Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[hammer01 29]

Normally those are news which are taken out of proporsion by the media.

Well I still need some evidence. Some rock solid evidence...

[Jistuma 1996]

Well I still need some evidence. Some rock solid evidence...

Sorry, for? Some fossils are just teeth, others just some bones

[Campor 28]

Well I still need some evidence. Some rock solid evidence...

There is rock solid evidence. You don't need a full skeleton to be able to tell that something is not quite human, but not quite ape. Neanderthals are not homo-sapiens, which we are, because they changed drastically over the years. That is an intermediate.

[hammer01 29]

Sorry, for? Some fossils are just teeth, others just some bones

I need a fossil, that is more than just a few bones, that can unmistakeably be called a neanderthal.

 

There is rock solid evidence. You don't need a full skeleton to be able to tell that something is not quite human, but not quite ape. Neanderthals are not homo-sapiens, which we are, because they changed drastically over the years. That is an intermediate.

No, but i need more than just one tooth.

[Jistuma 1996]

I need a fossil, that is more than just a few bones, that can unmistakeably be called a neanderthal.

 

No, but i need more than just one tooth.

There are quite a few number of almost complete skulls of ancestors of humans, and some very well preserved almost complete fossils like "Lucy".

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

That is a list of some of the fossils, some have images, some don't. Take a look at it, and know that it is still not all of them. Also, Wiki is just a fast way... I don't want to oversearch things.

[hammer01 29]

There are quite a few number of almost complete skulls of ancestors of humans, and some very well preserved almost complete fossils like "Lucy".

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

That is a list of some of the fossils, some have images, some don't. Take a look at it, and know that it is still not all of them. Also, Wiki is just a fast way... I don't want to oversearch things.

OK, now what makes them say, just from these bones, that they are actually from a Neanderthal?

[Dun_Irongut 104]

Lucy, for example, was found in a sedimentary layer that has been dated. What are you suggesting?

[cj_scout 305]

Cheese. I believe in cheese.

 

[Jistuma 1996]

OK, now what makes them say, just from these bones, that they are actually from a Neanderthal?

Neanderthal is the name they gave to that specie. Reasons for that, it was dated, and compared to other fossils, it's features studied, and it was concluded that the skull was not from no animal alive. They then started seeing similarities with other fossils and with the human bones. Soon they could conclude, from the dating methods and the many numbers of fossils being discovered that they fit together as evolution of not one, but several species. They even discovered the fossils that would seperate from those of humans and go towards the ape decendancy. The same happened to other primates, until the common anscester of all the primates.

 

All this does not go only on the fossils being allined and checking the small diferences between them, and make a line, but then that is also tested in many different dating systems, which proven that that order was infact correct. Also there were some chemical analisis.

[Dranday 28]

I personally believe in evolution, and I think the universe began with something like this...

 

The universe began as
nothing. The boundary between turbulence and order (I think) was all
that was anywhere. Anything could happen, so a small sea of particles
formed. Around this sea formed a group of black holes. These sucked in
the particles and spit them out in white holes (black hole-white hole
theory is real, just can't remember its name, sadly). The universe began
in many points all at once. The white holes formed at a static distance
from the sea, forming a sphere. these particles flew outwards in every
direction, forming the base of our universe. These particles bonded and
ripped apart and bonded again. Again, and again, and again.
 

 

A large hunk of molten rock draws smaller hunks of
molten rock to it, adding to its mass. A small ball of gas is lit and
starts combusting. The gas ball grows and the molten rock hunk is drawn
into orbit. It orbits it for a while until something unexpected happens:
it begins to cool. the small gas ball fails and is snuffed out. The
somewhat cooled planet shoots forward, propelled by the previous orbit.
Gasses collect in this planet's orbit and form a thin atmosphere. Over
time enough gasses collect and a cloud-like shape of denser gas forms. A
charge builds between the ground and gas until a lightning bolt goes
off, giving the power to chemically form water. This process repeats for
years. This planet nears the orbit of a sun and collides with a planet,
its water supply cooling it rapidly before flying into orbit. This
newly cooled planet with its new atmosphere begins to form clouds and
lightning. One day a chemical reaction fueled by lightning formed a
protein pool. A lipid pool formed under similar circumstances. All the
components to a simple prokaryote formed and small bits got into a small group. That's where life started, fueled by that final bolt.

 

EVENTUALLY,
it became a smarter cell. It eventually formed a primitive RNA and
formed some crappy DNA. Many MANY MANY MAANY thousands of years later
enough accidental mutations with the crap cell dying out and starting
over made it smart enough to produce more advanced membrane-bound organelles.

 

Your biology class probably explained the rest. Enjoy!

[Wavejammers 328]

I need a fossil, that is more than just a few bones, that can unmistakeably be called a neanderthal.

 

No, but i need more than just one tooth.

I need physical evedince of god, I want a piece og him, more than just his leg.

 

No, but I need more than just a book for evedince.

 

Cheese. I believe in cheese.

You're actually more 'right' than any of us, you can see cheese, you can taste it, you can feel it. There is more evedince for cheese, than god and The Big Bang.

[hammer01 29]

School has started back up for me today, so I won't able to reply very fast. I'll reply later tonight...

[Shadeleaf 1022]

Well, I shall  simply put this here, 

I don't care to much to write a giant response as to why Creation is wrong, but I do think this man does an extremely good job through his videos and saves me unneeded words here, my true favorites are the second and third, and the ones that have effected me the most, the links are below if you wish to listen on and are not completely set in your ways, and wish to hear an explanation.

