Creation vs. Evolution

[Ben]

Stick monkey.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

Ah. Gotcha. Or gotcha ya. Or whatever.

[stick_monkey]

Thanks for the links, that explains a lot.

I had the pictures backwards in my head.

[andros]

So . . . anyone figure maybe johnny miles got raptured?

[kimera]

Someone posted this some other place.

**

There are sheer amounts of evidence to refute evolution. First of all is the emotions of humans. Mr. evolutionist states that humans have developed high intelligence. And biologically and evolutionally speaking, our sole purpose of life is to pass down our genes, right? However, here occurs a problem. HOW did we develop high intelligence? It was not necessary step in evolution. Secondly, WHY do we have emotions towards species that are not in our class. For example, when we see a flower or a turtle, our response is, “oh, how cute!” or “oh, how beautiful.” HOW did we develop this sense of aesthetics? And how the heck does this tie in with evolution. There is fallacy No. 1

Another fallacy is here. Evolutionists, like Steven Jay Gould, have believed in the theory of human bones found in Africa. However, (too bad for Mr. Gould, who died too early before this discovery was made last year.) this is not valid anymore. If you still believe in A. Afarensis, Anamensis, H. Neanderthal, and Cromagnon stuff, I suggest you throw those useless belief out of your mind. Because, there was another discovery made. The species is named “Sahelanthropus Tchadensis.” It is reportedly discovered 25 miles North from the sites around which the fossils such as A. Afarensis were discovered. As you know, those fossils were thought to have been at the most 6 million years old. However, ST resembles humans way more and is 10 million years old. So, there is another contradiction here. …
Scientists who have discovered ST have already figured out that it was definitely a human bone and it resembles humans more closely than the other fossils. And it is even older. Humans living in a closely located areas COULD NOT have evolved faster than the other humans.**

[BrightNShiny]

Someone posted this some other place.

Huh? Where did they post it? Are you agreeing with this position? Do you intend to argue this position? Who is posting this viewpoint? Do you intend to contribute to this debate? Inquiring minds want to know.

[kimera]

*Originally posted by BrightNShiny *
**Huh? Where did they post it? Are you agreeing with this position? Do you intend to argue this position? Who is posting this viewpoint? Do you intend to contribute to this debate? Inquiring minds want to know. **

I don’t agree with it. But I don’t know how to argue against it. I used to firmly believe in Creationism before coming to this board and I don’t know really how to argue against it. I thought that the person had some valid points that I didn’t see explained away. Sorry if I missed it in a thread.

Since this thread was labled “Creation versus Evolution” I thought that a person could post just random arguments for either side in it. Sorry again.

[GodlessSkeptic]

**There are sheer amounts of evidence to refute evolution. First of all is the emotions of humans. Mr. evolutionist states that humans have developed high intelligence. And biologically and evolutionally speaking, our sole purpose of life is to pass down our genes, right?

**
Wrong.There is no “sole purpose in life” as the author implies.Biologically speaking our primary drives ARE reproduction and survival but this has nothing to do with any “sole purpose” nor is such an inference warranted.

** However, here occurs a problem. HOW did we develop high intelligence? It was not necessary step in evolution.

**

What IS a “necessary step in evolution”?The author is incorrect on two counts here:

1)High intelligence IS an evolutionary adaption, without whcih humanity would not likely exist right now.Taking away our intelligence would be akin to removing claws from felines or the strength and stamina from bears or the speed of gazelles.

2)He is presupposing that humanity is a “goal” of evolution and trying to work backwards to ascertain what was “necessary” to attain this goal.

Evolution has NO goals.It is not really directed(accept what is dictated by environment and ecosytem).Creatures do not devleope This so they can do that but rather creatures find themselves in a particular environment where individuals who have this adaption happen to have a slight advantage over others of their kind who lack this.

**Secondly, WHY do we have emotions towards species that are not in our class.

**

We have stronger empathy the greater the similarities of a species to our own.We have the strongest empathy for other humans, somewhat less towards chimpanzees and other apes(chimps are rarely served up as food in restaurants), still less for dogs and cats, much less for snakes and lizards and our empathy for insects, sea urchins and germs is almost nonexistent.
If stranded on a desert island with nothing but sand crabs to keep us company we would be happy to see a chimpanzee and ecstatic to find another human.
Why wouldn’t we have emotions topwards other living things?!?

** For example, when we see a flower or a turtle, our response is, “oh, how cute!” or “oh, how beautiful.” HOW did we develop this sense of aesthetics? And how the heck does this tie in with evolution. There is fallacy No. 1

**

You might as well be asking evolution to explain “beauty”.The reason I see a doe and say “Oh how cute” rather than “Kill it so we can eat!” is because I grew up watching Bambi and other anthropomorphisized animals rather than sitting around a capfire listening to tales of great hunters who brought down animals with godlike prowess to save their tribe/family from starvation.

**Another fallacy is here. Evolutionists, like Steven Jay Gould, have believed in the theory of human bones found in Africa.

**

The theory of what?!?

