hence, bad traits were seen.

Hope that makes sense...or someone set me straight.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:09:34 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
If there is no way to prove/disprove it, then how can you say that it's "likely" he's incorrect?

Based on the fact that spontaneous mutations can and do occur in every species. What makes you think they didn't occur when homo sapiens first appeared on the earth.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:10:10 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Do they smell each other's ass when they meet?

I can't wait for the porno movies the sex is gotta be wild!

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:10:34 PM EDT

[#19]

So, is there a recessive gene for hunched over monkey person? Do both cousins have to have this gene to produce a H.O.M.P.?

I'm going to start calling them HOMP's.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:12:02 PM EDT

[#20]

I heard there is a movie about gay hunched over monkey people. I is expected to win the oscar for best picture.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:14:50 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I heard there is a movie about gay hunched over monkey people. I is expected to win the oscar for best picture.

"Brokeleg Mountain" ?

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:16:46 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:

If you believe in evolution, then you believe that this is where you came from.

I'm a firm believer in evolution (as any educated person should be).

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:17:11 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
is this what happens when you let cousins f*ck?

Damn good thing the Earth was populated by more then just Adam and Eve.

There's only a problem with inbreeding when the DNA has mistakes. The first people would not have had mistakes in their DNA, so a brother and sister could (and did) marry, and there was nothing wrong with it.

Problems of inbreeding are caused by a recessive gene that both parents have. Though neither parent show that feature physically, the child will.

Oh jesus H Christ, This is what happens when creationists try to blend their Belief system with todays modern genetic science. "Perfect Genes????" What is that exactly pray tell? And how did it "get mistakes"? What is the scientific definition of 'perfect' genes???? what you mean like "aryan" babies or something? We need not even go into "race" here, BUT, So what race were Adam and eve and how did all the various races come from them? If everyone was Black, how did Blond hair and blue eyes happen? And if Black people BACK THEN could produce Blond haired blue eyed people Why dont they do it now in Africa? The same goes for any other race Like if the original people were Arabs or White. Maybe instead of just trying to shoot down the Evolution theory maybe the creationists should put forth their own Scientific theories (based on the bible of course) About how Animals and Humans got from the state in creation to the modern day. Including Dinosaurs, Extinct hominids, Most primative extinct species etc. If they actually tried to do this it would be the biggest joke but they wont do that. They think just by tearing down other theories is good enough to count as a belief system on it's own. It's not. Start answering Biological geological and Other questions based on the "creation theory" Then maybe it can be used to teach children or used by scientists as a blueprint for future discoveries. Evolution does this for scientists researching new species and eco-systems, Creationism does not.

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:42:14 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Oh jesus H Christ, This is what happens when creationists try to blend their Belief system with todays modern genetic science. "Perfect Genes????" What is that exactly pray tell? And how did it "get mistakes"? What is the scientific definition of 'perfect' genes???? what you mean like "aryan" babies or something? We need not even go into "race" here, BUT, So what race were Adam and eve and how did all the various races come from them? If everyone was Black, how did Blond hair and blue eyes happen? And if Black people BACK THEN could produce Blond haired blue eyed people Why dont they do it now in Africa? The same goes for any other race Like if the original people were Arabs or White. Maybe instead of just trying to shoot down the Evolution theory maybe the creationists should put forth their own Scientific theories (based on the bible of course) About how Animals and Humans got from the state in creation to the modern day. Including Dinosaurs, Extinct hominids, Most primative extinct species etc. If they actually tried to do this it would be the biggest joke but they wont do that. They think just by tearing down other theories is good enough to count as a belief system on it's own. It's not. Start answering Biological geological and Other questions based on the "creation theory" Then maybe it can be used to teach children or used by scientists as a blueprint for future discoveries. Evolution does this for scientists researching new species and eco-systems, Creationism does not.

OWNED!!!!!!

t-stox is right about this. You can not just criticize one theory or position and not offer you're own complete solution. We call these people LIBERALS!

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:45:34 PM EDT

[#25]

Thats not evolution thats just stupid

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:51:15 PM EDT

[#26]

What the fuck!

Thats nothing special! We did that all the time in football practice....its called the bear crawl!

Posted: 3/7/2006 12:53:41 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm a person who views evolution as a fact of life and a well documented scientific theory. That said, I don't see how a bunch of tards running around on all fours shows anything about human evolution.

I had a dog that got around quite well on 3 legs, I don't think it shows anything about his genetic history.

If you believe in evolution, then you believe that this is where you came from.

chimps dont walk like that.....

Posted: 3/7/2006 1:09:16 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I'm a person who views evolution as a fact of life and a well documented scientific theory. That said, I don't see how a bunch of tards running around on all fours shows anything about human evolution.

