Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?

[dust1n]

Aren't men and women only a "Y" chromosome apart?

Not all of them. Thanks to mutation, one may be XXY, XYY, XXXY, XXYY, etc.

 

[Ouroboros]

Has anyone figured out why this god created man with nipples if there is no need for them?

Because he was lazy and didn't want to spend more time on designing a better DNA.

If "God" created Adam and Eve (brother and sister/twins/clones same DNA...:faint

Then why is there so much biodiversity amongst humans?

Agree.

There are certain loci in the DNA that has hundreds of variations, which means they must've come about after Adam and Eve.

One interesting thing I learned about in anthropology was that there are several synonymous codons, i.e. there can be different codes in the DNA producing the same proteins (peptides). And these can be used to trace heritage since it's a harmless mutation.

Statistically, I think every second human has a unique mutation somewhere in their DNA. And every time you go the bathroom (#2), there are hundreds of new mutated lifeforms flushed away... that came about inside you. *Yuk!*

I'm new here, and this is my first post... Good way of starting the acquaintance, right? LOL!

 

[JayJayDee]

What I find interesting in my own conversations with evolutionists is that when you put down the science and ask the simple logical questions, they have nothing to say. They actually just get mad.

Questions like:......

If everything that you use in your life as a tool or an aid was designed and made by someone...how come much more complex things in nature didn't require a designer or maker? If you wouldn't expect a house to pop into existence on its own with lighting, plumbing, carpeting, heating, cooling, a perfect recycling and garbage disposal system and a fully stocked pantry...why do we imagine that this earth, equipped with all those things, just came out of nowhere without intelligent design?

Who of us would imagine that our computer had no designer and manufacturer? The computer itself is made of many components which individually needed design and an intelligent mind to make and assemble the components in the right sequence. Could we ever imagine something as complex as that needing no one to design it or manufacture it? Then we have to ask how useful that computer would be without a power source. Do we also imagine that the power source is not created by someone?

Evolutionists can dazzle us with all the science in the world when it comes to proving adaptation (which creation allows for within the Genesis "kinds") but ask them how life began in the first place and they can't and won't answer. They know from their own study of science that in every experiment they have ever done, all 'life comes only from pre-existing life'. So when they know the 'probability' (which is a word they love to throw around when it come to "proving" their theory) of life arising spontaneously or by undirected chance is basically zero, then they will dodge such questions and ridicule the questioner.

Some of their resistance is due in part to those who insist that the Genesis "days" were 24 hour periods. Science knows that this is nonsense and so does anyone with half a brain and even a basic knowledge of science.
The Genesis account allows for the earth and the universe to be billions of years old. It even allows for the creative "days" to be thousands of years long. So I believe that there is error in both camps.

There is middle ground which the Bible addresses very well IMO.

So the basics of the whole argument as I see it is....

1) if you can't answer the question of how life began, what does it matter how it changed once it got here?

2) If you answer the first question...the second one answers itself.

Pure simple indisputable logic. The Bible was right all along.

 

[McBell]

you keep using the word indisputable without knowing what it means.

of course, if you do know what it means, you are just revealing how dishonest you are.

 

[GawdAweful]

So the basics of the whole argument as I see it is....

1) if you can't answer the question of how life began, what does it matter how it changed once it got here?

Because life could have been started on earth by intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, not neccessarily a god. Also, it does matter to fundametalists how life changed once life began: It brings into question the nature of man, original sin, the infalliblility of Scripture, and the need for a redeemer if there was no original sin.

The reason none of the complex things mentioned in JayJayDee's post could form without a designer is that they don't reproduce. Once an organism with the ability of passing on change starts replicating, how it began is a second question.

The answer IS simple and logical. The Bible taken literally is NOT a book of science and that is pure and indisputable logic.

 

[JayJayDee]

you keep using the word indisputable without knowing what it means.

of course, if you do know what it means, you are just revealing how dishonest you are.

Would you like to answer the questions?
Or like every other evolutionist I have spoken to, do you just offer ridicule as a smoke screen for having no answers? :ignore:

I expected some really convincing responses when I offered these question with other evolutionists I have spoken to, but not one of them could answer the simple stuff. Evolution is not logical. It flies in the face of what science knows....that life could not arise by blind undirected chance.

