Since Evolution Is The Answer - Tell Me When Can I Expect To Grow My Wings And Fly

[Woo Bum-kon]

Holy shit, robdiaz is one stupid motherfucker.

[RD2191]

Holy shit, robdiaz is one stupid motherfucker.
Insults because has no logical response.

[Woo Bum-kon]

And evolution is a about adapting best to one's environment over time, not turning into a super mutant who can fly and control the weather, or whatever nonsense Koolaid thinks it's about.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Insults because has no logical response.

You're an idiot who asked about the location of all the Neanderthals. You also don't understand what a common ancestor is.

If you actually want to learn about evolution, instead of just bashing it because it makes you feel better about your invisible sky daddy, go to talkorigins.com.

[RD2191]

so then how did birds come to be? did a frog keep jumping until he finally evolved into a bird?

[RD2191]

been there already, full of shit

[ChumpDumper]

Answer to OPs question please.He's not getting them.

Answered.

[RD2191]

and where are the Neanderthals? they had tools and could even speak a little, yet they died out but the gorilla and chimp survived? OK

[ChumpDumper]

and where are the Neanderthals? they had tools and could even speak a little, yet they died out but the gorilla and chimp survived? OKYep. Blows your little mind, doesn't it?

[RD2191]

here's to logic:toast

[RD2191]

:lmao

[Woo Bum-kon]

so then how did birds come to be? did a frog keep jumping until he finally evolved into a bird?

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Google the velociraptor or oviraptor or the numerous other bird-like dinosaurs.

Again, if you ACTUALLY WANT TO LEARN ABOUT EVOLUTION, you would stop asking stupid questions to random people on a sports message board and go READ about it. Your moronic questions would be quickly answered if you took the least bit of effort to research the subject.

[xmas1997]

Frogs jumping until they became birds???
Geeez, this thread is inane.

[Trill Clinton]

2 more guests and I hit the 100 mark...awesome


please tell me you did not crack the 100 mark??? bruh i been trying to crack a hunnid and always max out at around 80, 85. congrats my nighttp://i41.tinypic.com/24oav5l.png


anyways, after reading through the thread i can understand where the non believers are coming from. it wasn't too long ago i was one of them. i was bitter, angry, confrontational....when i found out someone was a christian, catholic, muslim, etc, i couldn't wait to pounce on them and laugh in their face. what made it worse was i also dabbled in illegal activities and it finally caught up to me.

to make a long story short, i called out to God in a moment of need, a life or death situation if you will and to my surprise he answered me. i went from sitting in a cell to living a blessed life with no worries. now its sad that it took me almost losing my freedom for the next 20 years to humble myself and ask the lord for his salvation but for whatever reason he did and i thank him for it every day.http://i39.tinypic.com/2mdyu.png

[RD2191]

I know plenty of the subject and have researched it for a long time, its easy to point out its many flaws.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Frogs jumping until they became birds???
Geeez, this thread is inane.

Koolaid_Man and robdiaz are just showing the typical Bible thumper's willful ignorance when it comes to understanding what evolution is.

[RD2191]

Gorilla still here, Chimp still here, Human still here, where are the rest of em?

[ChumpDumper]

Gorilla still here, Chimp still here, Human still here, where are the rest of em?You still shut down.

[RD2191]

:lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

I know plenty of the subject and have researched it for a long time, its easy to point out its many flaws.

If you knew about the subject, why did you ask where birds came from? Why did you ask where all the Neanderthals went? Why do you not understand what a common ancestor is? Why do you keep asking these stupid questions on a sports message board instead of reading a book or an article or a webpage about evolution? For somebody who knows about the subject, you're woefully uninformed.

Like mouse, you don't understand what evolution is and you don't want to understand. You are an extremely shitty poster who whines about atheists being irrational while at the same time hiding behind faith and refusing to explain your beliefs or why you believe them. You then claim victory, post emoticons, then circlejerk with shitty posters like sbm.

tl;dr: Kill yourself.

[Joseph Kony]

this fuckin bean3r's pussy is still sore from the brutal pounding i put on it 4 days ago? 4 fucking days? :lol dumbfuck must be having nightmares about that footlong Kony in his ass

[RD2191]

Because I want your answers. Same as how atheist keep on asking questions about God.

[RD2191]

Kony, real name? Or are you a bitch nigga?

[Joseph Kony]

or perhaps they're wet dreams and he's hungry for more of Kony's bbc so he comes here to get online buttfucking and bukkake :lol

[lefty]

I would like to have sex with women just through telepathy...when do we get there?

One step at a time

Start by having physical sex with real, alive women, then you can start thinking about telepathic sex

[RD2191]

The possibility of linking humans with earlier apes by descent became clear only after 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin)'s On the Origin of Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species), in which he argued for the idea of the evolution of new species from earlier ones. Darwin's book did not address the question of human evolution, saying only that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".

[Joseph Kony]

He just keeps on opening his mouth wider :lol smile like a donut bitch

[RD2191]

So before Darwin, no one had thought of the idea that we evolved from apes, not even the first western civilization in Mesopotamia. They believed in a deity and religion. They supposedly evolved from apes yet nowhere in their ancient writings do they mention evolving from apes. And why didn't they? Wouldn't they know their own history or where they came from? Seeing as their ancestors supposedly lived alongside Neanderthals and possibly even mated with them?

[RD2191]

Calls me a bitch, refuses to give name. Hides behind a troll account. PUSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[Woo Bum-kon]

Because I want your answers. Same as how atheist keep on asking questions about God.

Our ancestors are irrelevant, because this is not a matter of opinion. Atheists on here asked you about your personal beliefs as theist as a starting point to a discussion. You keep dodging the question because you're a pussy.

You don't understand even the basics of evolution, so quit trying to claim otherwise. Your questions are embarrassingly stupid.

[RD2191]

So before Darwin, no one had thought of the idea that we evolved from apes, not even the first western civilization in Mesopotamia. They believed in a deity and religion. They supposedly evolved from apes yet nowhere in their ancient writings do they mention evolving from apes. And why didn't they? Wouldn't they know their own history or where they came from? Seeing as their ancestors supposedly lived alongside Neanderthals and possibly even mated with them?