I had a dog that got around quite well on 3 legs, I don't think it shows anything about his genetic history.

+1

Posted: 3/7/2006 1:18:29 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
chimps dont walk like that.....

--Exactly.
Chimps shuffle the way they do because with their HIP STRUCTURE, standing upright is uncomfortable. They can certainly do it for short periods, but it just isn't their natural tendency.

The reason humans (even babies who can't balance on two legs) don't shuffle around like chimps is because unless their legs are drastically underlength, it's simply uncomfortable. Yet these people have fully-developed bone structure. Humans' bone structures simply doesn't work well for moving around like this.

This story is bull. It's got nothing to do with such dire matters as evolution or psychology, it's a simple fraud.
~

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:02:22 PM EDT

[#30]

If they want to get closer to finding the missing link, they should visit Birmingham. I've seen quite a few specimens, that can't be more than a generation or two from walking on all fours, and a few that no doubt smell eachothers ass when they greet.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:26:00 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Those vestigial organs show that evolution is correct, because evolution is already true and vestigial organs can be explained by evolution.

Do me a favor, would you? Go to Google and look up "circular logic". Then look up "mindlessly regurgitating stupid crap".

SARCASM, mo-fo! Do you speak it?

Quoted:
Are you suggesting that DNA replication in the first humans was error-free?

Uh, no. I was suggesting that when Man was first created, God did not create them with defects in the DNA, so there was no danger. As each generation went on, inbreeding became more and more of a problem.

Quoted:
Blah blah blah blah . . .

Oh, now I'm somehow a racist for saying that when God first created man, the DNA didn't have any defects? What is your problem?

How did all the races come from Adam and Eve? Natural selection. People who happened to have dark skinned genes from both parents (who had all the genes) lived more comfortably in hot, sunny, dry places, and white people couldn't live there very comfortably so they began living in more temperate areas. Etc. Yes, creationists believe in natural selection, but not as a method of evolution.

How do you think breeding works? Animals are selectively breeded to bring out certain characteristics. Those genes were always there, but breeding brings them out.

EDITED TO ADD:

Evolutionists must believe this too. If you don't, you need to learn more.

If you don't believe that all races came from one original pair of people, you must believe that dozens or hundreds of separate monkey family trees INDEPENDENTLY evolved into humans. Assuming evolution is true, it would be mathamatically impossible for even TWO pairs of humans to evolve independently.

No matter what your belief, it HAD to start with a single pair of humans, whatever came before it.

Unless you believe that each race is actually a different SPECIES. THEN who's the racist?

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:26:56 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh jesus H Christ, This is what happens when creationists try to blend their Belief system with todays modern genetic science. "Perfect Genes????" What is that exactly pray tell? And how did it "get mistakes"? What is the scientific definition of 'perfect' genes???? what you mean like "aryan" babies or something? We need not even go into "race" here, BUT, So what race were Adam and eve and how did all the various races come from them? If everyone was Black, how did Blond hair and blue eyes happen? And if Black people BACK THEN could produce Blond haired blue eyed people Why dont they do it now in Africa? The same goes for any other race Like if the original people were Arabs or White. Maybe instead of just trying to shoot down the Evolution theory maybe the creationists should put forth their own Scientific theories (based on the bible of course) About how Animals and Humans got from the state in creation to the modern day. Including Dinosaurs, Extinct hominids, Most primative extinct species etc. If they actually tried to do this it would be the biggest joke but they wont do that. They think just by tearing down other theories is good enough to count as a belief system on it's own. It's not. Start answering Biological geological and Other questions based on the "creation theory" Then maybe it can be used to teach children or used by scientists as a blueprint for future discoveries. Evolution does this for scientists researching new species and eco-systems, Creationism does not.

OWNED!!!!!!

t-stox is right about this. You can not just criticize one theory or position and not offer you're own complete solution. We call these people LIBERALS!

We have explanations. People like you just don't listen because you are too smart to be bothered with alternate views.

It's funny how creationists are criticized because our views aren't based on science (even though science does support creation pretty well, as much as physical evidence can support a supernatural event). Somehow, something can only be true if it is based on science, and if it's not it can't be true, because science is all. The best scientific theory that someone can come up with is the one given as fact, and all other ideas are thrown out. That is small thinking.

What if not everything can be explained by science? Has that thought ever occured to you? Can you think outside the scientific box, or is it your god?

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:33:24 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Do they smell each other's ass when they meet?
I can't wait for the porno movies the sex is gotta be wild!

You know...I'm sure some enterprising porn producer is having a light bulb go off over his head when he sees those pics

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:37:43 PM EDT

[#34]

Tag for when everyone gets off work, drinks a bunch of beer and then continues the evolution/creation debate!

