What does the fossil record say?

[painted wolf]

You'd be surprised!

Who has ever found any of them whole?

Being bilaterally symmetrical means we don't need 100% to know what something looked like. If you have one arm, you know what the other arm looked like.... so really you only need 50%, if you find the right 50%. Thankfully with Neanderthals we have found 90% in some individuals and what we have from others fills in the missing 10%.

Nobody's challenging science, so get off that horse! It is not a holy word! (Or is it?)

I was unaware I was "on a horse"... I never accused you of attacking science.

Carefully arranged bones could fool any novice.

Good thing that Paleontologists are not novices.

There is not the slightest bit of proof that one generated the other.

What?

Only a fool would trust the work of men who do this for monetary gain.

The same is said for religion... Money taints the whole world.

How can you tell which or how many of those exhibits is/are plastic?

They are usually labeled if they are casts of the original bones. Or if they are reconstructions. Just because they are not the original bones does not mean that a cast is incorrect.
But a lot of original material is on display in the major world museums.

You should see what they do on movie sets and with Photoshop!

It's hard to photoshop something you can hold in your hand.

They really make it hard to tell what's real.

Not if you really want to know... like I said, you can see these things in the major museums of the world... and if you want you can see the original fossils too.

Don't be so easily fooled!

I'm not. This is what I spend my time studying... hopefully in a professional capacity in a few years.

Get a bone sample and then come back with the forensic results.

You mean like the DNA work done on Neanderthals? Or the growth rate work done on Dinosaurs and other groups? It's been done.

Most of those exhibits are of animals, anyway.

So what? Animals evolve too you know.

BTW: How do you factor in hypocrisy? Did you check the meaning?

It's hypocritical to complain that science is too flawed to trust, while enjoying the fruits of science by posting on the internet.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I really hate how the media over-hypes things... Ardi really didn't change or challenge things much at all. It supported what was already widely accepted. If it was found a decade or two ago, then maybe it would have been radical.

wa:do

 

[Riverwolf]

Accusations of fraud need to be proven. Otherwise, there is innocence until proven guilty.

So, if I'm going to believe that neanderthal skeletons (and skeletons of other hominids) are fraudulent, I need to see some proof. Until I do, I will not believe they're fake and will accept evolution as factual.

 

[newhope101]

I really hate how the media over-hypes things... Ardi really didn't change or challenge things much at all. It supported what was already widely accepted. If it was found a decade or two ago, then maybe it would have been radical.

wa:do

I respectfully disagree. You and Auto have posted evidence to support the chimp human line. Put simply, this appears to be rubbish. This post appears to be trying to downplay the truth. Yes, Ardi was discovered ages ago but it is only recently that in depth research has been carried out on Ardi. As you know Lovejoy was the primary in reconstructing 'Lucy', with a pulverized pelvic region.

All the fossils you and others post are outlining the connection between chimps and humans and how their skeletons changed over time. You continue to run this line and it is very strongly challenged. Indeed Lovejoys research indicates that humans did NOT decend from any knucklewalkers, and did not decend from chimpanzees. So the chimp to human evidence you post as undeniable evidence of ancestry to the chimpanzee no longer applies.

Lovejoy worked with over 40 researchers on the Ardi project and has a huge following in the scientific community. He is not left field at all. I believe you know this PW. I have previously said...trying to move an evolutionist from belief to another is as hard as prizing a myth from a creationist. I see evidence of this here in many posts.

Note..from the article:
Still, with all of this new evidence, “the idea that we came from a chimp-like ancestor is highly unlikely,” Ward says. And therefore, given a different starting point, researchers will need to reframe many of the questions about how and why hominids started down the human path.


Note from my previous post:
"But this is hardly the end of the discussion — and many more scientists are likely to weigh in on the fossils. “It’s an almost unprecedented collection of fossils,” Ward says. “There’s a tremendous amount of information in [them] … and decades of questions to be addressed.”

This article speaks to the considerations of LEADING researchers. Respectfully, though some of you have some credentials, none of you are of the credentialed standard that this article speaks to. NOTE...this is "not the end of the discussion". So for anyone here to dismiss, ignore, downplay or challenge what these leaders in the fields have to say is irrelevant.


These fossils mean nothing, and are evidence of nothing, at the moment. All they appear to show me at the moment is that there was great variety of non human primates. I feel Ok about challenging this stuff. I am a creationist.

