Human origins

I agree. This should be a must-see when visiting Washington.

Without injecting any religion into the discussion and with full admission that I am not scientist, I do have one major problem with Evolution as taught and put forth and extending to this display.

First if one is to assume evolution is the process of development of species to species that we all come from some common ancestor however long ago and that the process of evolution consist of one state of being evolving through the years into another state of being in order to accommodate a new state of environment, say a sea dweller evolving into a land dweller or land to a flying being then since this evolution is a timely development from one state to another there must be transitional states with infinite transitional forms from one form to another.

Second since the original forms still exist ( say monkey or ape ) and the final states exist ( human/man ) then where are the transitional forms and stages of evolution today? The five skulls represent various stages of transition but somehow these intermediate stages somehow just disappeared leaving existing the origins and final states? We still have Apes and Gorillas and the like and we have human/man but somehow the intermediate stages ... all of them, just ceased to exist?

Third if evolution is real and factual then it should be going on today just as it has from the beginning and although the environment hasn't changed, we still have seas, land, air, nature yet the 1/4 ape and 3/4 man transition creatures aren't here. The 3/4th Ape and 1/4th Man creatures aren't here. Other species and transitional beings likewise cease to exist. We have what things evolved from still around today and what they evolved into but today there is no evidence of any transitional beings or creatures anywhere.

For that reason alone I have a very difficult time accepting evolution as a valid excuse of how things got here.

quote:

to a flying being then since this evolution is a timely development from one state to another there must be transitional states with infinite transitional forms from one form to another.

Cars evolved from horse and buggy to steam to gas and now electric.

You no longer see steam cars, do you? Why? Because steam cars are not necessary in this environment of plentiful gasoline.

Now, if oil were to suddenly run out, there is an opportunity for steam to make a resurgance but in a slightly different, more "evolved" form. That or perhaps the gasoline car will go extinct and be replaced with electric.

When you understand why the steam car is extinct and why the horse and buggy stll exists, you will understand why you don't see every transitional form of man that has ever existed.

I believe that, like the car, the evolution of species were guided by the unseen hand of the Creator.

You're good Sofa King!

Sofa King good.

Poor anaology Sofa King to say the least. Although the steam cars aren't still used today there is plenty of factual evidence that they did exist. Not true with transitional evolution evidence. (Which was the point of gbrk) Just evidence that evolutionists manipulate the evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
Poor anaology Sofa King to say the least. Although the steam cars aren't still used today there is plenty of factual evidence that they did exist. Not true with transitional evolution evidence. (Which was the point of gbrk) Just evidence that evolutionists manipulate the evidence.

Your assertion that there is no transitional evidence is simply not true. On the contrary, there is abundant transitional evidence available.

quote:

Originally posted by logical:

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
Poor anaology Sofa King to say the least. Although the steam cars aren't still used today there is plenty of factual evidence that they did exist. Not true with transitional evolution evidence. (Which was the point of gbrk) Just evidence that evolutionists manipulate the evidence.

Your assertion that there is no transitional evidence is simply not true. On the contrary, there is abundant transitional evidence available.

One other Problem, Sofa King, is that ( and again not to inject Religion or at least trying to keep it out ) your analogy is totally off as the examples you used, all of them, were made by "intelligent" creators, or shall I dare say "Intelligent Design" and changes based on intelligent decisions.

I'm sorry Sofa King, from re-reading your comments it apperas that you were saing that evolution was an "intelligent" directed process so my inital saying that your totally off base was incorrect however MOST evolutionist do deny any kind of Intelligent design or Intelligent structuring of anything. They believe, like the "Big Bang" things just happen from nothing or that certainly no Intelligent creator could be behind it. I do realize that there are plenty of people that feel that God used Evolution in the creation process but those are far lesser in numbers, in the evolution community.

Regarding transitional states .. neither do they exist now but they haven't ever existed. Sure there is a fossil or two that is discovered that someone plants somewhere in the middle of two other totally different fossils but in order to make that jump you would have to jump from 1% to 30% to 60% to 100% along a line of completion but IF evolution was real and factual it would be more like the concept of Limits in Calculus in that infinitesimal changes all along the time or process line would be found, not only ages ago, but CURRENTLY in the time we live as in 2010 ALL alive at the same time today as the progression from the most basic to the most complex would not be a ONE time thing but an ever constant thing. If man proceeded from Ape eons ago then there would still be transitional ape-man creatures alive and transitioning today as we live and among us, walking, breathing, and yes in fossils also. Not only ape-man but every species.