[RD2191]

Not a matter of opinion, so you can prove that God does not exist and that evolution it true?

[Woo Bum-kon]

So before Darwin, no one had thought of the idea that we evolved from apes, not even the first western civilization in Mesopotamia. They believed in a deity and religion. They supposedly evolved from apes yet nowhere in their ancient writings do they mention evolving from apes. And why didn't they? Wouldn't they know their own history or where they came from? Seeing as their ancestors supposedly lived alongside Neanderthals and possibly even mated with them?

:lol And now you have shown that you don't even understand the basics of history. Just google "prehistory," because you're just making a fool out of yourself. Also, find out when Neanderthals died out and compare that to the period in which humanity started recording history.

[RD2191]

okay then. so then humans just appeared?:lmao

[RD2191]

God wins.:lol

[RD2191]

okay so where is it written that we came from apes, almost all ancient civilizations believe in a deity, why?

[RD2191]

it all leads up to civilization you dumb fuck. a civilization which believed in a higher power and religion. god good you're a fucking idiot.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Not a matter of opinion, so you can prove that God does not exist and that evolution it true?

:lol
1.) Nice strawman with the God claim. You are either lying/assuming about what I claimed or you do not understand what atheism is.
2.) Evolution is true. There are mountains of evidence supporting it. Now, before you cry "theory" like the typical ignorant Bible thumper, you have to understand that the THEORY of evolution is an explanation of the phenomenon of evolution, just like the THEORY of gravity explains the phenomenon of gravity.

Again, all you have to do is google. All the information you could possibly want to know about evolution is a second away.

[RD2191]

scientific law, and the strawman bullshit is getting old

[RD2191]

name one ancient civilization that believes we evolved from apes

[RD2191]

still hasn't answered question

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lmao robdiaz thinks that since primitive humans didn't believe in evolution, that that is somehow evidence against it. Never mind that for most of human history, we didn't believe in and/or understand gravity, forces in general, atom, germs, biology, physics in general, electricity, medicine, etc.

But primitive cultures not understanding evolution is somehow a big knock against it, even though they couldn't write and thought that lightning was magic.

:rollin You are borderline retarded.

[Joseph Kony]

Woo skullfucking the retard :lol

[baseline bum]

:lol
1.) Nice strawman with the God claim. You are either lying/assuming about what I claimed or you do not understand what atheism is.
2.) Evolution is true. There are mountains of evidence supporting it. Now, before you cry "theory" like the typical ignorant Bible thumper, you have to understand that the THEORY of evolution is an explanation of the phenomenon of evolution, just like the THEORY of gravity explains the phenomenon of gravity.

Again, all you have to do is google. All the information you could possibly want to know about evolution is a second away.

The theory of evolution is worlds stronger than the theory of gravity tbh. Bible thumpers love hearing that one.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Holy shit! Is this moron using ancient humans as a reliable reference to how the world works even though we as a species know far more now about reality than at any other point in human history? Is this moron actually using cavemen who barely knew how to communicate with each other as a point of reference?

[Joseph Kony]

The theory of evolution is worlds stronger than the theory of gravity tbh.

and yet we see it proven everyday, just from us being rooted to the ground. says a lot about the meaning of a scientific theory but the sheeple think it means the same thing as guess :lmao

[RD2191]

plenty of ancient civilizations yet not one of them knew where they came from or how they got there?:lmao:lmao

[Joseph Kony]

Holy shit! Is this moron using ancient humans as a reliable reference to how the world works even though we as a species know far more now about reality than at any other point in human history? Is this moron actually using cavemen who barely knew how to communicate with each other as a point of reference?

His explanation for how god came to be was "god did it." He exudes stupidity

[RD2191]

makes perfect sense, and this dipshit like all atheist claim that ancient civilizations were dumb yet they paved the way for humanity.

[RD2191]

plenty of ancient civilizations yet not one of them knew where they came from or how they got there?:lmao:lmao

[Joseph Kony]

and all ancient civilizations also believed that sacrifice of some kind would bring them rain. how's that working out these days :lmao

[Shastafarian]

This is truly entertaining.

[ElNono]

robdiaz is also proof evolution isn't infallible, tbh... :lol

[Joseph Kony]

ancient civilizations thought the sun was a god in the sky. wrong about det one too :lmao

[Woo Bum-kon]

makes perfect sense, and this dipshit like all atheist claim that ancient civilizations were dumb yet they paved the way for humanity.

First of all, those two claims aren't mutually exclusive. Second, ancient civilizations were dumb relative to modern humans. That's a fact. We know far, far more now than they knew then.

It's just baffling to me that you point out one scientific concept that they didn't understand as proof that that concept is wrong, even though there are countless other scientific concepts that you believe in (I assume) that didn't understand either.

Your use argument makes not a single shred of sense. You are singling out evolution for absolutely no reason.

[Joseph Kony]

ancient civilizations also believed the earth was the center of the universe. 0/3 :lmao

[RD2191]

so who forgot to convey the message? no one knew that they came from apes yet their ancestors were there when they supposedly evolved and mated?

[Joseph Kony]

ancient civilizations didn't know anything about viruses or contagions and thought that illnesses were caused by magic. so microbes don't exist because ancients didn't know they did? oh noes wrong again!

[baseline bum]

and yet we see it proven everyday, just from us being rooted to the ground. says a lot about the meaning of a scientific theory but the sheeple think it means the same thing as guess :lmao

It's pretty funny when bible thumpers act like they're not nihilists against science by claiming gravity as the model established scientific theory. That's when I start asking them about metric tensors and what value the cosmological constant should have tbh.

[RD2191]

no answer to my question i see

[Joseph Kony]

ancient civilizations thought if they offered up a pure virgin to their sky daddies that they would show them favor. Whoops, looks like they're wrong again!

[RD2191]

so who can answer the question?