Most of all I love it when evolutionists of lesser credentialed standing challenge the findings and interpretations of their own leading evolutionary researchers.

 

[Amill]

You'd be surprised!

Who has ever found any of them whole?

Nobody's challenging science, so get off that horse! It is not a holy word! (Or is it?)
Carefully arranged bones could fool any novice. There is not the slightest bit of proof that one generated the other.
Only a fool would trust the work of men who do this for monetary gain.
How can you tell which or how many of those exhibits is/are plastic?
You should see what they do on movie sets and with Photoshop!
They really make it hard to tell what's real.
Don't be so easily fooled!
Get a bone sample and then come back with the forensic results.
Most of those exhibits are of animals, anyway.

BTW: How do you factor in hypocrisy? Did you check the meaning?

Skepticism is fine and all, but what makes you presume that the evidence for evolution is all fraudulent? Is it because there are frauds that occur in fields of science by biased and dishonest men? These kinds of people are everywhere, and what exactly is going on when a scientist points out the fraud of one of his peers in the same field of study? Why would he care? Is he trying to whittle away his competition to make more money himself? If so, why wouldn't we see more of that(since all evolutionary scientists are fraudulent, it wouldn't be hard to point out).

 

[Amill]

All the fossils you and others post are outlining the connection between chimps and humans and how their skeletons changed over time. You continue to run this line and it is very strongly challenged. Indeed Lovejoys research indicates that humans did NOT decend from any knucklewalkers, and did not decend from chimpanzees. So the chimp to human evidence you post as undeniable evidence of ancestry to the chimpanzee no longer applies.

No one is saying we descended from chimpanzees. The evidence suggests they are our closest living relatives outside of our own species.

Still, with all of this new evidence, “the idea that we came from a chimp-like ancestor is highly unlikely,” Ward says. And therefore, given a different starting point, researchers will need to reframe many of the questions about how and why hominids started down the human path.

You're taking his quote the wrong way. He is not saying that we don't share a common ancestor with chimps. He is saying that the ancestor we do share probably didn't resemble a chimpanzee. It wasn't "chimp-like". It was still an ape, and it's descendants evolved into chimpanzees(and any other extinct apes along that line) and humans.

 

[Autodidact]

I respectfully disagree. You and Auto have posted evidence to support the chimp human line. Put simply, this appears to be rubbish. This post appears to be trying to downplay the truth. Yes, Ardi was discovered ages ago but it is only recently that in depth research has been carried out on Ardi. As you know Lovejoy was the primary in reconstructing 'Lucy', with a pulverized pelvic region.

All the fossils you and others post are outlining the connection between chimps and humans and how their skeletons changed over time. You continue to run this line and it is very strongly challenged. Indeed Lovejoys research indicates that humans did NOT decend from any knucklewalkers, and did not decend from chimpanzees. So the chimp to human evidence you post as undeniable evidence of ancestry to the chimpanzee no longer applies.

Lovejoy worked with over 40 researchers on the Ardi project and has a huge following in the scientific community. He is not left field at all. I believe you know this PW. I have previously said...trying to move an evolutionist from belief to another is as hard as prizing a myth from a creationist. I see evidence of this here in many posts.

Note..from the article:
Still, with all of this new evidence, “the idea that we came from a chimp-like ancestor is highly unlikely,” Ward says. And therefore, given a different starting point, researchers will need to reframe many of the questions about how and why hominids started down the human path.


Note from my previous post:
"But this is hardly the end of the discussion — and many more scientists are likely to weigh in on the fossils. “It’s an almost unprecedented collection of fossils,” Ward says. “There’s a tremendous amount of information in [them] … and decades of questions to be addressed.”

This article speaks to the considerations of LEADING researchers. Respectfully, though some of you have some credentials, none of you are of the credentialed standard that this article speaks to. NOTE...this is "not the end of the discussion". So for anyone here to dismiss, ignore, downplay or challenge what these leaders in the fields have to say is irrelevant.


These fossils mean nothing, and are evidence of nothing, at the moment. All they appear to show me at the moment is that there was great variety of non human primates. I feel Ok about challenging this stuff. I am a creationist.

Most of all I love it when evolutionists of lesser credentialed standing challenge the findings and interpretations of their own leading evolutionary researchers.