Again I'm just saying the proof is not in the pudding, so to say and sorry about the statement about your analogy, what with the "steam vehicles" but again I do realize and know that, most, evolutionist would cringe and die at the thought of "Intelligent Design" so I couldn't resist using that term with regards to your analogy.

I still am waiting for a very educated explanation as to why evolution, something that just happened (like the big bang) could decide it had achieved it's final transition from basic to complex and therefore just quit the transitioning process? IF it did decide to quite the transitioning process, therefore leaving only transitional creatures as fossils meaning none among us today, then how did it get so smart to make that decision?

Evolution would, if real, would be going on today as it did, if real, millions of years ago and would still be in infinite transitional processes but yet we just don't see it.

It's actually so simple that I'm amazed that people of such greater intelligence can't seem to allow themselves to understand or see it. Could it be that if their beliefs or foundations in evolution were to actually be challenged or, God forbid, changed then they would have to then develop another thesis of how we got here and how things were created and then the concept of Religion might actually be allowed to be called into question.

Again I apologize to all on the forum for that last statement as we are in the Miscellaneous topic and therefore I do not think it appropriate to inject any Religion into the discussion and I really don't mean or plan to so I apologize for the last statement which alluded to it. I prefer to approach the discussion about "human origins" from a logical way.

Point is I don't believe that we got here by Evolution and above is one reason why I believe that. I don't believe the evidence is or was there to back up evolution. Darwin did an excellent job proving his position but the counter point is that I believe that his detractors did a very poor job of debunking his position rather they tried to elevate their position and not counter his position with it's own merits or points rather they tried to counter his position by using a counter position, opposed to his, but one that could not possibly be proved scientifically or any other physical way.

I'm just asking everyone to set back and ( within their own mind and conscience ) reconcile the points I've tried to make and the questionings I've tried to ask about evolution. Logical and rational questions from a "not so brite" basic person that looks at something that just doesn't seem to add up right and therefore maybe someone far more intelligent can enlighten me as to my fallacy in thinking, regarding the evolutionary process.

If one also was to say that God used Evolution as a means of creation then they would have to reconcile how come the Bible remains totally silent about that creation process. Additionally it might could explain why Evolution would cease happening but it would not explain why the great number of transitional stages (infinite in number almost) are not located in fossil records. Again I just don't see the evidential proof being there to back up evolution as a creation explanation of how we all got here.

I actually see plenty of evidence around to support evolution. Go to the beach and look at "ghost crabs" or as we call them, sand crabs. Small, white. Why all white ? Eons ago, dark crabs would have been picked off by birds, leaving only the lighter colored ones to live therefore "evolve".
Another example - go to the Sonoran Desert. As you look across the vast dry desert that is impassable to squirrels, but on the mountains dotting the desert, there is an environment that supports squirrels. Test have shown that all the squirrels on those mountain "islands" are common ancestry, but we are told that all the squirrels on the mountain islands are different and have evolved to exploit the individual habitat where they exist. (My source for that was a guide at the Sonoran Desert Museum - which BTW I highly recommend going to).

As far as why evolution is not mentioned in the Scripture, the real question should be why should it ? Scripture should tell us the "why" of life, not the "how". Remember, the Bible was written during the Israeli's captivity in Babylon, admittedly a few years later than the period of evolution.

And, to answer the question as to why evolution has stopped. Who is to say it has ? Evolution takes place over vast stretches of time, humans have only been around a few tens of thousands of years, and we are still evolving or changing.
Go to Nashville to the Hermitage and look at 'Ole Hickory"s military uniform . He supposedly stood head and shoulders above his piers and yet he looks like a small person by todays standards. Go to Paul Revere's house in Boston. The fireplace in the kitchen sits back in some brickwork only a little over 4 feet high. The little women back then could easily go under it to get to the oven. We are changing, just slowly.

I was gonna answer gbrk but ya beat me to it, seeweed. Pretty much point-for-point. Well said.

Everything happens for a reason. If we don't know it yet-it only means we haven't looked in the right place for it yet. Early man knew much less-if at all why and how things happened-so I believe he invented "creationism" based on what he DID understand at the time.
Prolly all he knew was that things happened because either he or somebody he saw made them happen. Everything else he didn't have an answer for was more than likely based/blamed on intelligent design because he didn't know anything else.