I have been watching a few David Attenborough documentaries lately and he would have us believe a lot of what is pure fantasy. He describes something in great detail that exhibits exquisite design and then credits the blind forces of evolution with the accomplishment.

In one program on insects and plants, he told us how an orchid made for itself a replica of a female fly with just the right scent to attract a male fly so the plant could be pollinated. How does a plant, without any intellect decide to do that?

I then watched a different show about spiders. One of these spiders disguised itself as a bird dropping on a leaf by day and stayed completely still so that birds would not eat it, and then it came to life at night and went after its food. The spider just knew how to disguise itself as a bird dropping did it?

Then on another program there was the angler fish, completely and beautifully camouflaged so that he was undetectable among the rocks. He dangles a pretty authentic looking worm in front of a fish swimming by, which is then consumed in the blink of an eye. What a clever fish to decide that he will design a better way to catch his prey.

If you swallow all this stuff and want to paint it as science, then all I can say is that it appears to be science fiction to me. It's way more about wishful thinking that about anything that can be proven.

That leaves evolution on the same level as creation as far as I can see. Science can no more prove their theory to be true than I can produce God for you. That is a fact.

 

[McBell]

Would you like to answer the questions?
Or like every other evolutionist I have spoken to, do you just offer ridicule as a smoke screen for having no answers? :ignore:

I expected some really convincing responses when I offered these question with other evolutionists I have spoken to, but not one of them could answer the simple stuff. Evolution is not logical. It flies in the face of what science knows....that life could not arise by blind undirected chance.

I have been watching a few David Attenborough documentaries lately and he would have us believe a lot of what is pure fantasy. He describes something in great detail that exhibits exquisite design and then credits the blind forces of evolution with the accomplishment.

In one program on insects and plants, he told us how an orchid made for itself a replica of a female fly with just the right scent to attract a male fly so the plant could be pollinated. How does a plant, without any intellect decide to do that?

I then watched a different show about spiders. One of these spiders disguised itself as a bird dropping on a leaf by day and stayed completely still so that birds would not eat it, and then it came to life at night and went after its food. The spider just knew how to disguise itself as a bird dropping did it?

Then on another program there was the angler fish, completely and beautifully camouflaged so that he was undetectable among the rocks. He dangles a pretty authentic looking worm in front of a fish swimming by, which is then consumed in the blink of an eye. What a clever fish to decide that he will design a better way to catch his prey.

If you swallow all this stuff and want to paint it as science, then all I can say is that it appears to be science fiction to me. It's way more about wishful thinking that about anything that can be proven.

That leaves evolution on the same level as creation as far as I can see. Science can no more prove their theory to be true than I can produce God for you. That is a fact.

No thank you.
I am not the least bit interested in playing chess with pigeons.
Fly on home and claim your victory.

 

[JayJayDee]

Because life could have been started on earth by intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, not neccessarily a god.

Not "necessarily" a god? Are you hedging your bets there?

"Intelligence" suggests intellect. Are you saying that we got planted here by aliens?

Also, it does matter to fundametalists how life changed once life began: It brings into question the nature of man, original sin, the infalliblility of Scripture, and the need for a redeemer if there was no original sin.

I am not a fundamentalist. I have no connection to any of Christendom's churches.

I believe in creation and I have good reason to do so.

The nature of man is rather obvious don't you think? He, of all the life forms on this planet, is unique. The gulf that exists between man and even the great apes is very wide. No intermediate species have ever been found linking them to man.

Original sin was merely the passing on of defective genes. The Bible doesn't give us any details on how the defect developed in the first place, only that it was passed on and affected the entire human race. Much like a chromosomal abnormality I suspect.

Scripture is words written by men who were inspired by their Maker. The manual containing manufacturer's instructions, if you like. Don't human manufacturers do the same?

When all else fails, it pays to read the instructions. Right?

The life of the redeemer was the legal requirement that paid a ransom to get us out of bondage. Not a difficult concept really.

The reason none of the complex things mentioned in JayJayDee's post could form without a designer is that they don't reproduce.

The subject of my discussion was the earth itself...... as I said:

If everything that you use in your life as a tool or an aid was designed and made by someone...how come much more complex things in nature didn't require a designer or maker? If you wouldn't expect a house to pop into existence on its own with lighting, plumbing, carpeting, heating, cooling, a perfect recycling and garbage disposal system and a fully stocked pantry...why do we imagine that this earth, equipped with all those things, just came out of nowhere without intelligent design?