One of my favorite quotes, "A good tree can not bear bad fruit", Well look at humans.

 #2 What gods may or may not exist/beliefs now.

 #3 The Null Theory

[Bristlebranch 808]

I understand the necessity for religions, and respect all religions and cultural ideology. However, it is in my personal opinion, that the logic and facts backing evolution surpass that of creation. There are 4,000 years of documented deities/religions, and thousands if not millions of theories of how humans came to be. However, none of them had any backing (proof), until Evolution. Did the gods sitting up on Mount Olympus create humans from clay? Or perhaps the one 'God' created all there is. Now, I must reiterate, I respect all religions and beliefs, but I personally reject the idea of creationism. Evolution simply makes more sense to me.

[hammer01 29]

I need physical evedince of god, I want a piece og him, more than just his leg.

 

No, but I need more than just a book for evedince.

 

You're actually more 'right' than any of us, you can see cheese, you can taste it, you can feel it. There is more evedince for cheese, than god and The Big Bang.

 

 

You`re mocking me, aren't you?

 

 

 

But really. I would be more than glad to discuss me beliefs civilly , without being made fun of at every turn... so if you wish to discuss, by all means! Show me why the Bible is wrong!

Neanderthal is the name they gave to that specie. Reasons for that, it was dated, and compared to other fossils, it's features studied, and it was concluded that the skull was not from no animal alive. They then started seeing similarities with other fossils and with the human bones. Soon they could conclude, from the dating methods and the many numbers of fossils being discovered that they fit together as evolution of not one, but several species. They even discovered the fossils that would seperate from those of humans and go towards the ape decendancy. The same happened to other primates, until the common anscester of all the primates.

 

All this does not go only on the fossils being allined and checking the small diferences between them, and make a line, but then that is also tested in many different dating systems, which proven that that order was infact correct. Also there were some chemical analisis.

 

Here as a quote of someone that begs to differ:

 

 

If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate

ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in

the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce

that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact

is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still

be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.¹

    

This is still an exaggeration since it concedes that various

specimens are part of human evolution. Australopithecines, for example,

are not considered transitional forms anymore, but a branch of the

primate evolutionary tree. True transitional forms are still missing.

(“Transitional forms” refer to those creatures which represent

intermediate states of development for a supposed ape-like ancestor down

to man.)

    

But what about Lucy? This most recent discovery in Africa is being

heralded by many as a true transitional form, typically a replacement

for the outmoded australopithecines. Could this be hasty judgment? Let’s

examine the evidence. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size

of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr.

Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more

complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of

the body have been recovered.

    

The age is “estimated” to be 3.2 million years. The find includes a

V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with

very little skull fragments.² There were other finds at the same

location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.

    

What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to

Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small,

ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly

ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern

chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped,

totally unlike human jaws.

    

And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked

upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone

at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle

of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is

much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy and

the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.³

    

Does this make her an upright walker? Present day orangutan and

spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept

tree climbers. Some experts argue that the higher angle makes her a

better climber.⁴ This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction rather than

clear scientific thinking.

    

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at

the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and

why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already

mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most

chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he

opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was

quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far

away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually

discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson

answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three

kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why

are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical

similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

    

After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and

continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly

DNA homology) is good proof for evolution.

Tom Willis responded that “similar structures nearly always have similar

plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints.” After more

discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: “If

you don’t believe homology, then you don’t believe evolution, and

evolution is a fact!“⁵

    

What about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put

together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of

Lucy’s bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic

scenario – such as a world wide flood?

    

What about Dr. Johanson’s credibility? To his credit, he does talk

about the tentative nature of this type of science. But another

evolutionary writer says this about the search for humanlike (homonid)

bones; “When it comes to finding a new ‘star’ as our animal ancestor,

there is no business like bone business.⁶

    

Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture

puts it this way, “By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented

the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like

those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be

paid an honorarium.“⁷ Regardless of the motives involved for finding our

evolutionary “ancestor”, we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged

as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with

another knee-jerk explanation.

 

So Lucy`s hip bone, the key factor in proving that she wasn't just another ape, was found 1.5 miles away! Don't you find that... disturbing?

 

Well, I shall  simply put this here, 

I don't care to much to write a giant response as to why Creation is wrong, but I do think this man does an extremely good job through his videos and saves me unneeded words here, my true favorites are the second and third, and the ones that have effected me the most, the links are below if you wish to listen on and are not completely set in your ways, and wish to hear an explanation.

One of my favorite quotes, "A good tree can not bear bad fruit", Well look at humans.

 #2 What gods may or may not exist/beliefs now.

 #3 The Null Theory

 

I would watch these, but my parents hate YouTube, and have thus banned me from watching anything on it... so i cant really respond to this...

 

I understand the necessity for religions, and respect all religions and cultural ideology. However, it is in my personal opinion, that the logic and facts backing evolution surpass that of creation. There are 4,000 years of documented deities/religions, and thousands if not millions of theories of how humans came to be. However, none of them had any backing (proof), until Evolution. Did the gods sitting up on Mount Olympus create humans from clay? Or perhaps the one 'God' created all there is. Now, I must reiterate, I respect all religions and beliefs, but I personally reject the idea of creationism. Evolution simply makes more sense to me.

This is, unfortunately, the conclusion most people come to. I am here to prove that evolution isn't all its hyped up to be... so you can read my previous posts if you want to!