[Joseph Kony]

ancient civilizations thought that vampires, dragons, and griffins existed to! so they must be right!

nope, wrong again mouthbreather :lol

[RD2191]

still no answer:toast

[RD2191]

still waiting for an answer to the question

[clambake]

the answer is yes.......you are stupid.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol This moron ignores every answer to his incredibly stupid and nonsensical questions, then claims victory over and over again.

[Joseph Kony]

so who can answer the question?
because they had no technology dumbass, they had no way of observing or measuring anything. they used to think the fucking world was flat for fucks sake. they looked up into the sky and saw weird shit that they couldn't explain and tried to explain it. they had no means to explore space or even get good looks at other planets. they didn't understand the world around them and came up with a magical tale to explain shit.

now shut the fuck up and open your mouth for some more loads faggot. we all know your next post will be an incomprehensible and poorly written, shit attempt at proclaiming victory or moving onto some other stupid ass claim that means nothing. when you're done swallowing loads in this thread be sure to get some preparation H for that sore asshole of yours, you will need it if you wanna take some more poundings, which we all know you do. :tu

[Joseph Kony]

:lol This moron ignores every answer to his incredibly stupid and nonsensical questions, then claims victory over and over again.

I'm just waiting for him to start using the ol' Descartes logic (someone he probably doesn't know ever existed and will google immediately after this post to claim he did) with something like "yeah well who thought up god then? i mean this idea didnt just come to be it must have been put there by god! take that!"

[RD2191]

still doesn't explain how they wouldn't know where they came from

[RD2191]

how could they not know?

[RD2191]

it all lead up to civilization, yet not one remembers that they supposedly descended from apes?

[Joseph Kony]

For the same reason that you cannot form a coherent or logical thought. They were primitive thinkers

[RD2191]

bull fuckin shit

[Woo Bum-kon]

still doesn't explain how they wouldn't know where they came from

They weren't smart enough to understand evolution by natural selection, didn't have the tools to examine it, and weren't capable of writing about it.

Again, they didn't know where lightning came from. Does that mean that Zeus is real? They didn't understand why crops failed, so does that mean that human sacrifice increases the likelihood of yielding successful crops? Lots of information about the human history has been lost forever. Your question is completely meaningless and irrelevant.

[Joseph Kony]

Sweet, nice retort/admission of failure. Make sure you wipe up, you got some semen dripping of your chin

[RD2191]

internet tough guy:lol:toast

[Clipper Nation]

how could they not know?
How do you know that absolutely no primitive people knew?

[RD2191]

so they all made up gods? not one of them could remember that they came from a monkey? :lol

[Joseph Kony]

Very typical of sheeple, when backed into a corner and faced with mountains of evidence in opposition of their delusions they cling to a random question with an ambiguous answer and try to assert that this is somehow proof of god because their little peabrains cannot process intellectual thought.

[RD2191]

How do you know that absolutely no primitive people knew?
did any of them write it down? sure seems like it would be significant to know ones own origins. maybe just pass a story along. but no, they all made up gods and believed in a creator.

[Woo Bum-kon]

so they all made up gods?

Of course.


not one of them could remember that they came from a monkey? :lol

:lol You have done so little research on evolution that it's embarrassing. Evolution doesn't claim that humans evolved from monkeys. If you are going to reject it, at least understand what it is first.

[Joseph Kony]

They didn't even have written language at the time you stupid fuck. Can anyone be this completely fucking retarded? How are you not locked up in state institution?

[RD2191]

ok then woo, where did humans come from?

[Clipper Nation]

The average American likely didn't know of the Internet until the early-to-mid '90s, that means what we're typing on right now doesn't really exist! /Jeebotardiaz "logic"

[RD2191]

no shit sherlock. that's why i said at least pass on a story

[RD2191]

I guess they all just forgot where they came from

[Joseph Kony]

"why didn't these people who didn't have written language just write it down? couldnt they use a sharpie?" :lmao

[Joseph Kony]

"i mean they could barely speak and didn't have a developed language or system of writing but they should have an encyclopedia written somewhere!"

[RD2191]

cave paintings or something:lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

They didn't even have written language at the time you stupid fuck. Can anyone be this completely fucking retarded? How are you not locked up in state institution?

And this moron doesn't even understand that evolution occurs over several years/generations, making it generally undetectable from one generation to the next, ESPECIALLY BY CAVEMEN WHO THOUGHT FIRE WAS MAGIC AND COULDN'T EVEN WRITE.

This has to be up there as one of the most idiotic arguments against evolution I have ever read.

[RD2191]

how did humans come to be woo?

[RD2191]

never answered that

[Joseph Kony]

yeah because they totally knew how to use make rudimentary paint for caves from the moment the first humanoid was born! how could they not? couldn't they just google it

[Joseph Kony]

how did humans come to be woo?

Evolution did it

[Woo Bum-kon]

how did humans come to be woo?

talkorigins.org

You have done nothing but dodge other people's questions, so your complaints about others ignoring yours are just oozing with hypocrisy.

[RD2191]

Well i say God did it, now what happens?

[UZER]

Dude, what the hell is going on in your sig? Its creeping me out!

[Woo Bum-kon]

Well i say God did it, now what happens?

You present evidence for your claim, just like evolutionary biologists have presented evidence for theirs.

[RD2191]

Seems like a biased website but still checking it out.

[Clipper Nation]

Seems like a biased website
:lmao Says the dumbass who quotes Bible verses as "proof" of his side....

[Joseph Kony]

Irrelevant question involving something he cannot understand and how it must've been done by god and/or bible verses incoming

[Joseph Kony]

biased :lol

yep, anything that doesn't involve sky daddy is biased to the sheeple

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol biased website. In almost no other field of science does one encounter morons like this with such absolutely ridiculous objections to the established theories.

[Joseph Kony]

obsessed dumbshit in this thread non-stop since it's creation :lol

[RD2191]

still doesn't answer my question. if all humans evolved from one common ancestor then how did any of them not know where they came from? doesn't make any sense. according to the site, modern humans lived alongside Neanderthals and yet not one mention of them?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it all lead up to civilization, yet not one remembers that they supposedly descended from apes?

homo erectus, neanderthal, homo habilus, etc Now what in current times could relate to a historical link? Hmm.......

