This is the thread for everyone who does not undertand/rejects evolution

[Elwood]

They disprove evolution. Tell me your thoughts on them. I think they dont matter because they have to reproduce to make a difference. Dont say "look at the progression!" Because they're more than likely different species.

[skysaw]

They disprove evolution. Now you are just desperately grasping. Wasn't your original argument that they hadn't found transition fossils? At that time, you seemed to be suggesting that such a thing would not support Evolution. Now that I show them to you, you claim that finding them somehow disproves Evolution. One might as well claim that waffles disprove the existence of the moon.

[Elwood]

Despite ALL THAT. Look at my posts disproving evolution. Whats incorrect. Whats your reply to them?

[skysaw]

Despite ALL THAT. Look at my posts disproving evolution. Whats incorrect. Whats your reply to them? No, sorry, you don't get off that easy. "Despite ALL THAT,"...? You can't just wave the fossils away with your magic wand. They are here, and they are here to stay. Your refusal to look at them does nothing to make them disappear. And please stop pretending like you understand their significance. Two hours ago you didn't even know they existed. One hour ago you didn't know they existed in quantity. And now suddenly we're to expect that you are an expert on their characteristics? Shame on you for assuming anyone here wouldn't notice. Nor do the articles you cite touch upon the fossils that I pointed you to. The focus on the whale precursors boiled down to: "Well... it sure doesn't seem like a whale.... CASE CLOSED!" Well excuse me for expecting a little more scientific rigor than that. And about those fossils. How do you suppose they appeared several million years before God created the earth? Pretty weird, huh?

[Elwood]

Carbon dating is flawed in many ways! Here enjoy! http://www.innoval.com/C14/ And here more info again on cavemen. NEANDERTHAL MAN INFORMATION Dave Phillips spoke to our group on Neanderthal Man. His main point was that fossils classified as Neandertal Man are human. Why is this significant? Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I was taught this in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist! Dave is not the only man who teaches that Neanderthal Man is human. In today’s pro-evolution schoolbooks, they usually teach Neanderthal Man is human, and sometimes they teach Neanderthal Man was a separate species. Important Point: What was taught as proof of Evolution in 1974, is now taught as not being proof. Evolution keeps changing its "proof." In order to answer the question if Neanderthal Man was human or not lets look at the data, and then draw a conclusion. NEANDERTHAL FACTS: · Parts of 350 Neanderthals were found. · They were found at 83 different sites (present day Iran, Israel, Iraq, Western Russia, France and Germany to name a few). · The vast majority of fossils attributed to Neandertal Man are fragmentary (bits and pieces of fossils). · They buried their dead with flowers. · They had musical instruments (flutes), tools and fire. · Not all of them lived in caves; many lived in plains. · The average height for males was 5’6" and weight was estimated to be 140 pounds. The average height for women was 5’ 3" and weight was estimated to be 110 lbs. Very human like. {Gender can be determined by the pelvis}. · They had wisdom teeth. · The number and location of their bones is identical to humans. · Their average cranial capacity is 200 cc larger than the human average (this falsifies the Evolution model, supposed human ancestors should have smaller craniums, not larger). · Their cranial capacity, although larger is still within human range. Remember, there is variety among human morphology (morphology is the study of structures of plants and animals). · Their tendency toward thicker craniums, heavy brow ridge, and stockier skeleton is easily explained as human; humans with these characteristics are due to climate and diet. · According to evolutionists, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time as Homo Sapiens. · Some bones, claimed to be from Neanderthal Man, were claimed to be non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn’t taught, is that the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human range. And if it were Neandertal Man’s remains, how was its DNA preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few thousand years! · The evidence supports Neanderthal man was human. Its characteristics are fully within human range, and resemble those of Eskimos, strong and sturdy humans! There are tremendous varieties among people; some are tall, some are short, some have large skulls, some have small skulls (cranial capacity in humans can range between 700 cc to 2300cc). Diet, habitat, and disease may lead to characteristics that are not "average," but still the people are 100% human.

[Replicon]

Well, we could say that in his infinite capabilities, god created the world, fossils and evolution in progress 5000 years ago. In fact, he might have created it 4 minutes ago, with all your memories and stuff. Why not? Luckily, we agnostics know better than to speculate on metadata we can't possibly comprehend .

[spoon]

If only all of those evolutionary scientists had spent the decades it took mastering their fields on google, they might have found the same information as elwood and discovered evolution was a lie. Elwood: what makes you think that you know better than tens of thousands of professionals? You'd think they'd notice such glaring errors in the basis of their entire field. If you're seeing such basic errors in evolution, you probably just have a very basic idea of what evolution is. Edit: I blame the internet. All sources are not created equal, read a science textbook or something

[Elwood]

For spoon. I know the scientists are smarter than i am. In fact most of them are geniuses, but even a genius can be wrong. If such large of cracks are located in the base of evolution then the climb up is even more, less sturdy. By the way, evolution takes more faith than creation.