** However, (too bad for Mr. Gould, who died too early before this discovery was made last year.) this is not valid anymore. If you still believe in A. Afarensis, Anamensis, H. Neanderthal, and Cromagnon stuff, I suggest you throw those useless belief out of your mind. Because, there was another discovery made. The species is named “Sahelanthropus Tchadensis.” It is reportedly discovered 25 miles North from the sites around which the fossils such as A. Afarensis were discovered. As you know, those fossils were thought to have been at the most 6 million years old. However, ST resembles humans way more and is 10 million years old. So, there is another contradiction here. …

**

I admit I am not familiar with this latest species finding but the author here is under the erroneous impression that the evolution of man from miocene apes to modern homo sapiens is a direct line and includes all primates ever discovered.Evolutionm is a TREE, not a line.We share common ANCESTRY with other primates, living and extinct.We are NOT related to cro magnon or neanderthal directly(though homo sapiens and cromagnons and neanderthals undoubtedly DO have common ancestors if we trace the "branches all the way back to the trunk and roots.).

All this new species represents(if actual) is another, perhaps direct, ancestor of humanity.

**Scientists who have discovered ST have already figured out that it was definitely a human bone and it resembles humans more closely than the other fossils. And it is even older. Humans living in a closely located areas COULD NOT have evolved faster than the other humans.

---

I have no idea what the author is trying to say here.

[GodlessSkeptic]

*Originally posted by andros *
**So . . . anyone figure maybe johnny miles got raptured? **

I was praying for it.If Johnny shows his face around here again then I will become a strong atheist for sure.

[Ben]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

Actually, ST is 6-7 million years old, not 10 million. It’s more apelike than A. afarensis, not more humanlike. (Lucy clearly walked upright, whereas it’s unclear whether ST did.) The first thing to do when debating creationists is to check the basic facts, because 90% of the time they will be completely at odds with reality.

[GodlessSkeptic]

Thanks Ben.Not being a scientist myself it is more difficult for me to recognise the different classifications, terminologies and whatnot.I shall heed your words and make the talkorgins site(as well as my own library) my first priority when addressing creationists’ challenges.

[Ben]

What- you think I use the abbreviation “ST” for convenience? I use it because I don’t know what it stands for. I just cut-and-pasted the full name from Ava’s post into www.talkorigins.org’s search function.

[BrightNShiny]

Ava:
Since this thread was labled “Creation versus Evolution” I thought that a person could post just random arguments for either side in it. Sorry again.

Ava, I’m not a moderator, nor the OP, so I’m not thread police here. I was just trying to get you to clarify your post (which you did later). I meant my statements to be taken in a light vein.

[New_Iskander]

Creation is a myth.

Evolution is a theory.

Myth and theory can be extremely entertaining and thought-provoking, each in their own way.

To believe in either is idiotic.

[kimera]

*Originally posted by BrightNShiny *
**Ava, I’m not a moderator, nor the OP, so I’m not thread police here. I was just trying to get you to clarify your post (which you did later). I meant my statements to be taken in a light vein. **

That is okay. I hate it when people take the thread off into tangents and I didn’t want to hijack this one either.

In an effort to clear up my own Ignorance…

I can see why species would gain things when they evolve - the first long necked animals were able to reach leaves that the shorter necked animals couldn’t.

But losing things seems a bit odd. When evolution was first explained to me as a child, my teacher told me that humans would eventually lose our appendix and our pinkie toes.

Appendix I can kind of understand. It can get affected, people can die, etc. A gene mutates, random people are born without appendixes, they are healthy, have many offspring, soon most people have no appendixes, right?

But why would our pinky toes disappear? It doesn’t seem to be hurting anything. Our pubic/armpit hair is still here although we don’t really use it. Can things really just fall away with disuse?

Or was my teacher just smoking crack and are people keeping those things?

What, if any, things are people not going to have (or are going to have) in the future according to what we’ve studied so far in evolution?

Sorry for all the questions, but evolution is something I’ve only recently accepting having been fed the other side for most of my life.

[Dob]

/sidetrack…

At what point can Evolutionary Theory become Law? Is there some process that must happen first? Does more evidence need to be collected? Or do we just need to vote on it?

[Latro]

Hey, good one!
Let’s vote on it, then creationism would be against the law.

[Chicago_Faucet]

If you want a good laugh, then check out this website:

www.godsaidmansaid.com

If it has already been mentioned in this long thread, then I apologize.

I also apologize, ahead of time, to the Creationists for mocking this website.

[Telemark]

It takes energy to maintain useless features. If that energy can be directed elsewhere and help you survive, it is beneficial to not spend energy on keeping your little toe.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by New Iskander *
**Creation is a myth.

Evolution is a theory.

Myth and theory can be extremely entertaining and thought-provoking, each in their own way.

To believe in either is idiotic. **

Right. No one should believe in evolution - each person should look at the data and evidence with an open mind, and convince themselves that evolution does happen. I try very hard never to say I believe in evolution, but rather I accept evolution.