I've heard tell that God created man in his own image. I'm inclined to believe that it was the other way around.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
I actually see plenty of evidence around to support evolution. Go to the beach and look at "ghost crabs" or as we call them, sand crabs. Small, white. Why all white ? Eons ago, dark crabs would have been picked off by birds, leaving only the lighter colored ones to live therefore "evolve".
Another example - go to the Sonoran Desert. As you look across the vast dry desert that is impassable to squirrels, but on the mountains dotting the desert, there is an environment that supports squirrels. Test have shown that all the squirrels on those mountain "islands" are common ancestry, but we are told that all the squirrels on the mountain islands are different and have evolved to exploit the individual habitat where they exist. (My source for that was a guide at the Sonoran Desert Museum - which BTW I highly recommend going to).

As far as why evolution is not mentioned in the Scripture, the real question should be why should it ? Scripture should tell us the "why" of life, not the "how". Remember, the Bible was written during the Israeli's captivity in Babylon, admittedly a few years later than the period of evolution.

And, to answer the question as to why evolution has stopped. Who is to say it has ? Evolution takes place over vast stretches of time, humans have only been around a few tens of thousands of years, and we are still evolving or changing.
Go to Nashville to the Hermitage and look at 'Ole Hickory"s military uniform . He supposedly stood head and shoulders above his piers and yet he looks like a small person by todays standards. Go to Paul Revere's house in Boston. The fireplace in the kitchen sits back in some brickwork only a little over 4 feet high. The little women back then could easily go under it to get to the oven. We are changing, just slowly.

I'm sorry but I'm not impressed or convinced by your example of dark vs white crabs or island squirrels vs mountain squirrels. Point is the crabs are crabs and the squirrels are squirrels and each have remained within their species and adapted to their chosen environment. Do we have any proof of dark crabs Eons ago? I haven't been to the part of the world that you mentioned however when vacationing in Florida I have seen sand crabs make their way from shore to the sea, as fast as possible, yet though they are light or even sand colored and are hard to see the gulls didn't seem to have much trouble getting full off them. Maybe if they had of evolved an appendage say two feet long and been able to swat the birds out of the air or evolve to faster than the birds then maybe we'd see an overpopulation but changing colors hasn't seem to done much for them in the way of survival, at least not from what I saw. Shear numbers though helps keep the species around. Regarding the dark crabs though, eons years old, how are they documented or how do people determine they are dark vs white today? More to the point lets consider man (human man). Environmentalist say man evolved from apes, monkeys etc. Today we still have monkeys and apes, as eons ago, and today we have man, humans, yet today there are no transitional species running around that are part one species as it develops to another, totally different species. Apes haven't stopped being born and procreated yet all of a sudden are we to believe that apes, monkeys etc have become satisfied with their environments and therefore ceased their evolution into man? This was Darwin's whole point that man came from apes and yet even though both species are here today somehow we don't see transitional species members and somehow there is no cross communication between species either or any other species, as far as that is concerned.

Look I'm not trying to convince you to change your view or belief but I'm explaining why I cannot accept Evolution as an origin of man. I don't think it holds water or is verifiable but just is another theory. Regarding man being created in "God's" image I believe that relates not to any physical aspects of man for God is Spirit and not flesh or physical. Man, being human, means that we are flesh (a body) and inside that body is an eternal spirit that once the body dies will live on past the body into the Spiritual realm no longer governed by physical constraints.

I will agree though that man often tries to create God or look at God in man's image. People try and attempt to humanize God, make Him human, so as to assign and find faults within God, physical faults or faults out of reason.

I'm very glad that you and others are happy as clams, or sand crabs, with your acceptance of evolution as an explanation of how we got here. I have my own beliefs I'm comfortable with also and I hope that each is comfortable with their own beliefs and choices but if not can at least consider other alternatives.

gbrk, do you also believe in a 6000 year old earth ?

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
gbrk, do you also believe in a 6000 year old earth ?

To answer your question ... no I do not believe in a 6000 year earth however I also admit that I haven't researched it or that point either. 6000 years or one million years my faith would not be shook either way. I realize that's not a very good or diplomatic answer but one day I'll have to add that to my studies.