[spoon]

By the way, evolution takes more faith than creation. I wouldn't have thought so. What do you think evolution is, that it takes so much faith? Of course geniuses can be wrong, but are you seriously suggesting that over a century of geniuses, working within a framework that demands the constant re-evaluation of theories based on any new evidence, failed to notice that their chosen field of study was completely wrong?

[Moonbeam]

Summary Natural Selection occurs every day (it is true). Natural Selection is not evidence that that the Theory of Evolution is true (remember, the Theory of Evolution teaches you have bacteria ancestors). Natural Selection shows that "good traits" in a population survive (a good trait is being a hairy dog in Alaska). Natural Selection shows that "bad traits in a population are eliminated (a bad trait is being a hairless dog in Alaska). Natural Selection deals only with existing traits...it does not create new traits, nor does it create a new population of animals. In this example you started with dogs, and ended with dogs...this is not evidence that you have bacteria ancestors. Oh the macro-vs. micro evolution argument. Your diagram totally proves it. New traits come from mutations. Not the ones that make the parents kill the offspring (your idea above).

[skysaw]

Carbon dating is flawed in many ways! Here enjoy! http://www.innoval.com/C14/ Thank you... yes, I did enjoy. I enjoyed learning that not only do you not read the information I supply you, but you apparently don't even read the information YOU are referencing. From YOUR source: It may well go down as the biggest radiocarbon dating mistake in history; not because there is anything wrong with the measurement process (there may not have been); not because there is anything inherently wrong with carbon 14 dating (there is not); not because of shoddy sample taking (which indeed was shoddy); not because of red flags that should have raised serious questions (there were quite a few); and not even because a basic tenet of archaeological dating was ignored by good scientists. The story was about a particular incident of dating that the author thought was done improperly. He VERY CLEARLY says there is nothing wrong with carbon 14 dating. Look, you're sixteen years old. You have your entire life ahead of you, and there is an enormous amount of information still out there to learn. You do yourself a disservice to reject ideas that have as much merit, evidence, and scientific backing as Evolution. It's ok to question accepted wisdom, but do it by doing your own research sparked by your own ideas, not by reading shoddy non-scientific papers written by people whose only goal is to preserve the literal meaning of the bible no matter what the cost. Real scientific knowledge and discovery is built upon centuries of study by thousands of professionals whose already question what has come before them. When best practices in repeatable experiments contradict standing accepted science, a good scientist shares their findings with other scientists, getting verification. They publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. The help shape our understanding of the universe by working together. They admit mistakes, and every time they do so, we know a little bit more. When you close your mind to the collective findings of the greatest minds of the last thousand years, you do a disservice to yourself. If you can't follow the careful reasoning, the ever cautious process, and the gigantic ever-growing mountain of evidence that supports one of the most deeply studied phenomenon of the last hundred and fifty years, you simply haven't tried. You have formed your baseless opinion, and put up bulletproof blinders to shield you from the truth that assaults you from all sides.

[Sornaensis]

Im sorry what i put was incorrect, i should have wrote. "Not many (enough to matter, millions or more considering the earth is "billions of years old") transitional species have been found." FOR THE LAST TIME ELWOOD! EVERY species is a transitional one, because EVERY one of them is CONSTANTLY changing. Oh, and your "God" violates the first law of thermodynamics. If he came from nothing, then that means there was no matter before him, which disproves your claim.

[wasup]

From YOUR source: LMAO He didn't even read his OWN source!! Good luck trying to get him to read anything else. I've pretty much attempted to give up arguing about this type of thing. It's all fun and all, but until the other person is actually ready to learn, instead of repeatedly spewing out the same "flaws" about evolution over and over again, well, it's not going anywhere. I think in my entire stay at Dreamviews, one person in a debate has admitted "You're right about that, sorry I'm wrong." when someone gave them a source and a bit of information. Unfortunately it seems Elwood is too proud to admit that... even when the very source he posts to defend his position contradicts him.

[Sornaensis]