SGd8ZzZ56AU

Where do you think the concept of a caveman came from?

[RD2191]

still talking shit hiding behind a screen:toast

[FuzzyLumpkins]

still doesn't answer my question. if all humans evolved from one common ancestor then how did any of them not know where they came from? doesn't make any sense. according to the site, modern humans lived alongside Neanderthals and yet not one mention of them?

Do you know your family history 8 generations back? and something that does not make sense to you is no reason that it could not be true. It just means you cannot figure something out.

I can demonstrate that by going over some of euhler's proofs if you like.

[Joseph Kony]

we answered your question numerous times clown. just because you're too stupid to understand or refuse to accept it doesn't change that. so cling to a different statement that we can all take turns shitting on

[Joseph Kony]

still talking shit hiding behind a screen:toast

if i ever see you in austin ill fucking destroy you. i never roll alone

[RD2191]

still hiding:lol

[RD2191]

is the big bad atheist scared?:lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

the only way for the op to get anywhere as close to having wings....go get a pair of wings tattoos on ur back to remind yourself ur a fag waiting for td to come over fck u in the ass off the street, so fck peace call the cops when u see 2pac

[Joseph Kony]

refusing to acknowledge truth bombs :lol

[RD2191]

if i ever see you in austin ill fucking destroy you. i never roll alone
:lmaowhere do you wanna meet up pussy? and i roll alone.

[Joseph Kony]

is the big bad atheist scared?:lol

gnsf too stupid to get it :lmao

[Clipper Nation]

still doesn't answer my question.
Mainly because it's a retarded question :lol

[RD2191]

Do you know your family history 8 generations back? and something that does not make sense to you is no reason that it could not be true. It just means you cannot figure something out.

I can demonstrate that by going over some of euhler's proofs if you like.
of course not, but i know i came from a human, not a fuckin ape

[Joseph Kony]

humans didnt come from apes jeebotard. you however are the product of inbreeding

[FuzzyLumpkins]

of course not, but i know i came from a human, not a fuckin ape

I just destroyed your argument. You do realize that right?

You are claiming that people 1000s of years ago should have known their history from 100k years ago and use that as a basis. You cannot even go back 200 years.

We can move on from your asinine assertion. Go ahead with your asinine back and forth with Kony.

[Clipper Nation]

By the way, dumbfuck, there were early attempts at theories of evolution and natural selection dating all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome - look up Anaximander of Miletus and "De Rerum Natura"....

[Leetonidas]

This shit is getting old already

[RD2191]

:lolSite is full of shit

[Clipper Nation]

:lolSite is full of shit
Translation:

:cry "Anything that contradicts my fairy tales is full of shit!" :cry

[RD2191]

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago.
Neandertal (or Neanderthal (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/spelling.html)) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago.

Still doesn't explain what came before humans.

[Rogue]

interesting discussion imho. you don't need a pair of wings to fly though. Superman doesn't have no wings but he can fly faster than any bird. and if I could get some good genomes from other animals I'd choose turtles' genes rather than birds, so I would live several hundred years longer than a human's expected lifetime

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago.
Neandertal (or Neanderthal (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/spelling.html)) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago.

Still doesn't explain what came before humans.

It's not hard to look up the fossil records they have of australopithecus and onwards. You can also look up the DNA comparisons. That you only bring up neanderthal just speaks to your ignorance and nothing more. want me to look it up for you?

[RD2191]

A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago

[RD2191]

pretty big gap there bud

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago

and onwards.....

habilus is the next on the record I believe. Haven't looked into the specifics in awhile though. And look at the date neanderthal first shows up and when sapien first shows up. Which one is first? I do question whether we are a distinct species because we could reproduce with them at least at one point. It is somewhat fluid genetic drift being what it is.

We really need to work on your critical thinking skills. I don't have time nor inclination to tutor you. I am going to start the game. Peace.

[RD2191]

:lolfull of shit

[RD2191]

and no, according to the site they eventually evolve or die off, each species eventually evolving or dying off, and so on and so forth until humans appear. yet Neanderthals walk alongside modern humans for a significant amount of time, how is that possible when they supposedly evolved into humans? how is it that only some of them evolved and not the others? which brings me back to my point, not one human remembered walking alongside Neanderthals and even mating with them for almost 160,000 years?

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol still thinking humans evolved from Neanderthals
:lol still looking for some kind of writing from some primitive humans that says, "Oh, by the way, we lived with Neanderthals."
:lol still no logical refutations against evolution

[RD2191]

:lolstill cant answer how humans came to be

[RD2191]

:lolstill cant answer question

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol still asking how humans came to be on a sports message board instead of researching it yourself.

[RD2191]

research is done and the theory is full of shit

[Woo Bum-kon]

For reasons you have yet to explain. All I have seen from you are horrifically stupid misrepresentations of what evolution actually is. You don't even understand the every basics of the thing you keep bitching about.

[RD2191]

and no, according to the site they eventually evolve or die off, each species eventually evolving or dying off, and so on and so forth until humans appear. yet Neanderthals walk alongside modern humans for a significant amount of time, how is that possible when they supposedly evolved into humans? how is it that only some of them evolved and not the others? which brings me back to my point, not one human remembered walking alongside Neanderthals and even mating with them for almost 160,000 years?

[RD2191]

answer the question

[RD2191]

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg

[RD2191]

all lead to Neanderthals and eventually modern humans

[Woo Bum-kon]

Your questions are stupid. First of all, humans did not just evolve from Neanderthals. Secondly, your point about no human remembering that they walked with Neanderthals is nonsense. This occurred before written history, dumbass. All the people who would have remembered it are long dead. What do you want to see? Cave paintings of humans with Neanderthals? How would one be able to distinguish them from each other? Why would humans feel it noteworthy to point out the differences between Neanderthals and themselves?

What exactly are you objecting to? Are you objecting to the claim that humans and Neanderthals coexisted? Your questions just reek of hindsight bias. Primitive humans would not have seen their ancestry as the big deal that you are making it out to be.