Professor Lovejoy, a leading expert on human evolution, proposes a different path for human and chimp and gorilla evolution, that does not in any way that all evolved from a common ancestor. The Ardi fossil has shed light on the precise evolutionary pathways, and every other hominid fossil we find will do so. What Prof. Lovejoy does not do is to raise an iota of doubt as to whether the Theory of Evolution (ToE) provides the best explanation for the emergence of the species homo sapiens, or whether chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives.

This thread is not about whether humans emerged from a chimp-like ancestor, chimps from a human-like ancestor, or both from something else. That is something we will continue to learn about, and change, and find out.

This thread is about whether Evolution explains both. Professor Lovejoy does not question that, and for you to use his work to suggest that his fundamentally dishonest or possibly deeply confused.

Do you have anything related to whether ToE explains the human species, or do you want to explore the arcane details of current thinking on the precise evolutionary pathway of humans? If the latter, I suggest you start a thread, and see whether anyone else is interested in that. I doubt it.

If the former, then you may begin at any time. So far you have not posted anything relevant to that questions.

 

[Nepenthe]

I respectfully disagree. You and Auto have posted evidence to support the chimp human line. Put simply, this appears to be rubbish. This post appears to be trying to downplay the truth. Yes, Ardi was discovered ages ago but it is only recently that in depth research has been carried out on Ardi. As you know Lovejoy was the primary in reconstructing 'Lucy', with a pulverized pelvic region.

All the fossils you and others post are outlining the connection between chimps and humans and how their skeletons changed over time. You continue to run this line and it is very strongly challenged. Indeed Lovejoys research indicates that humans did NOT decend from any knucklewalkers, and did not decend from chimpanzees. So the chimp to human evidence you post as undeniable evidence of ancestry to the chimpanzee no longer applies.

Lovejoy worked with over 40 researchers on the Ardi project and has a huge following in the scientific community. He is not left field at all. I believe you know this PW. I have previously said...trying to move an evolutionist from belief to another is as hard as prizing a myth from a creationist. I see evidence of this here in many posts.

Note..from the article:
Still, with all of this new evidence, “the idea that we came from a chimp-like ancestor is highly unlikely,” Ward says. And therefore, given a different starting point, researchers will need to reframe many of the questions about how and why hominids started down the human path.


Note from my previous post:
"But this is hardly the end of the discussion — and many more scientists are likely to weigh in on the fossils. “It’s an almost unprecedented collection of fossils,” Ward says. “There’s a tremendous amount of information in [them] … and decades of questions to be addressed.”

This article speaks to the considerations of LEADING researchers. Respectfully, though some of you have some credentials, none of you are of the credentialed standard that this article speaks to. NOTE...this is "not the end of the discussion". So for anyone here to dismiss, ignore, downplay or challenge what these leaders in the fields have to say is irrelevant.


These fossils mean nothing, and are evidence of nothing, at the moment. All they appear to show me at the moment is that there was great variety of non human primates. I feel Ok about challenging this stuff. I am a creationist.

Most of all I love it when evolutionists of lesser credentialed standing challenge the findings and interpretations of their own leading evolutionary researchers.

I think Painted wolf and Auto' explained this far better than I but I'll add my tuppence.

I do think Ardi’ has been hyped and the inevitable consequence of said hype is misrepresentation and confusion over what the fossils actually suggest. I posted a response (over here on 12/1/10) to a similar post you made previously, and while I understand your confusion, it’s still disheartening that you ignored the information in my post and continue to misrepresent what Lovejoy has said concerning the issue.

Ardi was a facultative biped who was predominately a tree dweller with the unusual distinction of walking with her palms and plantar face flush against the surface she was travelling along- a locomotion very different from modern apes. Knuckle walking is a specialized form of locomotion; amongst primates the only ones to knuckle walk regularly are African apes, so the assumption that our common ancestor would have likely been knuckle walkers as well is reasonable. But some researchers- like Scmitt and Kivell for example- have been vocal about their skepticism towards our knuckle walking common ancestor, while Dainton and Macho theorize the parallel evolution of quadrupedal locomotion (or maybe even a third time with Kenyapithecus).

It’s all fascinating stuff but it boils down to “whether human bipedalism evolved from a terrestrial knuckle-walking ancestor or from a more generalized, arboreal ape ancestor”. Regardless, there’s no controversy over a shared common ancestor for primates both Homo and Pan and there’s no reason to consistently misrepresent Lovejoy’s stance on the matter. Lovejoy is simply saying that our common ancestor didn’t look anything like any of the extant apes. (Mis)quoting him as a source to justify anything resembling creationism is absurd.