Carbon dating is flawed in many ways! Here enjoy! http://www.innoval.com/C14/ And here more info again on cavemen. NEANDERTHAL MAN INFORMATION Dave Phillips spoke to our group on Neanderthal Man. His main point was that fossils classified as Neandertal Man are human. Why is this significant? Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I was taught this in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist! Dave is not the only man who teaches that Neanderthal Man is human. In today’s pro-evolution schoolbooks, they usually teach Neanderthal Man is human, and sometimes they teach Neanderthal Man was a separate species. Important Point: What was taught as proof of Evolution in 1974, is now taught as not being proof. Evolution keeps changing its "proof." In order to answer the question if Neanderthal Man was human or not lets look at the data, and then draw a conclusion. NEANDERTHAL FACTS: · Parts of 350 Neanderthals were found. · They were found at 83 different sites (present day Iran, Israel, Iraq, Western Russia, France and Germany to name a few). · The vast majority of fossils attributed to Neandertal Man are fragmentary (bits and pieces of fossils). · They buried their dead with flowers. · They had musical instruments (flutes), tools and fire. · Not all of them lived in caves; many lived in plains. · The average height for males was 5’6" and weight was estimated to be 140 pounds. The average height for women was 5’ 3" and weight was estimated to be 110 lbs. Very human like. {Gender can be determined by the pelvis}. · They had wisdom teeth. · The number and location of their bones is identical to humans. · Their average cranial capacity is 200 cc larger than the human average (this falsifies the Evolution model, supposed human ancestors should have smaller craniums, not larger). · Their cranial capacity, although larger is still within human range. Remember, there is variety among human morphology (morphology is the study of structures of plants and animals). · Their tendency toward thicker craniums, heavy brow ridge, and stockier skeleton is easily explained as human; humans with these characteristics are due to climate and diet. · According to evolutionists, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time as Homo Sapiens. · Some bones, claimed to be from Neanderthal Man, were claimed to be non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn’t taught, is that the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human range. And if it were Neandertal Man’s remains, how was its DNA preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few thousand years! · The evidence supports Neanderthal man was human. Its characteristics are fully within human range, and resemble those of Eskimos, strong and sturdy humans! There are tremendous varieties among people; some are tall, some are short, some have large skulls, some have small skulls (cranial capacity in humans can range between 700 cc to 2300cc). Diet, habitat, and disease may lead to characteristics that are not "average," but still the people are 100% human. 1. We use CALCIUM and ARGON dating, rather than C14 dating when measuring ages now. 2. NEANDERTHALS WERE MEN. That is why they share so many similarities with us H. Sapiens, they are technically our closest realative, NOT the chimp. (that is only our closest LIVING relative) So... Therefore your statement PROVES evolution. . Oh, and to address cranial cpacity, where did you ever read that our ancestors had smaller brains? Did you learn ANYTHING about evolution when you went to the berkeley evolution exibit?

[Moonbeam]

Elwood, the difference between science and faith is that there are things that potentially could be discovered which could change people's minds about science. That is not true of faith--is there any discovery that could be made that would change your mind? I doubt it; therefore your ideas are not based on reason, but emotion. Your arguments have been given up by the "smart" creationists a long time ago. They realized you can't use science to prove religion. By definition, it can't be done. The only ones still using your arguments marry their cousins, dance with serpents, and roll around on the church-floor speaking in tongues.

[Sornaensis]

^ Erm... I thought that the difference between faith and Science is that faith is taken with no proof. Science will ONLY accept proof, so therefore, you don't "Believe" in evolution, you ACCEPT it, or you don't. In either case it happens, because evolution (being an inanimate entity) could care less of your OP. Oh, and the THEORY of evolution may have problems, but that's because it is an EXPLANATION written by man that will change as new evidence comes. But regardless, EVOLUTION happens wheather you accept it or not, but the theory WILL change because we will eventually learn more about it . Oh, and PLEASE, i asked for you to read the WHOLE thing before making silly arguments: http://evolution.berkeley.edu <--- get an education, man.

[Adam]

Interesting post... Which came first, the Chicken or the egg? I assume the Chicken? They evolved to produce eggs rather than just spurt out a baby?

[Adrenaline Junkie]

Interesting post... Which came first, the Chicken or the egg? I assume the Chicken? They evolved to produce eggs rather than just spurt out a baby? My master makes a very good point. I've always agreed with the theory of evolution, its the most plausible and most evident theory of life, and theres evidence of evolution so i'm sticking with this.

[Sornaensis]

*waits for elwood to combatant his last few posts*...

[Replicon]

Elwood: Write a scientific paper about this and submit it. If nobody noticed these cracks, and if none of the other people on google/myspace thought of doing that, you'll be hailed as a genius.

[Keeper]

You do know that that has been done, right?

[skysaw]

You do know that that has been done, right? When they leave out the "scientific" part, we leave out the "hailing" part.

[blahaha]

I see a whole lot of BS. Why would you have such a big ta-do about something that cant be proven? Theres so many flaws in evolution its a joke. Im only using science. Theres no transition species to be found. Besides what happens when a mutated animal is born? The parents kill it. Not it continues in the circle of life. Here read this instead http://www.fishdontwalk.com/ I'm not even going to bother with reading this whole thing. They die because the change is too drastic, evolution happens over millions of years.

[Keeper]

if you dont read the whole thing, how can you be sure there isn't truth in it?

[Sornaensis]

Because it is 100% biased and written by Creationists trying to preserve the false literelizations of the bible.