Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

cpurser is right things are starting to get off topic, lets try and stick to the creation, evolution part of it.

Who said I was sure.. I come down on the evolution side because it does fit the facts the best.. and it is a changing belief. Creationism isn't.

Really??? Homo erectus never existed?? Homo sapiens never existed (for those ignorant of the fact.. we are considered homo sapiens sapiens) Australopithicines never existed?? And yet in the museum of natural history here in NYC they have examples of these.. hmmm no facts.. geee.. I wonder... I guess someone created these for duping all us poor fools.. Examples of early hominoids like Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis never existed either? Or how about Propliopithecus Haeckeli??? After all we don't have their fossils now do we?? Or Ramapithicines.. or Dryopithicenes.. or the Kenyapithicus doesn't exist.. or the Gigantopithecus or lets see Propliopiths never existed.. or how about the earliest definite hominoids at found at Leatolia Tanzania with date to about 3.7 million years ago. (shelton et. al 1986:21) And the man who discovered them Raymond Dart.. nooooo none of this 'evidence' evidence exists.. after all we are just fairy tale spinners.. we have no idea what we are talking about. And no one.. absolutely no one has heard of the Lucy fossil.. sure doesn't exist.. doesn't prove a thing.. After all early hominoids never existed BEFORE Homo Sapiens Sapiens.. Nothing like Homo Habilus existed.. Or how about Homo Erectus heidlebergenis????

You can fill warehouses with this stuff.. and that's only the HUMAN evidence.. what about that of horses.. or dogs or cats.. or birds???

And I've never ever seen the fossils of Australopithicus afarensis, they're complete myth never seen them in my life.. nope don't exist.

Please people.. look.. see what is there.. don't just read.. go to museums.. and honestly look at what they have there to show you. Don't ignore what is available for you to see for yourself.. you don't have to trust scientists on this.. just go look and then tell me where these things came from. And try to find out for yourselves.. maybe go to the Dakota's .. do some fossil searching on your own..

Umm... what is the definition of cirular reasoning?? I said that evolution fits the facts the best.. not that it is the only possibility where?? I wonder is the circular reasoning??
Ohh and for facts.. gee time scale.. here's a simple one the immense size of the universe and the incredible distances it takes to travel there combined with the speed of light.( proven fact if there was one.. or do you now say that we can't measure light's speed??)

I really don't quote specific studies or literature.(I did here once.. i just couldn't resist) Why?? go look for yourself.. don't read books.. don't listen to fools purpoting psuedo-science.. Go and LOOK!!!! Then come back and answer where these things came from??? And where did they go???

Uhh a general guide to behavior and how to handle relationships between people. A great guide on how to live a Moral and Just life within a lawful society.

Gee I dunno.. what good is the rest of the book???.. beats me..

No offense intended, but thats not saying much. How do you REALLY know how accurate it is now, after all these centuries/translations? Not to say that it isn't, but I wasn't there for any of the original scribblings...were you?

I have no problem with you taking every word as truth. Also first verse incorect/what good is rest, etc.. I actually prefer if you are going to tout creationism that you do feel this way. I'm sorry if you feel I "perpetuated an old myth". I'm only making observations on comments I've read as recently as this thread.

No offense meant, but I often don't know what to make of many creationists arguments. Just as one example, the dinosaur discussions. Now I really don't see anyone lining up anymore shouting "fraud!!! they never really lived!!" Which is smart, because the evidence rolls in daily. More and more varieties. More complete examples. On and on... Yet the latest explanation is that they lived at the same time as man. [cause at this point to say otherwise ruins everything, right?] So, 80ft long reptiles, flying reptiles with 35ft wing spans, all manor of spiked, horned, razor toothed, etc, etc.. and all anyone could come up with back then for some description was a FEW words like, behemoth??[sp?]

Am I the only one who thinks seeing something like what we now refer to as a Pteranodon flying through the air might just warrant a little more detailed mention?? The people of the time seem to have been capable of much greater description when necessary. Even in the most primitive of cave drawings, we're talking wooly bison and mammoths here. No charcoal sketches of 10ton reptiles...

This is why I was curious about your answers to my question on what if we found REAL PROOF of life somewhere other than earth. I'm trying to see what the thinking is BEFORE any evidence comes to light. [if any ever does.] I've heard no one say it's covered in the bible. Yet...somehow...if we do find out there is. Does anyone doubt that somebody will come up with a biblical explanation for it. All of a sudden...

ROFLMAO.. gotta love things like the inquisition and how Galileo was tortured to repent his beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

ohh good point.. I missed that one about the science from 30 years ago... science has advanced.. shouldn't your sources discounting have advanced also???

And since it is man (man being an imperfect being) who wrote the bible, then somehow the bible is flawed.. after all perfection isn't created from imperfection.