 

[David M]

What Did They Look Like?
However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based?

Artists recontructions, and as they are labelled as such where is the problem?

The book The Biology of Race answers:
“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds:

True, but posture is based on morphology of the skeleton, so what is the problem again?

“Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” (The Biology of Race, by James C.　King,　1971, pp. 135,　151)

Thats the problem with quote-mining from out of date books, this is no longer true as we have been able to recover DNA from prehistoric men. We now do know some things about them. Additionally the work advances in knowledge of how muscles attach to bone allows us to know more about features.

Science Digest also commented:
“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. .　.　. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged:
“No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.” (Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41)

And the problem is what again? We can be certain about the morphology of the skeleton which is a much greater indicator of relationships than skin or hair colour.

Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” (Lucy, p. 286)

Context, this is a quote mine as there is no fantasy about skeletal morphology.

So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects .　.　. sheer invention.” (New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3,　1972, p. 259)

So artists impressions are artists impressions, what was the problam again?

Thus in Man, God and Magic p. 304, Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”

Ivar Lissner is wrong, and writing in 1961. And this is from a book about religion, not biology.

In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. <snip>

Piltdown Man? A hoax revealed by scientists and questioned even before that hoax was revealed.

What Were They?
If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago.

You have provided no evidence that reconstructions based on morphology are invalid. Only that artists impressions of things that don't fossilise are artists impressions, so what is the issue again?

In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind p. 315, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote:
“They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.” Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”(Origins, p. 40)
But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

Yes, skeleton morphology and genetics.

Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as:

“Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18,&#12288;1980, p. 58)

“Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times January&#12288;1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16)

“Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins p. 52)

But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

So artists impressions are artists impressions and journalists make claims that exagerate what the scientists say? What is the problem again?

The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”
Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). <snip>

Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis ofjawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times February 14,&#12288;1982, p. E7, reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”

So artists impressions are artists impressions? What is the problem again?

However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family.
So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.” (New Scientist, “Jive Talking,” by John Gribbin, June 24,&#12288;1982, p. 873)
Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, .&#12288;.&#12288;. reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?” (Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L.&#12288;Zihlman and Jerold M.&#12288;Lowenstein, August/September 1979, p. 86)

Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.”
Source: (Evolution or Creation? [Ce] chap. 7 pp. 89-93)

If you are tempted to dismiss these articles on account of their age, just remember this:
Except for, perhaps one, there has been no revision or removal of any exhibit constructed on the basis of extremely small fragments of bone.
The "links" remain missing and the presentation intact.

No I am dismissing the articles because they pretty much say nothing more than "artists impressions are artists impressions" and "new evidence enhances our knowledge"

My question:
Why has the peer-review system been unable or unwilling to remove these frauds from being demonstrated at authentic replications of "pre-human" creatures? Why have they allowed entire exhibits, reconstructed entirely from tiny pieces of bone, to be presented as authentic?

Because they are not frauds, they are artists impressions or remains whose relationship to other fossils changes when new evidence is discovered.

Only the terminally dense (or deceitful) are unable to grasp the fact that an artists impression is not claimed to be a definitive image of what something did look like, only what it may have looked like.

 

[outhouse]

newhope has been told 20 times that humans did not evolve from chimps but she just keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over like it has a valid point

she does not have a valid point in my opinion

wilsoncole will not let go that fossils are all fake, this is laughable. As well claims that science does this for profit when in fact creationist sell there weak stories to the uneducated for profit.

please provide proof there fake.

 

[painted wolf]

I respectfully disagree. You and Auto have posted evidence to support the chimp human line. Put simply, this appears to be rubbish. This post appears to be trying to downplay the truth. Yes, Ardi was discovered ages ago but it is only recently that in depth research has been carried out on Ardi. As you know Lovejoy was the primary in reconstructing 'Lucy', with a pulverized pelvic region.

I have never and will never say that humans evolved from chimps. They are our closest living relations, but we are cousins not brothers nor ancestor/descendant.

All the fossils you and others post are outlining the connection between chimps and humans and how their skeletons changed over time. You continue to run this line and it is very strongly challenged.

No, I have shown fossils that demonstrate the hominid line going back to Australopithicines. I have never and will never claim that humans are descended from chimps. I don't know where you get these ideas, but it's not from paying attention to anything I say.:faint:

Indeed Lovejoys research indicates that humans did NOT decend from any knucklewalkers, and did not decend from chimpanzees. So the chimp to human evidence you post as undeniable evidence of ancestry to the chimpanzee no longer applies.