[Leetonidas]

There was a mass extinction during their lifetimes that wiped nearly everyone out on the entire planet, the small bit of survivors were early humans who eventually became us. Feel better now?

[RD2191]

what did they evolve from then? because every other hominid species was already extinct except for neanderthals, so i ask once again? what led to humans?

[RD2191]

Homo heidelbergensisHomo sapiens neanderthalensis Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)

[Spur|n|Austin]

what did they evolve from then? because every other hominid species was already extinct except for neanderthals, so i ask once again? what led to humans?


It's 9:28 and you're still quite stupid. I think you need to step away from the computer and get out of the house or something. I'm almost baffled I came back to the exact same thing from you 6 hours later.

[Woo Bum-kon]

And I ask you yet again, what exactly is your argument? State your premises and your conclusion. Right now, you're just asking dumb question after dumb question. When are you going to post a coherent argument?

[RD2191]

for the millionth time, cant answer question, your own link made you look like a dumbass

[RD2191]

stupid once again coming from the engaged man asking for kate upton tit pics on ST:toast

[Leetonidas]

http://www.demotivation.us/media/demotivators/demotivation.us_CREATIONISTS-Im-right-youre-wrong.-La-la-la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you_13603299712.jpg

[Spur|n|Austin]

Like a moth to a flame :lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

for the millionth time, cant answer question, your own link made you look like a dumbass

What link? talkorigins? It made me look like a dumbass how? You keep asking the same stupid questions over and over again.

What. Is. Your. Argument? What is the point that you are trying to make?

[RD2191]

more like woo, never answered the question, says we didn't evolve from Neanderthals yet every other hominid species was extinct when modern humans first appeared, so once again, where did modern humans come from?

[Leetonidas]

http://www.trainingbykeir.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/fingers-in-ears.jpeg

[Spur|n|Austin]

more like woo, never answered the question, says we didn't evolve from Neanderthals yet every other hominid species was extinct when modern humans first appeared, so once again, where did modern humans come from?

From the bearded guy in the sky, I think it was on 6th day (because words and concepts like days were already around). Why do you ask?

[Koolaid_Man]

please tell me you did not crack the 100 mark??? bruh i been trying to crack a hunnid and always max out at around 80, 85. congrats my nighttp://i41.tinypic.com/24oav5l.png


anyways, after reading through the thread i can understand where the non believers are coming from. it wasn't too long ago i was one of them. i was bitter, angry, confrontational....when i found out someone was a christian, catholic, muslim, etc, i couldn't wait to pounce on them and laugh in their face. what made it worse was i also dabbled in illegal activities and it finally caught up to me.

to make a long story short, i called out to God in a moment of need, a life or death situation if you will and to my surprise he answered me. i went from sitting in a cell to living a blessed life with no worries. now its sad that it took me almost losing my freedom for the next 20 years to humble myself and ask the lord for his salvation but for whatever reason he did and i thank him for it every day.http://i39.tinypic.com/2mdyu.png

I cracked it with 101...the things god can do for you :lol

I feel ya...the Lord saved me and now I'm on the straight and arrow myself....:lol

but I feel ya Trill good you got it straight homie...I play this song whenever I'm having a bad day...and it lifts me to a higher place...

Mr7zJw525U8

[Woo Bum-kon]

more like woo, never answered the question, says we didn't evolve from Neanderthals yet every other hominid species was extinct when modern humans first appeared, so once again, where did modern humans come from?

Actually, going from the chart that you yourself posted, that is incorrect. And here is a link that corroborates the information from the chart that you posted:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

[RD2191]

:lol

[RD2191]

It survived until 200,000 to 250,000 years ago.

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago.

Like I said, extinct.

[RD2191]

leaving only Neanderthals and homo floresienses

[Woo Bum-kon]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

Both are thought to connected to Homo sapiens and Homo heildebergensis.

[RD2191]

Homo rhodesiensis is now regarded by most scientists as another name for Homo heidelbergensis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis)
These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

Homo heidelbergensis (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis)) is an extinct (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct) species (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) of the genus (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus) Homo (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)) which lived in Africa, Europe and western Asia from at least 600,000 years ago, and may date back 1,300,000 years. It survived until 200,000 to 250,000 years ago.

[RD2191]

not sure what to believe tbh

[Woo Bum-kon]

These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

[RD2191]

pretty big gap, and the sources contradict each other

[RD2191]

and they only dated 1 skull, and that's a pretty big gap, of course its convenient to leave such an amount of time open in order to fit the theory

[RD2191]

Homo rhodesiensis is now regarded by most scientists as another name for Homo heidelbergensis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis)
These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

Homo heidelbergensis (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis)) is an extinct (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct) species (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) of the genus (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus) Homo (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)) which lived in Africa, Europe and western Asia from at least 600,000 years ago, and may date back 1,300,000 years. It survived until 200,000 to 250,000 years ago.

[Woo Bum-kon]

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis


Comparison of Neanderthal and modern human DNA suggests that the two lineages diverged from a common ancestor, most likely Homo heidelbergensis, sometime between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago – with the European branch leading to H. neanderthalensis and the African branch (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis) to H. sapiens.

You are more interested in trying to find any discrepancy that you can find, so that you can immediately post it here. You don't actually want to learn about the history of humanity.

[RD2191]

hey man, i was just going by the links that you gave me, not my fault that they contradicted each other.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol And that is precisely your problem. You made absolutely zero effort to understand the information you read, so instead of googling the subject to learn more, you posted and reposted the same thing over and over again because you thought it was some kind of silver bullet against evolution. That just shows how little you care about learning about human evolution. You are being willfully ignorant.

[RD2191]

still doesn't make sense, modern humans appeared 195,00 years ago. 2 sites agree that Heidelbergensis died off 200,000 years ago, there is still a missing link. you bring up rhodesienses which is only 1 skull and is given a pretty huge time frame of when it died out.

[RD2191]

When Lived:
About 700,000 to 200,000 years ago

[RD2191]

What part of 200,000 years ago do you not understand?