I do believe in the Scriptures and I realize that scholars have come up with the 6000 year timetable but again I haven't made up my mind concerning about what I believe and accept about it.

When Moses was writing Genesis, what makes anyone think that the 'days' he referred to were 24-hour days? 100 million years...or more...would be but a blink of God's eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
When Moses was writing Genesis, what makes anyone think that the 'days' he referred to were 24-hour days? 100 million years...or more...would be but a blink of God's eyes.

I totally agree here, as just like the Realm of God is a Spiritual one where you cannot use physical terms to define or explain it so the Spiritual realm is also timeless so to say. There is no standards with regards to time as when you consider eternity, either forward or reverse then time ceases to exist as there is no way to define it. One second is no different, in the scope of things, compared to one million years.

Eternity is also one of those things that I believe is beyond ability of a human to grasp and define or understand. Likewise I believe there are many other things that are beyond the scope of human understanding when it comes to Religion or spiritual concepts.

Id like to offer a hypothetical situation just for debate...why were we born basically illiterate and become more intelligent with the aging process...why not born more intelligent when we need it the most, when our bodies are capable of reproducing, when we can cause the most problems etc..just a crazy thought..This helps me, more than anything, to believe as the deist believe that God made this place called earth, and left us here to do as we will

I may be mistaken, but I think you just entered the realm of 'free will'......

quote:

I do realize that there are plenty of people that feel that God used Evolution in the creation process but those are far lesser in numbers, in the evolution community.

Regarding transitional states .. neither do they exist now but they haven't ever existed

Count me as one of those who sees the guiding hand of the Creator in all of science. It is easy to do this when you understand that the bible was the science book (and history and poetry and mythic and allegorical) book of the time. The author of the bible used the best science they had at the time (their imagination) to describe how the earth must have come about. I'm sure their thoughts were guided by the Creator but much was lost in the transcription. It understandable. It does not detract from ym faith.

GB, I'm not going to point to thousand of internet links to pictures millions of transitional fossils. I have my own private collection of transitional fossils that you can pick up and look at yourself. for you to tell me they do not exist is just..... well I'm frustrated at this line of reasoning from a fellow believer so I won't say they word that is on my lips.

YOU are a future transitional fossil GB. Everything that ever lived or ever will live is a transitional form of life. We can watch the genes spontaneously mutate to gain new capabilities right before our eyes.

I believe it is very dangerous for a believers to deny reality like you seem to be doing. Such willful intolerance of known scientific principals causes a believer to pour themselves into a shell and consciously shield themselves from the real wonders that come from scientific discovery.

When undeniable science breaks into that shell, your faith can be destroyed. That is what happened to many people when Darwin first made his discovery public. They didn't protect their faith by exploring science.

When you understand that the study of science is the study of the mind of God, it fills you with a new sense of wonder and discovery and anticipation. It saddens me that smart people like you would rather plug their ears to the truth than embrace reality.

quote:

I believe it is very dangerous for a believers to deny reality like you seem to be doing. Such willful intolerance of known scientific principals causes a believer to pour themselves into a shell and consciously shield themselves from the real wonders that come from scientific discovery.

Your point and argument is well laid out Sofa, and trust me it's not my goal or desire to frustrate you or anyone else with regards to what I've posted for what I've said was with no ulterior motives but rather to engage a rational dialog.

The greatest thrust of my point or argument, if you will, is not to point to or use per-historic or even historic fossils but rather to examine life and humans as we live today. The point that many, in the evolutionary group, are making is that man evolved from monkeys and say birds from fish (don't know for sure about that one) and my whole point was that if evolution is correct and true that it would be going on today just the same as it did and was thousands of years ago. I do fully understand and recognize the argument that says species change to adapt to a changing environment or in order to move from one environment to another and survive but, as with monkeys and man, we have both the most primitive forms (still existing) today and we have the evolved forms yet we do not have the intermediate forms alive and living today. We don't have 1/2 man and 1/2 ape creatures running around, disregarding rumors of "big foot" or 3/4 man and 1/4 ape and there is not the interspecies communication which should be there if one evolved from another. There isn't even a common type of language form.

I'm not trying to proselyte here either but just sharing the troubles that I have with the evolution argument or some troubles I have with it. I also don't believe the statement that we are living transitional forms now because the beings or creatures that I am seeking to see are much more demonstrative in appearance and actions such as literally 1/2 man and 1/2 ape that could communicate with both species.