And I agree with Lovejoy.... I've said so several times... again you don't seem to pay attention to what others say. :thud:

Lovejoy worked with over 40 researchers on the Ardi project and has a huge following in the scientific community. He is not left field at all. I believe you know this PW. I have previously said...trying to move an evolutionist from belief to another is as hard as prizing a myth from a creationist. I see evidence of this here in many posts.

The only thing i see is your inability to retain any information you don't like. Including my repeated agreement with Lovejoy and explainations of his position on evolution... like your crazy fixation on wanting me to say humans evolved from chimps. :slap:

Note..from the article:
Still, with all of this new evidence, “the idea that we came from a chimp-like ancestor is highly unlikely,” Ward says. And therefore, given a different starting point, researchers will need to reframe many of the questions about how and why hominids started down the human path.

No one argues that... but it doesn't refute human evolution nor does it change it all that much.

Note from my previous post:
"But this is hardly the end of the discussion — and many more scientists are likely to weigh in on the fossils. “It’s an almost unprecedented collection of fossils,” Ward says. “There’s a tremendous amount of information in [them] … and decades of questions to be addressed.”

This article speaks to the considerations of LEADING researchers. Respectfully, though some of you have some credentials, none of you are of the credentialed standard that this article speaks to. NOTE...this is "not the end of the discussion". So for anyone here to dismiss, ignore, downplay or challenge what these leaders in the fields have to say is irrelevant.

I have no smeging clue what you are trying to say here... No one has argued against this.

These fossils mean nothing, and are evidence of nothing, at the moment. All they appear to show me at the moment is that there was great variety of non human primates. I feel Ok about challenging this stuff. I am a creationist.

You refuse to define what a human is... how do you know they are all non-human?

Most of all I love it when evolutionists of lesser credentialed standing challenge the findings and interpretations of their own leading evolutionary researchers.

Yeah, let me know when that happens. Thus far all we have is a creationist jumping the shark and making some outlandish claims unsupported by the very articles they quote. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

...did not decend from chimpanzees. So the chimp to human evidence you post as undeniable evidence of ancestry to the chimpanzee no longer applies.

I have to stop giving newhope101's posts the benefit of the doubt... I glossed over stuff like the above assuming she meant CHLCA and not a direct chimp-to-human ancestry.

What a waste of time.

 

[Etritonakin]

so, a fully developed human 'materialized'??is this what creationists think??PLEASE, creationists, yes or no????

I am not a "creationist", but I do believe the Word who became Christ -as instructed by the Father -created all "things" (the physical universe, earth, man, etc.).

I also believe that what can be proven about evolution in no way contradicts the bible.

I believe the first "man" -by biblical definition (made in the image and likeness of God [might expound later] and having the potential to live forever) -did not have a human mother or father.

I also believe that many humanoids existed on earth prior to the creation of Adam -and that the earth is much older than 6,000 years -which is actually supported by scripture. Given the genealogies in the bible, Adam was created about 6,000 years ago -not the earth. Assumptions about what is written in Genesis have led to much confusion.

Even if one believes purely in evolution, one would need to accept that if for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, then all that has been was inevitable since the "big bang" -and even before -and was not random at all. What is now would be a cast from the mold.

However, God does exist -and what can be proven about evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator. What can be proven about evolution and a creator can both exist. There is no proof that what can be proven about evolution was not created, and it is quite apparent that what can be proven about evolution can be affected by designers -BY OUR OWN EXAMPLE. We can alter natural evolution BY CREATIVITY. What would have been in the absence of our will can be altered by our will.

MATERIALIZED:

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

If you think about it, our bodies are an interface between our minds and our environment.
Our present human bodies require that we manipulate our environment with our physical bodies, but the ability to act by "fiat" (simply "let there be light") is 100 percent possible -given a different interface.

Our bodies are as they are for a purpose, but they can be otherwise.

We create devices which increase our power of perception and manipulation -and these things can actually be incorporated into a body!

You don't know. You don't get it, do you? You don't know how beautiful you are! (-U2)

 

[outhouse]

The above statement is just another creationist tactic of moving the bar and interpreting the bible to suit ones own needs.

first it was young earth no exceptions.
then its old earth recent humans
then its old earth
then its god created the big bang.

creationist can never get together with there fellow man on when exactly god stepped in.