[RD2191]

3 sources saying that heidelbergenis died out 200,000 years ago

[RD2191]

only Heidelberg and neanderthals walked along each other, not modern humans

[RD2191]

modern humans would appear 5,000 years later

[Woo Bum-kon]

still doesn't make sense, modern humans appeared 195,00 years ago. 2 sites agree that Heidelbergensis died off 200,000 years ago, there is still a missing link. you bring up rhodesienses which is only 1 skull and is given a pretty huge time frame of when it died out.

If it doesn't make sense, why the hell are you still asking about it here instead of reading more about it? You are unbelievably lazy. I do not believe your claim that you have read a lot about evolution for a second. You are still showing no desire to understand the subject.

Find an evolutionary biologist or somebody who is knowledgeable in the field and ask them the questions that you are asking here.

[RD2191]

:lol:toast

[RD2191]

gets burned retorts to calling me lazy:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Comparison of Neanderthal and modern human DNA suggests that the two lineages diverged from a common ancestor, most likely Homo heidelbergensis, sometime between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago – with the European branch leading to H. neanderthalensis and the African branch (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis) to H. sapiens.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis

[Woo Bum-kon]

gets burned retorts to calling me lazy:lol

You are being lazy. And how have you burned me, dumbass? You still haven't made any effort to find out more about human ancestry.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One concept rob doesn't seem to understand is that it's not as if the lineage goes *poof* completely different species. There may have been radical mutations but for the most part there is no clear delineation. As I said before, we share the same number of chromosomes as the other members of the homo genus and meiosis is what it is. Thus the term GENus fwiw. For example, there is evidence that neanderthal and sapiens coexisted and bred.

[CubanSucks]

.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wtf u think

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176496&highlight=trilogy

LotR was by far the most complete trilogy. All three at LEAST 8/10. Godfather 3 wasn't terrible but still a lame snoozer. Return of the Jedi was just as much a sellout kids movie as the recent trilogy. TDK trilogy would've been a solid second if it weren't for the huge plot holes in TDKR. Toy Story's great but the third they went way too far up their own ass and forgot they're supposed to be making kids movies, too fucking dark and depressing. Man with no name trilogy is up there too

:lol

We evolved from Hobbits damnit.

[RD2191]

:lol

We evolved from Hobbits damnit.
homo floresiensis:lol

[RD2191]

We don’t know everything aboutearly humans—but we keep learning more! Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas with groundbreaking technology, and continually filling in some of the gaps about our understanding of human evolution.
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo heidelbergensis that may be answered with future discoveries:


Did this early human species indeed range in time from 1.3 million to 200,000 years ago, and in geography from Africa to Europe to Asia? Or are there more than one species represented among the fossils that some scientists call H. heidelbergensis (including H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, and H. rhodesiensis)?
Many scientists think this species was ancestral to our own, but which species was the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?
Did H. heidelbergensis have any cultural or behavioral adaptations that facilitated it living in colder climates?
Did regional groups or populations of H. heidelbergensis exhibit any unique behaviors or anatomical adaptations?
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergehttp://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis)nsis

[RD2191]

W
e don’t know everything aboutearly humans—but we keep learning more! Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas with groundbreaking technology, and continually filling in some of the gaps about our understanding of human evolution.
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo heidelbergensis that may be answered with future discoveries:


Did this early human species indeed range in time from 1.3 million to 200,000 years ago, and in geography from Africa to Europe to Asia? Or are there more than one species represented among the fossils that some scientists call H. heidelbergensis (including H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, and H. rhodesiensis)?
Many scientists think this species was ancestral to our own, but which species was the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?
Did H. heidelbergensis have any cultural or behavioral adaptations that facilitated it living in colder climates?
Did regional groups or populations of H. heidelbergensis exhibit any unique behaviors or anatomical adaptations?

[cantthinkofanything]

I'm sleepy...can someone bulletpoint this

[RD2191]

1.Human evolution is a theory
2. Missing link according to the human origins site
3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis
4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

[cantthinkofanything]

1.Human evolution is a theory
2. Missing link according to the human origins site
3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis
4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

Blech. I guess I meant I'm drunk and can't follow. What's after the bulletpoint?

[cantthinkofanything]

Put some notes in your mom's vag. Hopefully I'll come across them

[RD2191]

:lolYeah, I'd rather not do that.

[cantthinkofanything]

No worries. I'll spooge in her hair. Try to trace a message in my semen.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1.Human evolution is a theory
2. Missing link according to the human origins site
3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis
4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

Scientists have geneological and archeological basis for thinking that. They have not invented a time machine so there will never be any certainty in this regard. Skepticism is warranted but there is a warrant for belief as well.

Now, what basis do we have that some sort of superior being exists much less invented anything much less humans?

[RD2191]

no basis, but the fact still remains, scientist do not know where humans came from

[RD2191]

The Human Origins site is full of "think", "probably', and "do not know". So if that's the case, can one definitively rule out a superior being that created humans?

[RD2191]

The Scientific Case Against Evolutionby Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
Evolution Is Not Happening NowFirst of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Evolution Never Happened in the PastEvolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7
Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.
Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9
Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!
It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10
So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?
Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11
As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.
All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12
Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.
Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.
Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.
The Equivocal Evidence from GeneticsNevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?
Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.
Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."
The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15
There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.
The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.
Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17
It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.
At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.
The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.
A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.
Evolution Could Never Happen at AllThe main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

[RD2191]

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
Evolution is Religion -- Not ScienceIn no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25
Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35
That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

[RD2191]

And yes, I am aware of who the man is but he does make some good points.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol Young earth creationist with a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering having "good points." And Talk Origins completely demolished these tired assertions: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html


The Human Origins site is full of "think", "probably', and "do not know". So if that's the case, can one definitively rule out a superior being that created humans?

That's not how it works. It is not the job of a scientist--or anybody, really--to rule out other claims; it's the job of the one making the claim to provide evidence for that claim. There is no good evidence that a superior being created the universe. It's always amusing to watch you Bible thumpers attack evolution and Big Bang cosmology, because none of you seem to get that even if both of those were untrue, that wouldn't give anymore credibility towards your belief in an invisible sky daddy at all.