The planet itself does not reproduce.Yet it is unique in our solar system for supporting life. Do you know how many co-incidences it would take for that to happen?

The size of the earth; it's place in the solar system; it shape and the speed of its rotation on its axis; the speed of its orbit; it's place in the galaxy; its atmosphere; ozone layer; climate; its mixture of gases; it's perfect water recycling....none of these are capable of reproduction but are essential for life to be sustained here. All just a series of fortunate co-incidences?

Once an organism with the ability of passing on change starts replicating, how it began is a second question.

This is called adaptation. What people call evolution is simply an organism adapting to a new environment. Genesis "kinds" allow for adaptation and reproduction until the end of the genetic line is reached.

Look up the evidence that is put forward to support evolution and you will see that creatures always stay within their 'kinds'. Birds stay birds. Animals stay animals and humans stay human. Their external features, like color, shape, or eating habits may vary because of adapting to different environments, but they do not morph into other unrelated beings...that only happens in the movies.

Everything breeds according to its "kind", just as the Bible says.
In oceans full of fish, we do not see a mish-mash of cross bred aquatic beings with no names to distinguish species. We see clearly defined species which only breed with their own 'kind'. Land animals too only seek mates within their own species. Even similar species will not naturally interbreed to produce strange looking cross bred animals that cannot be defined within a genus. Birds and insects display exactly the same behavior. Humans may intervene to cross breed animals but it can only take place within their "kind". Genetics will not let them go beyond a certain point.
e.g. a horse and a donkey produce a sterile mule. End of the line. A lion and a tiger can be interbred, but the same applies. The offspring are invariably sterile.

Mutations are rarely beneficial and the defects they produce are usually too weak to survive. Relying on mutations is clutching at straws.

Look at all the so-called evidence for evolution and you will always see it couched in the same language and vague terminology.

Look up some articles on evolution and tell me how often you see the expressions, "might have", "Could have", "It is suggested that" "Leads us to believe" "the probability leads us to the conclusion".

Since when is a "might have" or a "could have" equal to "evidence"?

The answer IS simple and logical. The Bible taken literally is NOT a book of science and that is pure and indisputable logic.

The Bible was not written as a science textbook,it is true. But it was inspired by the greatest scientist in existence. So when it touches on matters of science, it is very accurate.

The Bible writers knew that the earth was round at a time when most believed it was flat.
"Have you not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth?  There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers" (Isa 40:21, 22 written 732 B.C.E)
The Hebrew word translated "circle" in this passage carries the meaning of a sphere.

They knew that the earth is hanging in space without any visible means of support.
This at a time when others were assuming all kinds of supports, like giant elephants riding on the backs of turtles...or some such.

"He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7 written about 1400 B.C.E)

People usually fall for the evolution propaganda because they have a reason for wanting God to disappear. If he doesn't exist, you don't have to answer to him for anything.

Just because you don't believe in him, doesn't make him go away.

 

[johnhanks]

In one program on insects and plants, [David Attenborough] told us how an orchid made for itself a replica of a female fly with just the right scent to attract a male fly so the plant could be pollinated. How does a plant, without any intellect decide to do that?

And with that one question you demonstrate to us how pointless it would be to try to debate evolution with you.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I find interesting in my own conversations with evolutionists is that when you put down the science and ask the simple logical questions, they have nothing to say. They actually just get mad.

Perhaps because of the obviously stinky attitude you got. Just saying.

If you really, truly want to discuss and learn, you have to change your tone and approach 180º.

They way you're talking about your "issues" shows that you really don't want to remotely discover the possibility that you might agree to any scientific facts about evolution, so why should someone bother?

Imagine if I'd come up to you and said that your wife is ugly, and I can't understand what you see in her and therefor you must be stupid and have no reasons. You'd be ******. Well...

I suggest you schedule a class in physical (or biological) anthropology at your local community college and learn more details on the actual science and reasoning behind evolution before you jump the gun with your arguments.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So the basics of the whole argument as I see it is....

1) if you can't answer the question of how life began, what does it matter how it changed once it got here?

2) If you answer the first question...the second one answers itself.

The origins of "life", or abiogenesis, does not change the study of the origins of species, other than life had to exist first. Just as the cosmic origins of the elements does not change the study of geology, other than the elements had to exist first.