And like many creationist this one doesnt have a single point regarding the fossil record and is completely off topic again.

The above creationist believes were all inbreed with the no mother or father im not sure but this may be that he does not believe the fossil record

 

[Alceste]

The above statement is just another creationist tactic of moving the bar and interpreting the bible to suit ones own needs.

first it was young earth no exceptions.
then its old earth recent humans
then its old earth
then its god created the big bang.

creationist can never get together with there fellow man on when exactly god stepped in.

And like many creationist this one doesnt have a single point regarding the fossil record and is completely off topic again.

The above creationist believes were all inbreed with the no mother or father im not sure but this may be that he does not believe the fossil record

So what? You want to criticize adaptability now? In an evolution thread? lol. I'm totally cool with religious people letting go of disproved cosmologies. To do otherwise would be CRAZY.

 

[outhouse]

So what? You want to criticize adaptability now? In an evolution thread? lol. I'm totally cool with religious people letting go of disproved cosmologies. To do otherwise would be CRAZY.

you have a point on adaptability, but this is mental evolution that has nothing to do with letting go of disproved cosmologies. its just another creationist tactic

 

[BIG D]

I am not a "creationist", but I do believe the Word who became Christ -as instructed by the Father -created all "things" (the physical universe, earth, man, etc.).

I also believe that what can be proven about evolution in no way contradicts the bible.

I believe the first "man" -by biblical definition (made in the image and likeness of God [might expound later] and having the potential to live forever) -did not have a human mother or father.

I also believe that many humanoids existed on earth prior to the creation of Adam -and that the earth is much older than 6,000 years -which is actually supported by scripture. Given the genealogies in the bible, Adam was created about 6,000 years ago -not the earth. Assumptions about what is written in Genesis have led to much confusion.

Even if one believes purely in evolution, one would need to accept that if for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, then all that has been was inevitable since the "big bang" -and even before -and was not random at all. What is now would be a cast from the mold.

However, God does exist -and what can be proven about evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator. What can be proven about evolution and a creator can both exist. There is no proof that what can be proven about evolution was not created, and it is quite apparent that what can be proven about evolution can be affected by designers -BY OUR OWN EXAMPLE. We can alter natural evolution BY CREATIVITY. What would have been in the absence of our will can be altered by our will.

MATERIALIZED:

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

If you think about it, our bodies are an interface between our minds and our environment.
Our present human bodies require that we manipulate our environment with our physical bodies, but the ability to act by "fiat" (simply "let there be light") is 100 percent possible -given a different interface.

Our bodies are as they are for a purpose, but they can be otherwise.

We create devices which increase our power of perception and manipulation -and these things can actually be incorporated into a body!

You don't know. You don't get it, do you? You don't know how beautiful you are! (-U2)

well, I guess I'm stupid, but is that a NO or a Yes???

 

[tumbleweed41]

you have a point on adaptability, but this is mental evolution that has nothing to do with letting go of disproved cosmologies. its just another creationist tactic

Sorry, no.
A Creationist tactic would be to ignore the objective evidence altogether, or make pitiful attempts to discredit the evidence.

Accepting the evidence while still holding onto ones faith, that is, letting go of the dogmatic and accepting reality, is a rather admirable trait.

Biological Evolution, Abiogenesis, and Big Bang Cosmology are not about disproving God. They are about finding out how our Universe works.

 

[painted wolf]

Sorry, no.
A Creationist tactic would be to ignore the objective evidence altogether, or make pitiful attempts to discredit the evidence.

One that has been with us for centuries.

Accepting the evidence while still holding onto ones faith, that is, letting go of the dogmatic and accepting reality, is a rather admirable trait.

Biological Evolution, Abiogenesis, and Big Bang Cosmology are not about disproving God. They are about finding out how our Universe works.

Absolutely!
Unless outhouse is suggesting I'm a pathetic creationist?

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

One that has been with us for centuries.

Absolutely!
Unless outhouse is suggesting I'm a pathetic creationist?

wa:do

these are my points and i never called you pathetic

The above creationist believes were all inbreed with the no mother or father im not sure but this may be that he does not believe the fossil record

we are not inbreed from a single breeding pair

and

creationist can never get together with there fellow man on when exactly god stepped in.

this is still true from young earthers all the way to ID


I believe the fossil record shows evolution %100 took care of the origins of mankind in my opinion


Did I step in it? probably so.