[Woo Bum-kon]

1.Human evolution is a theory

:lol Oh my God, you Creationists are so predictable that it is sad. You don't understand what a scientific theory is. You are a living, breathing cliche.


2. Missing link according to the human origins site

Which is filled by several fossils that have been discussed already.


3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis

Scientists didn't just guess when they came to that conclusion. They looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based off the evidence.


4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

How? You attacking evolution doesn't somehow make your position more likely to be true.

Provide evidence that supports your position that God created humans.

[Woo Bum-kon]

dp

[DMC]

We once thought man had evolved to his current form, however we now laugh at that since we know through meditation and prayer that a super ghost presence in the universe that's not actually part of the universe (but actually is part of it) which resides outside of space and time but can affect both at his whim (yes it's a him, why would we put a woman in charge?) created man out of the dust of this planet. Out of dust he created man and from that man he created woman. This is scientifically proven if you have faith that it's true.

So let's all get along and pretend this silly evolution suggestion never occurred. It's quite embarrassing now that we know the truth.

[Blake]

Provide evidence that supports your position that God created humans.

because nature is so beautiful. it brings a tear to my eye. :cry

[Kool Bob Love]

:lmao....I mean based on the "logic" of evolution we're only getting better with time right? So when does wings mixed in with a little eagle vision somehow find it's way into the human genome...do we need to cross breed humans with birds first or will the kids born 100 yrs from now just mysteriously have wings attached to their bodies...can a good atheist please explain how this evolution thing works...I'm looking forward to visiting Pluto on my own....:lmao

Memo to atheists: Evolution gets you to the strange freaky creatures that you saw on Star Wars...it doesn't get you to a perfectly balanced human body with organs in their proper place....evolution doesn't decide when it has the perfect human body and then stop evolving...it doesn't decide that it has the perfect genome and now it can stop producing freaks of nature on a mass scale...it doesn't decide the brain need to in the head as opposed to on your feet...it doesn't decide universally that all blood no matter the species must be red...it just doesn't compute for me...:toast


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R8jPSijVsg

[Clipper Nation]

The Human Origins site is full of "think", "probably', and "do not know". So if that's the case, can one definitively rule out a superior being that created humans?
The fact that there is physical evidence in DNA and the fossil record that suggests evolution happened while there is no physical evidence for your invisible sky fairy existing certainly gives evolution more credibility than your fairy tales, tbh....

[RD2191]

Its still a biased theory, no scientist can state he is a creationist without being mocked or ridiculed by his peers. So who is really looking for an alternative theory? There are plenty of things wrong with the theory of evolution. You say scientist came to a conclusion, in other words they presume that we evolved from a great ape. There are no transitional fossils and no direct link between modern man and apes. Even the human origins site states that it is still unknown where humans came from, they "think" we evolved from erectus or Heidelberg, in other words, they do not know.

[Blake]

So you're dismissing the theory that actually comes with strong evidence and going with the one that has absolutely no evidence.

That's smart.

[RD2191]

So you believe there was nothing that created everything because nothing decided to explode?

[RD2191]

And where is the evidence?

[RD2191]

I believe that something created everything, which seems more logical? Look at the computer right in front of you, did it create itself? Or did someone build it?

[angrydude]

look everyone knows we came from battlestar galactica

[Blake]

So you believe there was nothing that created everything because nothing decided to explode?

i never said that. Why does abiogenesis have to be my only other option?

[Blake]

I believe that something created everything, which seems more logical? Look at the computer right in front of you, did it create itself? Or did someone build it?

How do you account for the creator? Who created him /her /it?

[RD2191]

ok, so what is your other option or theory on how humans came to be?

[mouse]

:lol Oh my God, you Creationists .

[RD2191]

He has always been and always will be. No beginning or no end. You will say that its illogical to believe that but is it logical to believe that nothing exploded and made everything? And if you do not believe in the big bang then you believe that the universe has always been here, so how can you rule out that a supreme being hasn't always existed?

[Blake]

ok, so what is your other option or theory on how humans came to be?

Humans got here probably by sheer luck. Lottery ticket winners.

[RandomGuy]

no basis, but the fact still remains, scientist do not know where humans came from

Actually we do.

[RD2191]

From a great ape?

[Blake]

He has always been and always will be. No beginning or no end. You will say that its illogical to believe that but is it logical to believe that nothing exploded and made everything? And if you do not believe in the big bang then you believe that the universe has always been here, so how can you rule out that a supreme being hasn't always existed?

I'm leaning towards a multi big bang theory where the universe has always been in a constant state of expanding and contracting.

I'm also cool with meh, dunno.

I just know I can rule out Bible God.

[RandomGuy]

He has always been and always will be. No beginning or no end. You will say that its illogical to believe that but is it logical to believe that nothing exploded and made everything? And if you do not believe in the big bang then you believe that the universe has always been here, so how can you rule out that a supreme being hasn't always existed?

It is quite logical to think the universe exists. We are in it after all.

If God has always existed with no beginning and no end, then there is one thing with that property, according to your theory.

How do you know the universe itself does NOT have that property?

This is the special pleading logical fallacy by the way.

"everythign in the universe has the property of having a beginning and an end, except God"

Please provide some proof that God does not have a beginning or end. Your claim, your burden of proof.

[RD2191]

I do not know that the universe does not have that property. I stated that if that's the case, then how can one dismiss a supreme being who has always existed?

[RandomGuy]

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

:rollin

bmQZ4f9f_Yw

If you can get past the overall tone, he pretty much lays out one of the most comprehensive looks at the science I have ever seen.

Further, he outlines how the bible itself represents reality based on the understanding of the physical universe at the time.

Not that I would expect anyone to spend three hours on it, but if you want to really, truly understand the science behind the theory, and the theory of evolution itself, it is a good place to start.

(edit)
not sure if the coding still works, so here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

[RandomGuy]

I do not know that the universe does not have that property. I stated that if that's the case, then how can one dismiss a supreme being who has always existed?