 

[camanintx]

The planet itself does not reproduce.Yet it is unique in our solar system for supporting life. Do you know how many co-incidences it would take for that to happen?

The size of the earth; it's place in the solar system; it shape and the speed of its rotation on its axis; the speed of its orbit; it's place in the galaxy; its atmosphere; ozone layer; climate; its mixture of gases; it's perfect water recycling....none of these are capable of reproduction but are essential for life to be sustained here. All just a series of fortunate co-incidences?

Do you also think it is just a coincidence that puddles are the perfect shape and size to fill the holes they sit in?

 

[camanintx]

The gulf that exists between man and even the great apes is very wide. No intermediate species have ever been found linking them to man.

Funny, but those actually doing the research have no problems finding these links. (A=Chimp, L=Human)

Everything breeds according to its "kind", just as the Bible says.
In oceans full of fish, we do not see a mish-mash of cross bred aquatic beings with no names to distinguish species.

Then please tell us exactly what "kind" these are.

Tiktaalik rosae

Archaeopteryx:

Rodhocetus:

Yanoconodon:

 

[CG Didymus]

Camanintx, where did you get those pictures, the devil?
One of my more favorite religions, the Baha'is, said something to the effect that if science and religion disagree, go with the scientists. If they are wrong, further research will show it. They said that if religion is wrong, they will probably get all superstitious never change. Hey, Investigate Truth, if you're listening, drop on by and add your Baha'i point of view on this debate.
Anyway, JayJayDee you said,

Some of their resistance is due in part to those who insist that the Genesis "days" were 24 hour periods. Science knows that this is nonsense and so does anyone with half a brain and even a basic knowledge of science.

That already is huge. The Creation guys I see on Christian TV are all "young Earth" people. Those people absolutely need a literal Genesis to keep their beliefs about Jesus intact. How do you make sense of a literal Jesus without a literal Genesis?

Original sin was merely the passing on of defective genes. The Bible doesn't give us any details on how the defect developed in the first place, only that it was passed on and affected the entire human race.

That's incredible also. Most Christians would say that the Bible is clear Adam and Eve sinned and got cursed and passed on the curse of "original sin." Apparently through the males, because Jesus avoided it by being born by a virgin female.
But then you say,

Scripture is words written by men who were inspired by their Maker. The manual containing manufacturer's instructions, if you like. Don't human manufacturers do the same?
When all else fails, it pays to read the instructions. Right?

Since you're not taking the extreme "literal" view then you're taking that "instruction manual" with a little grain of salt.
The instruction manual is a good analogy. Who can ever read them? I'll bet most of the people posting here know one heck of a lot about the Bible, and that's one of the main reasons they're looking to science for answers. The Bible might have said the Earth is round, but it also said the Sun stood still. When we wonder about an intelligent being as a designer, that being used the same basic ingredients for all life. We are related on some level. Like let's say all the way down to atoms, we are all one will all creatures and even plants and rocks aren't we? The Bible really didn't teach me that. Scientists taking things apart told me. Mystical religions told me that all life goes in cycles of birth and death. What is the instructions found in the Bible? Step I: Don't eat the forbidden fruit. Step 2: now that you've eaten the forbidden fruit please get out of Eden and wait for further instructions. Step 3: One of you build a big boat. You, Noah, you do it. The rest of you go do whatever you want.
Dumb instructions. Is there an "800" number to talk to a live person?
Unfortunately, some say they've called that number and God told them what to do. "Hello, Sir, there's a Joseph Smith on the line. He wants to know what the truth is?"
If Christians didn't try and stifle scientists maybe the relationship would be better, but when the Church says to "recant or die" is any scientific theory worth dying over? Oh, that gets back to my Baha'i thing, religious people are the ones that should back off and let scientists do their thing and see where their findings lead.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sure enough people will have jumped on this already, but I couldn't help but get stuck in:

If everything that you use in your life as a tool or an aid was designed and made by someone...how come much more complex things in nature didn't require a designer or maker?

Why should they have to? Living organisms reproduce naturally, man-made tools do not. The analogy of comparing things that we know are designed with things we know reproduce naturally is absurd at best.