What a sweet drunken' ride it'll be. (just like always)

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:39:02 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
s.

And I like my cousines and all but there is no way in hell I'm going to fuck'em.

Obviously my cousins were hotter than yours...

ANdy

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:40:00 PM EDT

[#36]

"Azir, did you find my contact lens yet?".

TC

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:42:17 PM EDT

[#37]

ahahahha fuck thats funny

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:48:55 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh jesus H Christ, This is what happens when creationists try to blend their Belief system with todays modern genetic science. "Perfect Genes????" What is that exactly pray tell? And how did it "get mistakes"? What is the scientific definition of 'perfect' genes???? what you mean like "aryan" babies or something? We need not even go into "race" here, BUT, So what race were Adam and eve and how did all the various races come from them? If everyone was Black, how did Blond hair and blue eyes happen? And if Black people BACK THEN could produce Blond haired blue eyed people Why dont they do it now in Africa? The same goes for any other race Like if the original people were Arabs or White. Maybe instead of just trying to shoot down the Evolution theory maybe the creationists should put forth their own Scientific theories (based on the bible of course) About how Animals and Humans got from the state in creation to the modern day. Including Dinosaurs, Extinct hominids, Most primative extinct species etc. If they actually tried to do this it would be the biggest joke but they wont do that. They think just by tearing down other theories is good enough to count as a belief system on it's own. It's not. Start answering Biological geological and Other questions based on the "creation theory" Then maybe it can be used to teach children or used by scientists as a blueprint for future discoveries. Evolution does this for scientists researching new species and eco-systems, Creationism does not.

OWNED!!!!!!

t-stox is right about this. You can not just criticize one theory or position and not offer you're own complete solution. We call these people LIBERALS!

We have explanations. People like you just don't listen because you are too smart to be bothered with alternate views.

It's funny how creationists are criticized because our views aren't based on science (even though science does support creation pretty well, as much as physical evidence can support a supernatural event). Somehow, something can only be true if it is based on science, and if it's not it can't be true, because science is all. The best scientific theory that someone can come up with is the one given as fact, and all other ideas are thrown out. That is small thinking.

What if not everything can be explained by science? Has that thought ever occured to you? Can you think outside the scientific box, or is it your god?

I would rather at least attempt to explain something with science than resort to a fairy tale with absolutely no physical evidence. The imaginary figure "God" has done nothing for anyone except downplay Man's achievements. I have seen no "divine intervention" ANYWHERE.

Not everything can be EASILY explained with science BUT evolution and the creation of the solar system / earth surely can be. There is overwhelming evidence out there, and people still think that the earth was formed in a few days. This is because most "believers" refuse to look at the evidence that is out there (although I am not saying they should be forced). They would rather live in their fairy tale land. If you want to, then that is your choice, but PLEASE don't go around discounting science in the name of religion. Science is based on logic and sound principals, while religion is often based on the writings of a bunch of crazed and primitive savages.

The bible is a poorly written book. Maybe I should start writing my insane ramblings down, and 2000 years from now people will believe everything I say.

Eventually more and more people will accept the truth. After all, it took a while to transition from "everthing in the solar system orbits the earth".

Why don't you tell me how science supports Creation? I could use a good laugh.

The best way for religious people to deal with science is to avoid it. Simply say "we have no scientific evidence, but we have our beliefs". Do not try and disprove science by using illogical statements and your lack of scientific knowledge.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:55:39 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh jesus H Christ, This is what happens when creationists try to blend their Belief system with todays modern genetic science. "Perfect Genes????" What is that exactly pray tell? And how did it "get mistakes"? What is the scientific definition of 'perfect' genes???? what you mean like "aryan" babies or something? We need not even go into "race" here, BUT, So what race were Adam and eve and how did all the various races come from them? If everyone was Black, how did Blond hair and blue eyes happen? And if Black people BACK THEN could produce Blond haired blue eyed people Why dont they do it now in Africa? The same goes for any other race Like if the original people were Arabs or White. Maybe instead of just trying to shoot down the Evolution theory maybe the creationists should put forth their own Scientific theories (based on the bible of course) About how Animals and Humans got from the state in creation to the modern day. Including Dinosaurs, Extinct hominids, Most primative extinct species etc. If they actually tried to do this it would be the biggest joke but they wont do that. They think just by tearing down other theories is good enough to count as a belief system on it's own. It's not. Start answering Biological geological and Other questions based on the "creation theory" Then maybe it can be used to teach children or used by scientists as a blueprint for future discoveries. Evolution does this for scientists researching new species and eco-systems, Creationism does not.

OWNED!!!!!!

t-stox is right about this. You can not just criticize one theory or position and not offer you're own complete solution. We call these people LIBERALS!