After all Catholicism and Christianity are the largest religions in the world aren't they. And because everyone believes in them.. They must be right...

Nope.. not gonna stone you.. I'm gonna cheer you on. Go ahead keep it going.

Page 12

And one last thing..

Can anyone tell me what a double-blind study is?? I'm still waiting for that one. Just a simple inquiry.

I contend that Creationists don't understand the true scientific process this is their chance to prove me wrong. Which to now none of them have done. I mean how can they understand and discount science if they don't even understand how it works? I'm really really confused on that point.

And none of you has even told me what the scientific method is.
Yeah I think at this point after looking at the "proofs" offered by the creationists.. I have serious doubts as to their ability to understand science. And I never said.. "because I said so"

If anything look up a few posts.. I name enough types of hominoids of which I have personally seen the fossil evidence (after all.. they are in museums.. that's what those school trips were for) And I've been back since then. I can't wait to hear the bible's reasoning for their existence.. That will be enormously humorous to watch.

And I never once called anyone here a jerk. I do however question their scientific understanding. While they are most likely upstanding, good quality citizens they are definitely NOT scientists. As such, I have valid doubts as to their understanding of science and how it works. I keep asking for a simple proof of this.. no references, no books.. no one but themselves..(evidence for evolution exists in every single natural museum in this country.. you want proof .. go visit one.. again no books no studies.. simple personal observation.. something called... empiric evidence) Doesn't mean that you can't get a theory wrong based on it.. but at least you've got evidence besides a single book written by a primitive culture. That the most numerous believers in (Catholics) regard as a guide written by a primitive society.

What is a double-blind study.. how does it work?

I'm waiting.. And yes I'll have a few more after this..

After all I'm scientific in nature.. I need repeatable proof... not just a one time thing.

Well let me try to begin this on the right foot, I am an anthroplogist and my wife is an evolutionary archeologist. Reading this whole forum has been at times quite impressive and other times a bit tedious. I am very impressed with how civil this has stayed. (most discussions that I have seen or gotten into abtou this topic can get quite heated). Anyway I'll cut to the chase and put my 2 cents in.

1. Radio carbon dating may be wrong sometimes. It is not as exact as other methods of dating like Potasium Argon, Thermoluminesence, electron spin resonance, and numerous others. Imagine using a really cheap scale. Usually you'll get the right weight but it's not going to be exact and sometimes the scale will be completely off. Most archeoligists will use carbon dating to get a rough first estimate because it the cheapest and fastest ways to do it. (After getting an initial date and doign further research ie getting more money a more complex and accurate test will be done.) Potasium Argon dating is extremely accurate. Potasium has a half life of 1.3 billion and slowly decays into argon. This can be calculated and calibrated to get an extremely accurate date of up to 1.3 billion years +or- a about 500 years. Now while this doesn't prove that evolution exists we can get dates from objects from the past (unless you don't believe in chemistry)

2. The footprints in the riverbed subject is true (though I haven't heard of the ones over the dinosaur footprint) They were found by the Leakeys and they are abotu 4 million years old. They weren't made by human but by an hominid called Austrolopithecus afarensis. This upright walking hominid was about the size of an 8 year old (3ft tall) it woudl have had a similar footprint match as a human because it walked quite like we do. I have held an actual afrensis skull in my hand its quite amazing (it is a fossil most "bones" found archeologists/paleontologists are fossils.)

3. DNA It has been proven that DNA evolves over time (microbiology) Actually we evolve through changes in our genetic material. African american females have the most mutation in their mitochondria, compared to all other human races (little furnaces in your cells, it is also the only structure in the human body that is passed down linearly and it happens to be through the mother only.) Scientists have been able to deduce (but not yet prove) that all human beings came from a single to a small band of women from africa about 200,000 years ago (which is about how old the modern homo sapiens line is) Now while this also doesn't "prove" evolution, it does make the earth older than 6000 years, it also kinda proves that all humans come from africa.

4. Adaptation is fundamental to evolution, sickle cell anemia is a very good example. In the area of africa that anemia comes from an area in africa that has a very high rate of malaria. Sickle Cell Anemia helps prevent malaria. Now while the disease is dibilitating and can hinder the quality of life it doesn't end life nor does it hinder reproduction (any more than malaria does) as a result sickle cell anemia makes the chances of reproduction greater in that area. Eventually the people with sickle cell anemia could develop into an entirely different species as they evolved to cope with the sickle cell anemia. Another example of evolution and adaptation would be Neanderthal Most people know what neanderthal was. Neanderthal had very stout bodies, broad noses and barrel like torsos. Inuit people (eskimos) have very similar bodies as these type of bodies are very efficient in dealing with the cold. Now for neanderthals when the main ice ages were over, their adaption was too specialized, modern human bodies (including Inuit) are much more able to throw objects, run, and produce more specialized tools that worked better in the climate, hence about 40,000 years ago modern human began to take over.

Well There's four, can't think of a 5th at the moment (it's nearly midnight) I'll try to think of a couple more tomorrow. Just a few more rants though, the thing abotu bones and fossils: all bones over a period of time and given the right circumstances will turn into stone ie fossils. a true archeologist (unless they are looking at very recent finds) will call a bone a fossil as it has become "fossilized"
The great flood: Almost all cultures have myths and legends about the great flood. Some have stories abotu saving the animals and other some don't In archeology recently a great number of settlements have been found under the black sea. Evidently thousands of years ago the balck sea was a smaller lake, or river. Either because of melting glaciers, earthquake or other event, the the mediteranean suddenly poured thorouhg and created the black sea. Now to people living 10 or 20 thousand years ago, this must have been extremely catastrophic and awe inspiring imagine suddenly the whole world has become surrounded by water. THat would make a big story in anybodies book and most likely one that would travel around the world. Even though similar events most likely happen, and they still happen today. As for the seashells on mountains, that can be proven by plate tetonics and by the fact especially with the himalays (which are really young in geologic terms) there will be more fossils because they have less of a chance of being destroyed by erosion and other environmental factors.

Now while all of these can prove that the earth is over 6,000 years old and that evolution does exist. Let's talk about the fact that science isn't getting rid of evolution. In fact it's actually embracing it more and more and developing more hypothesis and finding more facts to prove it. Evolution is slowly becoming a stayed theory much like gravity or relativity. But in remembering true science, one must not forget that it is only a theory (based on fact) but only a theory. One must always remember even in creationism (to be truly scientific) that not everything is really real. We coudl all be just a figment of someone's imagination for all we really no. That's were faith comes in. Faith in science, faith in religion etc. Neither theory can really disprove one another (one maybe right both maybe right, etc.) The only true way anyone will really know is if we can go back in time and look it all over. (time being relative also) or when one meets the maker, they can ask how the hell did this all start. Anyway that is the end of my loooonng rant.

I didn't attack religion I questioned it.. on a level that is common within the scientific and philosophical world. I pointed out basic things that are highly quiestionable in nature.. and yes.. I was sarcastic about them....maybe personal.(not my intent). but I'm human I make mistakes. (I get sarcastic when people stop making sense.. otherwise I get too frustrated)

I mean look at what your saying.. does it really make logical sense?? forget religion forget science.. just logically.. MAN is the creation of GOD in HIS image??? umm What makes us sooooo special that WE are the ONLY ones to get this privilege?? Isn't that just tad bit egotistical?(again remember forget science, forget religion.. read the statements)

And as for lay people, when they are faced with people who have to live within the scientific community and then face the same arguments and degradation that scientists live with.. You react with calling me names.. (Gee.. I'm almost hurt... there's that sarcasm again) In science.. and philosophy.. you have to live with being called an idiot and a jerk everyday, it's a fundamental part of those endeavors. No one enjoys it.. but anytime you publish someone will attack your position. Others will attack your integrity, your beliefs and your personal behavior to prove you wrong. (especially if you disagree with them) So seeing your posts is nothing new... but wow.. did I hit a nerve.. I guess your listening now?? Why react with anger.. I was only sarcastic.. Or is questioning your religion (which face it.. Creationism is based on the Christian faith.. so why shouldn't that be brought into question also.. it is a pillar of your argument) going too far?

Jlanger.. thanks for mentioning the Leakeys.. I forgot about them in my list of hominiods.. They definitely deserve credit. I don't envy the position they took early in this century. The hate they encountered must have been horrible. However I admire their courage and their scientific abilities. There have been other footprints discovered since then.. although none as nearly important/significant.

Your point about the black sea is well put, I think that something that significant would create many word of mouth stories over time and turn into early legends and myths.

As for the rest.. yep I make mistakes.. I can even get angry.. But I will never ever call someone a jerk or other words.. for being sarcastic. I can question your scientific abilities, but I do not think you are less a person for having the lack.. just less a scientist. Let's face it, we aren't all scientists, and I'm no preacher ( ). There is nothing personal in what I've said.. and there never will be. If I have something personal to say to someone it will be in private.. it's no one else's business and I expect others to do the same.

As for attacking religion being my best defense.. hardly.. my best defense is how your going to explain to me all the scientific evidence that exists in every natural museum in a complete and scientific manner. NOT using references from the bible for generic terms like Behemoth, but exacting studies that go beyond the Bible and use other methods to correlate the data contained therein.(after all science uses the bible also)

ask the Anthropologists.. They use the bible too. But only as another source to prove their points. I.E. the black sea and the stories of the Flood.