If you wouldn't expect a house to pop into existence on its own with lighting, plumbing, carpeting, heating, cooling, a perfect recycling and garbage disposal system and a fully stocked pantry...why do we imagine that this earth, equipped with all those things, just came out of nowhere without intelligent design?

Because we know how houses are built. We have observed the process and there is no known natural process through which such a structure can arise naturally. The earth, on the other hand, is a vast ecosystem, and all of science indicates that it came about without the aid of any supernatural intelligence. We already have an explanation that doesn't require magic, so why should we think magic is responsible?

Who of us would imagine that our computer had no designer and manufacturer? The computer itself is made of many components which individually needed design and an intelligent mind to make and assemble the components in the right sequence. Could we ever imagine something as complex as that needing no one to design it or manufacture it? Then we have to ask how useful that computer would be without a power source. Do we also imagine that the power source is not created by someone?

Second verse, same as the first.

Evolutionists can dazzle us with all the science in the world when it comes to proving adaptation (which creation allows for within the Genesis "kinds")

Please define "kind".

but ask them how life began in the first place and they can't and won't answer.

Because we don't know yet. Do you think this is some sort of contradiction?

They know from their own study of science that in every experiment they have ever done, all 'life comes only from pre-existing life'.

Garbage. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment.

So when they know the 'probability' (which is a word they love to throw around when it come to "proving" their theory)

Really? Because most people I know who understand science never use "probability" as part of their argument.

of life arising spontaneously or by undirected chance is basically zero, then they will dodge such questions and ridicule the questioner.

Because such a calculation is ludicrous. You couldn't possibly calculate the chance of life arising unless you had a complete and total understanding of all the physical and fundamental laws of the Universe, a complete grasp of all biology and chemistry, and somehow worked all of that into the equation. To date, nobody has every made the claim that it is "statistically impossible" and ever really shown the working.

Some of their resistance is due in part to those who insist that the Genesis "days" were 24 hour periods. Science knows that this is nonsense and so does anyone with half a brain and even a basic knowledge of science.
The Genesis account allows for the earth and the universe to be billions of years old. It even allows for the creative "days" to be thousands of years long. So I believe that there is error in both camps.

Or an error in the Bible, since "a 24 hour period" is exactly what "a day" is. If it wasn't 24 hours, why would the Bible say "a day". That seems entirely misleading, and any intelligent being that wrote the book of Gensis should have been smart enough to see that.

There is middle ground which the Bible addresses very well IMO.

So the basics of the whole argument as I see it is....

1) if you can't answer the question of how life began, what does it matter how it changed once it got here?

Because those are two entirely different questions with entirely different answers. Obviously.

2) If you answer the first question...the second one answers itself.

How?

Pure simple indisputable logic. The Bible was right all along.

You really need to brush up on this stuff.

 

[JayJayDee]

Funny, but those actually doing the research have no problems finding these links. (A=Chimp, L=Human)

Then please tell us exactly what "kind" these are.

Well, I'd hazard a guess that the first ones are apes and the others are humans.

Do you not see great variety in the shape and location of both chimps and humans even in today's world?

Are you suggesting that because apes resemble humans that they must have the same ancestors? They don't...just the same Creator.

This is the story presented but it is not photographic evidence is it? It is the product of human imagination, like a lot of other evolutionary ideas. It is fantasy, not fact.

Apes and humans cannot reproduce, so they are not a Genesis "kind"

Tiktaalik rosae

"The discoverers said that in all likelihood, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs primarily on the floor of streams and may have pulled itself onto the shore for brief periods.[15] Neil Shubin and Ted Daeschler, the leaders of the team, have been searching Ellesmere Island for fossils since 2000[4][16] “ We're making the hypothesis that this animal was specialized for living in shallow stream systems, perhaps swampy habitats, perhaps even to some of the ponds. And maybe occasionally, using its very specialized fins, for moving up overland. And that's what is particularly important here. The animal is developing features which will eventually allow animals to exploit land.

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

Note the terminology in bold type.(mine) It is educated guessing.

What is an axolotl? Looks for all the world like a walking fish.....but it's not.

Archaeopteryx:

"Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all. The latest discovery of a fossil that treads the line between birds and non-avian dinosaurs is leading palaeontologists to reassess the creature that has been considered the evolutionary link between the two.