We have explanations. People like you just don't listen because you are too smart to be bothered with alternate views.

It's funny how creationists are criticized because our views aren't based on science (even though science does support creation pretty well, as much as physical evidence can support a supernatural event). Somehow, something can only be true if it is based on science, and if it's not it can't be true, because science is all. The best scientific theory that someone can come up with is the one given as fact, and all other ideas are thrown out. That is small thinking.

What if not everything can be explained by science? Has that thought ever occured to you? Can you think outside the scientific box, or is it your god?

Science is not a conclusion. It is a process of logic based on known facts.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:56:48 PM EDT

[#40]

This thread is proof that being judgemental is NOT exclusive to religious folks. Its just a nasty human trait we are all guilty of.

Oh and those quadreped Turks? I have to go with the consensus thats it absolute BS.

Posted: 3/7/2006 2:59:28 PM EDT

[#41]

If there is only one Truth out there, then why are there so many religions with so many different explanations? Most of these are even older than Judaism/Christianity. Why isn't Judaism universal? Did your God create the Earth, create Man, let many different races and conflicting religions devolop all over the world, then only talk to/enlighten a few people in the Middle East?

Do you REALLY thing we all descend from 2 people? Did Noah have enough room on his ark for MILLIONS of species of plant and animal (including insects and viruses/bacteria)?

No. They had to come after. But wait, that implies evolution.

Complete bullshit.

All of these religious explanations are primitive conclusions based on hallucinations and guesses about the nature of the universe.

Get off your high platform and accept that we did come from a stupid animal. Look at the evidence. Open your mind. There is nothing special about humans, except for that fact that we are the most intelligent animal on this planet.

I think religion exists to keep people in line (basis of most laws). It still exists because of the promise of an afterlife ( a good or bad one). You can't say much with 100% certainty, so even intelligent people are suckered into believing in God or whatever because of the chance (albeit small) that there is one (which would cause them to go to hell if they didn't believe).

Posted: 3/7/2006 3:17:43 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
EDITED TO ADD:

Evolutionists must believe this too. If you don't, you need to learn more.

If you don't believe that all races came from one original pair of people, you must believe that dozens or hundreds of separate monkey family trees INDEPENDENTLY evolved into humans. Assuming evolution is true, it would be mathamatically impossible for even TWO pairs of humans to evolve independently.

No matter what your belief, it HAD to start with a single pair of humans, whatever came before it.

Unless you believe that each race is actually a different SPECIES. THEN who's the racist?

Your assertion here implies that you believe that from a group of "dozens or hundreds of separate monkey family trees" two MODERN Homo sapiens sprang forth.

If that is indeed what you are saying, then please consider the possibility that an entire population of individuals evolved over enough time to the point that the bulk or near-entirety of the population had gene shifted. In this case, it's likely that the most recent generation would be quite distinguishable from the first, whether in morphology or gene frequency, thus the entire population had evolved. The ancestors were no longer present, and ta daa! Modern man.

So, technically, your contention that modern man HAD to orginate from one breeding pair of humans doesn't exactly make a lot of sense, now, does it?

Posted: 3/7/2006 3:23:01 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
EDITED TO ADD:

Evolutionists must believe this too. If you don't, you need to learn more.

If you don't believe that all races came from one original pair of people, you must believe that dozens or hundreds of separate monkey family trees INDEPENDENTLY evolved into humans. Assuming evolution is true, it would be mathamatically impossible for even TWO pairs of humans to evolve independently.

No matter what your belief, it HAD to start with a single pair of humans, whatever came before it.

Unless you believe that each race is actually a different SPECIES. THEN who's the racist?

Your assertion here implies that you believe that from a group of "dozens or hundreds of separate monkey family trees" two MODERN Homo sapiens sprang forth.

If that is indeed what you are saying, then please consider the possibility that an entire population of individuals evolved over enough time to the point that the bulk or near-entirety of the population had gene shifted. In this case, it's likely that the most recent generation would be quite distinguishable from the first, whether in morphology or gene frequency, thus the entire population had evolved. The ancestors were no longer present, and ta daa! Modern man.

So, technically, your contention that modern man HAD to orginate from one breeding pair of humans doesn't exactly make a lot of sense, now, does it?

Seperate populations evolved. There were a variety of homo sapien subspecies that emerged from Africa (ex: Cro-magnon man and neanderthal). The weaker ones either died off or were bred out of existance.

Oh yeah, we diddn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from apes.

No matter what your belief, it HAD to start with a single pair of humans, whatever came before it.

Prove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_Man

Did God create humans that were not entirely human? Or did Satan put these skeletal remains here to fool us?