I don't.

I view it as a possibility.

"bible God" is a whole other thing. That is very obviously bullshit, and provably so.

[RD2191]

why is it bullshit? because you say it is? can you prove that god does not exist? can i prove that god does exist? answer to both is no, which leaves us both with faith.

[RandomGuy]

The Scientific Case Against Evolutionby Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
Evolution Is Not Happening NowFirst of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Evolution Never Happened in the PastEvolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7
Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.
Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9
Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!
It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10
So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?
Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11
As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.
All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12
Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.
Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.
Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.
The Equivocal Evidence from GeneticsNevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?
Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.
Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."
The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15
There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.
The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.
Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17
It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.
At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.
The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.
A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.
Evolution Could Never Happen at AllThe main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.



Seriously though:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

The entire laundry list of bullshit claims in your copy paste is debunked there.

The funniest part of that is the bit on the second law of thermodynamics.

Since you have scooped up this sack of stupid:

Tell me how exactly evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[RD2191]

Biased site, let me ask you something, are you a scientist?

[RD2191]

By the way when has evolution ever been observed?

[RandomGuy]

why is it bullshit? because you say it is? can you prove that god does not exist? can i prove that god does exist? answer to both is no, which leaves us both with faith.

"Bible God" is bullshit because the bible is a stupid, logically inconsistant obviously made up account of the universe. I can go to town on that all day long, with enough material to fill pages and page of this thread. It has all been done to death.

As for some God of some sort outside of that described by the bible.... sure. I will not claim there is no possibility of such a thing. I really don't think I know enough to rule it out and say conclusively no.

I do not claim "there is no God".

If you are asking for someone to argue that, you will ahve to find someone else.

[RandomGuy]

By the way when has evolution ever been observed?

Yes.

[RD2191]

Fair enough, and when or where?

[RandomGuy]

Biased site, let me ask you something, are you a scientist?


Fallacy: Ad Hominem



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Person A = Talkorigins website
Claim X = that creationist claims have been debunked
Person B=robdiaz2191

Talkorigins website (Person A) claims that creationist claims have been debunked (X)
Robdiaz (Person B) says “[Talkorgins is a] biased website (attack on person A).”
Therefore TalkOrigin’s claims are false

QED.

What does it say about the strength of your reasoning, when it is relying on obviously flawed logic?

[RandomGuy]

Fair enough, and when or where?

You get that only when you can tell me how the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. I asked first., quid pro quo.

[RandomGuy]

are you a scientist?

No. I am an accountant.

[RD2191]

It was a simple question, are you a scientist?

[RD2191]

Okay then, so you yourself have never done any experiments in a lab or seen so called macro-evolution in progress?

[RandomGuy]

I'm leaning towards a multi big bang theory where the universe has always been in a constant state of expanding and contracting.

I'm also cool with meh, dunno.

I just know I can rule out Bible God.

Oddly enough NBADan recently posted a rather interseting new theory in the political forum that sort of does an end 'round of current thinking about that. Fun idea.

[RandomGuy]

Okay then, so you yourself have never done any experiments in a lab or seen so called macro-evolution in progress?

get that only when you can tell me how the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. I asked first., quid pro quo.

[RD2191]

I do not know and you don't either, you are simply doing what I am doing. You are gathering your so called knowledge and information from books or the internet. Have you done any studies on the second law of thermodynamics? I highly doubt that you have. So then how do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? You don't. I have links and sources that claim the theory of evolution does violate the second law, you have sources that claim otherwise, so who is right?

[RD2191]

And where is the proof of evolution? A moth has always been a moth, a sparrow a sparrow, and a butterfly a butterfly. Have adaptations been observed? Yes, but not "evolution".

[RandomGuy]

Okay then, so you yourself have never done any experiments in a lab or seen so called macro-evolution in progress?


Whether or not I have directly observed something is not relevant to the underlying truth.

I did not observe the construction of the house I live in, yet that does not affect the reality that there is a structure that I live in.

I did not observe the sun set yesterday, yet I can be reasonably sure that happened because I noticed it got dark outside.

Both events left testable, verifiable evidence of their happening that is easily ascertainable by someone else.

Very few murderers would be in jail if we only made judgments based on direct eye-witnesses.

[RD2191]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L83V3QUhU1k#t=176

[RD2191]

2:20, stolen from mouse

[Blake]

Oddly enough NBADan recently posted a rather interseting new theory in the political forum that sort of does an end 'round of current thinking about that. Fun idea.

I'll check it, thx

[RandomGuy]

I do not know and you don't either, you are simply doing what I am doing. You are gathering your so called knowledge and information from books or the internet. Have you done any studies on the second law of thermodynamics? I highly doubt that you have. So then how do you know that you are right and that I am wrong? You don't. I have links and sources that claim the theory of evolution does violate the second law, you have sources that claim otherwise, so who is right?

This might surprise you, but this is not the first time I have had such a discussion. I have been arguing this particular subject since there has been an internet.

I know exactly why Mr. Morris claims evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

I know exactly why that is a really, really stupid claim. That is the point of me asking.

I understand the second law of thermodynamics. I don't have to do any tests to show why it is a stupid claim. I have done my reading, and understand the claim posed by Dr. Morris. It is, though very emblematic as to the stupidity it takes to buy creationist claims. That is why I chose that to start with, because it is very easy to demonstrate.

YOu have drawn what is called "false equivalence".

The theory that there are tiny squirrels living in your nose, and the theory that there is only a nasal cavity are not equal theories.

One is supported by evidence and logic, the other isn't.

[RD2191]

Takes faith doesn't it?:toast

[RD2191]

Whether or not I have directly observed something is not relevant to the underlying truth.

I did not observe the construction of the house I live in, yet that does not affect the reality that there is a structure that I live in.

I did not observe the sun set yesterday, yet I can be reasonably sure that happened because I noticed it got dark outside.

Both events left testable, verifiable evidence of their happening that is easily ascertainable by someone else.

Very few murderers would be in jail if we only made judgments based on direct eye-witnesses.
Your perception is not my perception.