Anyway, again, it's not my desire or intent to frustrate but rather explain my personal reasons for trouble with the theory of Evolution and note the troubles or reasons I have put forth are not religiously motivated although I do believe in an Intelligent creator (God).

quote:

my whole point was that if evolution is correct and true that it would be going on today just the same as it did and was thousands of years ago.

It IS going on today, friend. Can you drink milk? If so, give thanks to your ancestors a few thousand years ago in lower Asia that had a gene mutation that allowed them to process the milk from another beast. That proved to be a major survival trait. Babies that could process cow's milk live to pass on that adaptation to their offspring. That is how it works, GB. VERY small changes like this over unimaginable time periods.

Just as there are sill examples of seam engines in operation today, there are still examples of people who cannot process milk. We call that "lactose intolerant."

quote:

We don't have 1/2 man and 1/2 ape creatures running around,

No, we don't We have fully ape-like creatures. The orangutan is one. Chimpanzee is another. Silverback gorilla is another. And humans are another. Yes, you ARE and ape, GB.

In my office right now is an exact reproduction of a creature that lived about 6 million years ago. With almost no training, anyone can tell that this skull has some common ape characteristics and common human characteristics. We have complete specimens of this animal. This was a very ape-like looking creature about 4 feet tall that walked on two legs fully upright.

Imagine seeing that today: An ape that did not drag knuckles and looked like a really hairy, small human. You would think is was half ape and half human.

And you would be more or less right.

Over unimaginable periods of time, millions of years in fact, that animal very slowly lost hair, grew taller, lost pigment when it traveled into northern climates (and kept dark pigment for those that stayed in the bright sunshine of Africa) and eventually resulted in a hairless ape called homo sapiens sapience. You.

GB, this is a fact just as much as it is a fact that the sun revolves around the earth,. The fact that you have not taken the time to understand how all this came to be does not change the facts.

It is unbelievable to you just as a plasma TV is almost unbelievable to me. I do not understand plasma TVs but there it is on my wall making pictures so I have to believe it works.

I do understand evolution. It is part of my job. You do not. That's fine. But you can't deny it any more than you can deny my plasma TV.

To deny the hand of the Creator in all this seem to be somehow sinful, my friend. A misuse of God's gift to us. Studying evolution is a study of how God created us. It is NOT a rejection of His Word!

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

Originally posted by gbrk:
My whole point was that if evolution is correct and true that it would be going on today just the same as it did and was thousands of years ago.

It IS going on today, friend. Can you drink milk? If so, give thanks to your ancestors a few thousand years ago in lower Asia that had a gene mutation that allowed them to process the milk from another beast. That proved to be a major survival trait. Babies that could process cow's milk live to pass on that adaptation to their offspring. That is how it works, GB. VERY small changes like this over unimaginable time periods.

Hi Sofa,

You are speaking of "micro evolution" which is a form of adaptation within species. GBRK is speaking of "macro evolution" which is the primary teaching of all who follow Darwinian Evolution.

Micro evolution fits well with Biblical Creation. Macro Evolution, i.e., Darwinian Evolution -- is a false religion unto itself.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

You are speaking of "micro evolution" which is a form of adaptation within species. GBRK is speaking of "macro evolution" which is the primary teaching of all who follow Darwinian Evolution.

Bill,

Discussing this with you would be like explaining quantum mechanics to a 3 year old. Run along and handle your snakes and let these big boys talk about real science.

Birds in the Galapagos are still evolving to compete for changing food sources.

Indications of neandertaler DNA may still be seen in modern humans -- beetling brow and heavy jaw muscle.

quote:

You are speaking of "micro evolution" which is a form of adaptation within species. GBRK is speaking of "macro evolution" which is the primary teaching of all who follow Darwinian Evolution.

You don't even know what the heck you are talking about. This "macro/micro" crap is not a scientific principal. It is purely a religious concept that has no place in a scientific discussion. Now run along, little fundy.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
You are speaking of "micro evolution" which is a form of adaptation within species. GBRK is speaking of "macro evolution" which is the primary teaching of all who follow Darwinian Evolution.

You don't even know what the heck you are talking about. This "macro/micro" crap is not a scientific principal. It is purely a religious concept that has no place in a scientific discussion. Now run along, little fundy.