After analysing the traits present in Xiaotingia and its relations, Xu and his colleagues are suggesting that the creatures bear more resemblance to the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Microraptor than to early birds, and so belong in the dinosaur group Deinonychosauria rather than in the bird group, Avialae."

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird : Nature News

Rodhocetus:

Rodhocetus

Yanoconodon:

"The first point to make is that this is not an example of a transitional fossil. The animal has a number of specialised features and is described as "nested within crown mammals".

It is true that the authors favour the evolutionary transition scenario, but they are forced by the data to consider at least one alternative: that the definitive mammalian inner ear was present in "the common ancestor of monotremes, eutriconodonts and therians; but eutriconodonts re-evolved the middle ear attachment to mandible." (A polyphyletic approach introduces more options). The editors of Nature supplied a summary acknowledging that there is a legitimate debate about the significance of the find"

Science Literature - Yanoconodon and the alleged jaw to ear transition

We could do this all day you realize....?

 

[camanintx]

Well, I'd hazard a guess that the first ones are apes and the others are humans.

That's why we have the scientific method, so people don't have to rely on guesses.

Do you not see great variety in the shape and location of both chimps and humans even in today's world?

So do scientists, which is why they rely on more structural differences like the inner ear to determine a particular fossil's lineage.

Are you suggesting that because apes resemble humans that they must have the same ancestors? They don't...just the same Creator.

It's not just the physical resemblance, but our genetic resemblance that shows common ancestry.

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, I'd hazard a guess that the first ones are apes and the others are humans.

Based on what?

Do you not see great variety in the shape and location of both chimps and humans even in today's world?

Are you suggesting that these fossils simply represent a "variety" of different human/ape skull shapes?

Are you suggesting that because apes resemble humans that they must have the same ancestors?

That's a strawman. It's based on far more than just similar appearance, but on taxonomic ranking, placing in the fossil record and genetic markers.

This is the story presented but it is not photographic evidence is it? It is the product of human imagination, like a lot of other evolutionary ideas. It is fantasy, not fact.

Wrong. What is a fantasy is your beliefs, what is fact is evolution.

Apes and humans cannot reproduce, so they are not a Genesis "kind"

So "kind" is defined as group that are able to successfully reproduce? If that's so, we've already observed evolution above the level of "kind" and it isn't a barrier to evolution.

Note the terminology in bold type.(mine) It is educated guessing.

Note the terminology in bolt type (mine).

Note the uneducated assumption in red type (mine).

What is an axolotl? Looks for all the world like a walking fish.....but it's not.

"Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all. The latest discovery of a fossil that treads the line between birds and non-avian dinosaurs is leading palaeontologists to reassess the creature that has been considered the evolutionary link between the two.

After analysing the traits present in Xiaotingia and its relations, Xu and his colleagues are suggesting that the creatures bear more resemblance to the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Microraptor than to early birds, and so belong in the dinosaur group Deinonychosauria rather than in the bird group, Avialae."

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird : Nature News

Rodhocetus

"The first point to make is that this is not an example of a transitional fossil. The animal has a number of specialised features and is described as "nested within crown mammals".

How does that make it not a transitional fossil? The person who wrote this article doesn't seem to know what a transitional form actually is.

We could do this all day you realize....?

And you'd still never learn anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, I'd hazard a guess that the first ones are apes and the others are humans.

That shows you know squat about actually looking and reading the skull attributes. Dental formula, post-orbital constriction, foramen magnum, and many other things can be tracked on the skull how it has changed. Basically, there were bipedal apes using tools before there were humans.

Take a class (preferably a anthro lab) to learn for yourself.

I did. I've looked at the skulls (and more).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What I find interesting in my own conversations with evolutionists is that when you put down the science and ask the simple logical questions, they have nothing to say. They actually just get mad.

But science is the simple and logical answer....

Questions like:......

If everything that you use in your life as a tool or an aid was designed and made by someone...how come much more complex things in nature didn't require a designer or maker?

A rock makes a great door stopper. In fact it has a multitude of uses are you suggesting every stone was "designed"....


If you wouldn't expect a house to pop into existence on its own with lighting, plumbing, carpeting, heating, cooling, a perfect recycling and garbage disposal system and a fully stocked pantry...why do we imagine that this earth, equipped with all those things, just came out of nowhere without intelligent design?

Sorry....I just couldn't go any further without taking a torch to your strawman....:tribal2: