Prove there's a god.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621102 May 3, 2013
Let's go with one of the most common pieces of evidence for evolution: humans have 23 chromosomes, and chimps have 24. Strange, right? Shouldn't we also have 24 chromosomes if we both descended from a common ancestor? But when you examine the genome, you find that there is clear evidence of two "ancestral" chromosomes fusing into one chromosome, which is why we have one less than our closest cousins. Human chromosome 2 contains vestegial telomeres and there is a vestigal centromere. The telomeres are in the middle where the centromere should be, and there is a centromere on either side of the vestigal telomeres. Additionally, the DNA of both "sides" of the chromosome correspond almost exactly to the corresponding chimp chromosomes that appear to have fused into human chromosome 2.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621103 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Try paragraphs please.
You are really off base here. I think that you conceptualize evolution as one species giving birth out of whole cloth to an entirely new species - a cat birthing a dog, a mouse birthing an elephant, etc. That's not how it works. Slow, incremental changes add up over time. Simple as that.
And the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Why else would we share much of our DNA with bananas?
Yea, I understand that evolution requires time. I'm simply stating that the fossil record does not support life evolving from a common ancestor. Each fossil found is unique to its own kind no matter if it's a bird, mammal, fish, etc. Nothing is found to suggest any kind of cross-over from one common ancestor to another species to another species and so on. Why evolutionists believe otherwise is beyond science itself. The fossil record proves evolution to contain many major holes.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621104 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, I understand that evolution requires time. I'm simply stating that the fossil record does not support life evolving from a common ancestor. Each fossil found is unique to its own kind no matter if it's a bird, mammal, fish, etc. Nothing is found to suggest any kind of cross-over from one common ancestor to another species to another species and so on. Why evolutionists believe otherwise is beyond science itself. The fossil record proves evolution to contain many major holes.
Except for, you know, all the fossils we have that appear to be "in between" different "kinds." Archaeopteryx being one of the more prominent examples. There are many others. And again, even if we had never found a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be undeniable. Our knowledge of dna is all we need to prove common descent. Again, it is why we share dna with a banana.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621105 May 3, 2013
Nvm. I forgot. Your god put our glorious human dna into the lowly banana to mess with us. Those who fall for it go to hell! Haha! He sure is a jokester, that yaweh.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621106 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You mean neanderthals? We did not descend directly from them. They were a part of the genus homo, but not our direct ancestor. We did interbreed, though.
And even if they were our direct ancestor, I don't see your point. So what if thr brain size decreased? You can't conceptualize evolution as striving "toward" anything other than survival. Humans were not it's "goal."
You have plenty of transitional fossils that would be clear evidence to any impartial observer. That's why you don't find many atheist evolution deniers, because we don't believe our salvation depends on denying it.
Neanderthal? Naw. So let me ask, how many million more years would U say that it would take for sea gulls to develop gills for oxygen for diving for food? If evolution is true then this must happen. Why not? What further evolution should man go through? If intelligence isn't necessary then how could so-called non-intelligence decide at what stage which species is fit for the environment? Evolution says it just happens. If rats began to walk upright would they become more intelligent over millions of years?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621107 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>There's no such thing as "full evolvement." That's my point, there is no "in between" that can be definitively pointed to, because everything is a transitional fossil. However, when comparing early hominids to modern humans there is a clear progression.
Okay...let me clarify, not full evolvement...but from point A to present...but I disagree...not everything is a transitional fossil...EVERYTHING is a BIG word. Lol..just being picky for the sake of argument...
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Neanderthals aren't even one of our ancestors, just part of the genus homo.
Okay, so they aren't our ancestors. I concur. I was using the Neanderthal example because science sees the skulls of the Neanderthal as not only a transitional fossil but one of the many missing links. Take the Neanderthal fossils, who is not our ancestor, totally out of the picture, and how does that effect the scientic theory of evolution as it relates to mankind?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Malformation? How would that account for similar characteristics found in seperate specimens across many different hominids? You're telling me that every single hominid specimen we have found, regardless of the species, have all shared the same exact bone deformation?
No that is not what I'm telling you at all. I'm talking about one discovery. If Dubois' discovery doesn't hold water, and we really can't definitively say it does because rickets may have accounted for the shape and size of the skulls...So let's, for the sake of argument remove those transitional fossils from history and what does that do for the theory as a whole? Similar characteristics means nothing to me. Humans share similar characteristics with countless other species...that doesn't mean we evolved from them or they evolved from us.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "java man" story is a mischaracterization of what happened. You are right that the femur and the teeth probably did not go with the skull, but he never recanted his find. He said it belonged to a "genus allied with the gibbon." Note that does not mean it was a gibbon. The skull is much too large to be an ape, although it still does retain some ape like characteristics. How is that not a transitional fossil?
Oh it could well be a transitional fossil...but there is absolutely no truth or definitive evidence to factually state that it a transitional fossil from ape to man, which is exactly what science wants us to believe. He said it belonged to a genus allied with a gibbon...to assume this is a missing link between ape and man, again is a stretch, but science throws that discovery right in the mix, because they need it to fill a gap.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignoring the fact that your conception of the "java man" is wrong, I will grant you that fossils are not an exact science, and that mistakes can and do happen because of the massive time scales involved. However, even if we had never discovered a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. The evidence from genetics alone is undeniable.
It isn't just MY conception on Java Man...there is widespread controversy regarding Dubois' find in Java. For Pete's sake! Dubois didn't even have formal training in geology or paleontology. He wasn't even qualified to determine the date and location of geological deposits in Java. After finding "java man" he changed the date to Tertiary to support the claim that the specimen was primitive. I think it's fairly safe to question any of his work on Java man. Also, I don't dispute evolution...I am disputing the Darwinian theory of the evolution of man...there is a significant difference.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621108 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
Okay...let me clarify, not full evolvement...but from point A to present...but I disagree...not everything is a transitional fossil...EVERYTHING is a BIG word. Lol..just being picky for the sake of argument...
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

We meow a lot meow about evolution meow.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#621109 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay...let me clarify, not full evolvement...but from point A to present...but I disagree...not everything is a transitional fossil...EVERYTHING is a BIG word. Lol..just being picky for the sake of argument...
<quoted text>
Okay, so they aren't our ancestors. I concur. I was using the Neanderthal example because science sees the skulls of the Neanderthal as not only a transitional fossil but one of the many missing links. Take the Neanderthal fossils, who is not our ancestor, totally out of the picture, and how does that effect the scientic theory of evolution as it relates to mankind?
<quoted text>
No that is not what I'm telling you at all. I'm talking about one discovery. If Dubois' discovery doesn't hold water, and we really can't definitively say it does because rickets may have accounted for the shape and size of the skulls...So let's, for the sake of argument remove those transitional fossils from history and what does that do for the theory as a whole? Similar characteristics means nothing to me. Humans share similar characteristics with countless other species...that doesn't mean we evolved from them or they evolved from us.
<quoted text>
Oh it could well be a transitional fossil...but there is absolutely no truth or definitive evidence to factually state that it a transitional fossil from ape to man, which is exactly what science wants us to believe. He said it belonged to a genus allied with a gibbon...to assume this is a missing link between ape and man, again is a stretch, but science throws that discovery right in the mix, because they need it to fill a gap.
<quoted text>
It isn't just MY conception on Java Man...there is widespread controversy regarding Dubois' find in Java. For Pete's sake! Dubois didn't even have formal training in geology or paleontology. He wasn't even qualified to determine the date and location of geological deposits in Java. After finding "java man" he changed the date to Tertiary to support the claim that the specimen was primitive. I think it's fairly safe to question any of his work on Java man. Also, I don't dispute evolution...I am disputing the Darwinian theory of the evolution of man...there is a significant difference.
Neandertal is the offspring of your aunt. Your cousin does not share the same father or mother in your line.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621110 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>All humans have biases. You are not saying, or rather quoting, anything new here. You previously asserted that there exists some massive conspiracy to defraud the public. You have not proven, let alone suggested, any such thing.
You have the worst case of DENIAL i have ever seen..

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621111 May 3, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
We meow a lot meow about evolution meow.
Oh now...my iPad is not a transitional fossil. it's an iPad. They will definitely invent a newer and more technologically advanced iPad. But it will be a new species of the iPad. The one I currently own...it's not a transitional fossil...it's an iPad and that's all it will ever be. Meow!

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621112 May 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Neandertal is the offspring of your aunt. Your cousin does not share the same father or mother in your line.
LOL...in my case...you are correct...but I'm from the south. There are quite a few exceptions to that statement round here dear friend!!!:)

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#621113 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh now...my iPad is not a transitional fossil. it's an iPad. They will definitely invent a newer and more technologically advanced iPad. But it will be a new species of the iPad. The one I currently own...it's not a transitional fossil...it's an iPad and that's all it will ever be. Meow!
Show me a fossilized Ipad and I will show you a cristard. The Ipad is however a transitional device, and like all hardware it is evolving also.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621114 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Neanderthal? Naw. So let me ask, how many million more years would U say that it would take for sea gulls to develop gills for oxygen for diving for food? If evolution is true then this must happen. Why not? What further evolution should man go through? If intelligence isn't necessary then how could so-called non-intelligence decide at what stage which species is fit for the environment? Evolution says it just happens. If rats began to walk upright would they become more intelligent over millions of years?
Nothing "decides." If you survive, you might pass on your genes. If you don't survive, you don't.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#621115 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, I understand that evolution requires time. I'm simply stating that the fossil record does not support life evolving from a common ancestor. Each fossil found is unique to its own kind no matter if it's a bird, mammal, fish, etc. Nothing is found to suggest any kind of cross-over from one common ancestor to another species to another species and so on. Why evolutionists believe otherwise is beyond science itself. The fossil record proves evolution to contain many major holes.
What "kind" are trilobites?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621117 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay...let me clarify, not full evolvement...but from point A to present...but I disagree...not everything is a transitional fossil...EVERYTHING is a BIG word. Lol..just being picky for the sake of argument...
Ok.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so they aren't our ancestors. I concur. I was using the Neanderthal example because science sees the skulls of the Neanderthal as not only a transitional fossil but one of the many missing links. Take the Neanderthal fossils, who is not our ancestor, totally out of the picture, and how does that effect the scientic theory of evolution as it relates to mankind?
It doesn't.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
No that is not what I'm telling you at all. I'm talking about one discovery. If Dubois' discovery doesn't hold water, and we really can't definitively say it does because rickets may have accounted for the shape and size of the skulls...So let's, for the sake of argument remove those transitional fossils from history and what does that do for the theory as a whole? Similar characteristics means nothing to me. Humans share similar characteristics with countless other species...that doesn't mean we evolved from them or they evolved from us.
His discovery does hold water. The "controversy" is made up by creationists. His qualifications don't matter, what he found is what he found. His interpretations don't even really matter, because the fossil itself is available for other scientists to examine and confirm.

Removing transitional fossils does nothing. It removes the "sexy" aspect of evolution that holds a lot of popular appeal. All the proof we need for common descent is found in our DNA. This is ignoring all the other lines of evidence.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh it could well be a transitional fossil...but there is absolutely no truth or definitive evidence to factually state that it a transitional fossil from ape to man, which is exactly what science wants us to believe. He said it belonged to a genus allied with a gibbon...to assume this is a missing link between ape and man, again is a stretch, but science throws that discovery right in the mix, because they need it to fill a gap.
How do you define "proof?" It is a skull that is clearly hominid in shape, having a large brain case, but still retaining some ape like characteristics. That's as good as it gets.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't just MY conception on Java Man...there is widespread controversy regarding Dubois' find in Java. For Pete's sake! Dubois didn't even have formal training in geology or paleontology. He wasn't even qualified to determine the date and location of geological deposits in Java. After finding "java man" he changed the date to Tertiary to support the claim that the specimen was primitive. I think it's fairly safe to question any of his work on Java man. Also, I don't dispute evolution...I am disputing the Darwinian theory of the evolution of man...there is a significant difference.
There is widespread controversy in creationist circles. That is not relevant.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#621118 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Neanderthal? Naw. So let me ask, how many million more years would U say that it would take for sea gulls to develop gills for oxygen for diving for food? If evolution is true then this must happen. Why not? What further evolution should man go through? If intelligence isn't necessary then how could so-called non-intelligence decide at what stage which species is fit for the environment? Evolution says it just happens. If rats began to walk upright would they become more intelligent over millions of years?
Sorry, but the crocoduck would falsify most of the theory of evolution, not support it.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621119 May 3, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the worst case of DENIAL i have ever seen..
How so? You think that you were telling me anything new by claiming that human beings have biases? So what? That's what the scientific method is for - to remove bias and human error.

This is what is happening:

you - Scientists are ebilll! They stealz our tax dollars to research the debils evolution! They all work together to lie to us! Jeebus!

me - proof?

you - you're so blind to jeebus!

Since: Mar 11

Australia

#621120 May 3, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>Gee, thanks for that.
Well it is pointless of you expecting people on here to explain things when we have such great information at our finger tips. People on here aren't locked up in labs living their life for their work. Some can pop out answers to questions but most can't. I find when an explanation is given it is often rejected.
Though if you go and search the info it is all there. They tell you exactly what there missing, where they expect to find it, why they haven't yet.
To all those who keep saying it's all a lie. Look the word lie up for a start. If someone has something wrong it isn't a lie, they just got it wrong. Can you imagine scientists from all over the world continuing such a lie? and if some just got it wrong, there's all those other's on there tales, checking, correcting if needed, re-checking, debating, All the people out there in the field millions of them working on these issues.
People thinking we have only been here 5 or 10 thousand years. I am very uneducated but just walking around rocks and beaches, just sitting and watching the natural world should tell you it is impossible for that to be true.


“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621121 May 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Show me a fossilized Ipad and I will show you a cristard. The Ipad is however a transitional device, and like all hardware it is evolving also.
Thank you Aura, for making my point...EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#621122 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Aura, for making my point...EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil.
All living organisms are transitional forms, thus all fossils are transitional fossils. Mechanical objects are not fossils.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 13 min Aura Mytha 119,267
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 46 min kent 679,299
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Peter Ross 445,843
Any mature gay men wanting to Skype? (Jul '12) 2 hr Byscotty69 11
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Patriot 286,325
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 2 hr real 33,217
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr democrat punisher 2,784
More from around the web