Hi Sofa,

Methinks you have been sitting on the "sofa" too long. Science has learned a lot in the last 150 years which Darwin never imagined. However, Darwin was right in one thing, when he stated, "If Evolutionary Science does not discover some transitional fossils (missing links), it is dead." RIP Darwinian Evolution!

Consider this excerpt from an article by the Center for Science and Culture on the Discovery Channel (holy writ for atheists):

The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution
Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute
1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101
http://www.discovery.org/scrip...-download.php?id=118

After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named "macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9 of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).

My Friend, Sofa, welcome to the real world! There are no missing link fossils -- they are all still missing!

MIA! -- RIP!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Indications of neandertaler DNA may still be seen in modern humans -- beetling brow and heavy jaw muscle.

From some of the post on this forum, one would pretty much bet on it.

quote:

My Friend, Sofa, welcome to the real world! There are no missing link fossils

Except for the few million that have been found. Problem is, whenever one transitional fossil is found, two more gaps in the record appear.

Bill, you are clearly deranged and far beyond any hope of being reasoned with. I bet your snakes are hungry. Better go feed them before they bite someone at your upcoming revival.

Are the scientists 'proving' evolutionary theory the same scientists 'proving' that global warming exists and is man-made?

quote:

Consider this excerpt from an article by the Center for Science and Culture on the Discovery Channel (holy writ for atheists):

The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution
Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute

Dear God you are so clueless.

Bill, this is a biblical CREATIONIST website and has nothing to do with the Discover Channel or even science. It's the "Discovery Institute" - a laughable scam organization dedicated to the spread of ignorance and biblical literalism. You have been infected.

For those that can think, there is room for science and reason in the same body as a Christian. I* am living proof.

The evidence for old earth and evolution is incredibly overwhelming. I pray that the Lord gives you the motivation to explore the topic for yourself and stop being fearful of learning about science for fear of losing your soul. The Lord gave of wisdom, curiosity and intelligence. Use it to explore His wonders and not plug your fingers in your brain and go "nah, nah nah can't hear you!"

quote:

re the scientists 'proving' evolutionary theory the same scientists 'proving' that global warming exists and is man-made?

More ignorance. Of course not. Climate science and evolutionary theory are completely different subjects. One is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. The other has a small amount of wiggle room to allow a bit of doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

re the scientists 'proving' evolutionary theory the same scientists 'proving' that global warming exists and is man-made?

More ignorance. Of course not. Climate science and evolutionary theory are completely different subjects. One is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. The other has a small amount of wiggle room to allow a bit of doubt.

So...which is which?

quote:

So...which is which?

The problem here is that you are using a internet forum to attempt to find truth. I invite you to pick up a science book from a legitimate scientific source and learn on your own so that will will not appear so foolish if you bring this up in public again.

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

So...which is which?

The problem here is that you are using a internet forum to attempt to find truth. I invite you to pick up a science book from a legitimate scientific source and learn on your own so that will will not appear so foolish if you bring this up in public again.

Hi Sofa,

That will not work anymore; for science text books, like history text books -- have become so "Politically Correct" -- that there is little truth left in them.

Just a thought.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

http://evolutionlist.blogspot....es-and-evidence.html

http://www.aolnews.com/article...man-and-ape/19425931

quote:

Originally posted by Sofa King:

quote:

So...which is which?

The problem here is that you are using a internet forum to attempt to find truth. I invite you to pick up a science book from a legitimate scientific source and learn on your own so that will will not appear so foolish if you bring this up in public again.

NOW who looks 'foolish'?

Back to the question that you ducked: Which theory has been 'proven'?

dog, do you believe that a baby comes from a man and a woman having sex? that the baby has some of each parents DNA? That the baby is not an exact clone of either the mother or father, but an entity all its own?

if so, then whether you accept it or not, you believe in evolution.

I DO NOT believe in 'THE' evolution as most people think of it: being that 'man came from ape'....or '....evolved from pond slime...'. If anyone wishes to believe that their great-great-great-etc, etc, etc grand daddy was a monkey, etc, so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
I DO NOT believe in 'THE' evolution as most people think of it: being that 'man came from ape'....or '....evolved from pond slime...'. If anyone wishes to believe that their great-great-great-etc, etc, etc grand daddy was a monkey, etc, so be it.

Why not ! ?


Do you believe there were other humanoids, like Neanderthal who left a lot of records, yet seemed to vanish at the end of the last ice age ?