question for evolutionist?
595145
The Great Apes, and, no - I've seen nothing that would tell me they have religion. I really don't see what your question has to do with evolution. Are you saying that people that don't believe in evolution also don't believe that there are some animals that are smarter than others?
533795
evolution. Or perhaps speciation.
391353
fossil evedence of what?  that you came from a monkey?  I did not evolve that way.  We belive there was a flood, we belive in dinosaurs so the fossils pose no problem we just don't belive that we came from monkeys so yes we can go to natrual history musuems, i have visited quite a few with my church by the way
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
912794
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
977079
huh, yeah im not a creationist either, but i dont think that you can fully understand the stuff without an in depth study of scientific material. \n\nthere is a book called darwins black box by michael behe.  he doesnt call himself a creationist, hes a biochemist that after looking at plenty of evidence has alot of questions and decided to write a book. it basically is challenging evolution. \n\nfrom what i understand the missing links (transitional species) are not there in the fossil record.  thats why you have guys that come up with the punct eq theory, etc.  there are some that say they have found a couple missing links here and there, but it doesnt explain the massive amount of life that supposedly changes from one thing to another. \n\nanother guy is sennapathy (sp.), he is a south asia indian guy that has the same questions and different conclusions.  hes a genetic scientist.\n\ngranted there are examples of mutations, like in viruses and the like, that one could point to, but the data for large scale biology is still sketchy
260696
good lord, the level of the ignorance here is amazing!  please, see gs saint's answer, people.\n\n-man did not evolve directly from monkeys, he evolved from apes\n\n-there are still apes around because not all apes evolved into humans, only those in a certain locale did.  the environment man lived in was diffferent from the environment of the apes, spurring him to evolve in a different manner than chimps or bonobos.\n\nTurkishGamer13: it is not a flaw in the theory of evolution.  the coexistance of humans and other primates is fully supported by evolutionary theory, and is what would be expected if eveolution were true.  Umm, just about every characteristic of organisms today started out as a mutation.  Many mutations are harmful, because it is not likely that a random change in a being is going to be beneficial.  Some are though.  I have no wisdom teeth, and my dentist says i never will.  this is a mutation which benefits me.\n\nKajaK: science is moving away from evolution? LOL, read a book on the subject. there are controversies among biologists about the details of evolutionary theory, such as whether evolution occurs gradually at a steady rate or quickly in rapid bursts.  but these controversies do not affect the strength of the theory itself.  Evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories - it is independently confirmed by all different branches of science: chemistry, biology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, ecology, etc.\n\namrmusicqueen: yes, the thousands of scientists over the past 100+ years, working with the most advanced technology, and who have devoted their entire lives to research, study, and experimentation in the issues of biology are ignorant about their subject.  Thousands of PhD's who have each spent decades studying the theory of evolution, trying to find flaws (if a scientist was able to disprove evolution, he wuold be one of the most famous scientists ever, so there is a lot of incentive for scientists to over turn previously established theory) are ignorant about the subject.  But a girl who has never studied the subject (this is a justified assumption, because if you had, you would not be so quick to make hasty generalizations) is qualified to pronounce evolution as "not-cutting it."  LMFAO.
71356
Hi.\n\nThere's plenty of information over this topic in various search engines.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=human+evolution&go=Go\nhttp://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%2Bhuman+evolution\nhttp://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%2Bhuman+evolution+wiki\nhttp://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=+site:dmoz.org+%2Bhuman+evolution\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result?p=human+evolution\nhttp://answers.google.com/answers/search?q=human+evolution&qtype=all&num=100&sort=qeprice%3AA%3AR%3Ad1\nhttp://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=+site:answers.com+%2Bhuman+evolution\nhttp://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%2Bhuman+evolution+forum\nhttp://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=human+evolution
1034859
Ok, how can you believe in evolution? I mean really, the complexity of animals, and well every living thing, came about by accident!! At least we have the bible that was inspired by God! And was correct about allot of scientific things way before man figured it out!\n\n 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.\n\nAll you have is a theory that we came from nothing!\n\n\nNo, I am not mad, just stating the obvious.\n\n\nloj
956969
I believe that God created evolution.  Therefore, I believe in creationism.  Things evolve, but as far as man coming from beast, no way!
922140
It’s hard for human beings to grasp every phase of evolution, but that really isn’t evolution’s problem, especially when we are talking about the small scale things.  It’s hard to actually picture the change, but just because someone (like me) doesn’t have the imagination to picture it, it doesn’t matter.  Evolution doesn’t need me to understand or even believe in it.  Aleins did not create eukaryotic cells, don’t be silly.  Then again, we can't disprove it so it must be true (that's the logic christian like to throw out there as far as god goes so it can work with alein's too, right?) lol :)
584737
If you do your research you will see that the concept of time in mens eyes compared to Gods eyes are probably two very different things!\nwe are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!\n\nBut a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.\n\nIs that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.\n\nBut these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.\n\nThis is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?\n\nPermanence of Species\n\nBiologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.\n\nMuch emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same
291260
Adaptation? Evolution?
314054
We know that evolution exists. Science can prove it. We also know that modern man was created by God, the Bible proves that! So what about all those creatures that existed on the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years? Of course they evolved. And some of them very much resemble modern man. But God said He created us in His image. Maybe not necessarily physically, God doesn't have a body! But the difference between us and those creatures is indeed that "missing link" that cannot be "found". The link is God. The difference is that we (modern man) were created with a free will. No other creatures have ever had that. \n\nIf you read Genesis 1:1 you see that God created the heaven and earth. But something very drastic happened probably over a very long period of time between verse one and two because we see in verse two that the earth was without form, and void...\nNow what does God create that is without form and void? Nothing! Everything God creates is perfect.\nSo what happened and how many years passed between verse one and verse two? Science tells us that, there's no mystery. Creatures of all kinds evolved, the popular idea is something hit the earth and tilted it on it's axis. That triggered all kinds of weather changes, ice ages countered by global warming (without benefit of fossil fuels I might add), dinosaurs lived and died off. Primitive man-like creatures became dominant. It's all there!\n\nSo yes, you can believe in God and understand that creatures indeed evolved. But modern man, with all of his uniqueness, was created by God.\n\nNow concerning your lack of passion for your faith... read Acts Chapter 2 in the New Testament a couple of times and see if that piques your interest. I'll guarantee you have never been taught that in the catholic church. You need to ask yourself why. It is clear by the scriptures that Jesus intends that everyone with a love for the truth receive the gift of the Holy Ghost just as described in Acts 2. Read it again! It still happens just that way. It's still real. I see it every week. I see the power of the Spirit being used through ordinary people like you and me. Ordinary people like Jesus and the disciples were. Jesus didn't come and die so that we would have to seek everything we needed through a priest. He came that we could boldy go directly to Him with our needs. That is scripture! You need forgiveness? You need to ask Jesus, not another man. You need compassion and love? Ask Jesus, don't ask another man. Do you want to understand exactly what He has for you in this life and the next? You need to ask Him, not some portly old fellow in a black robe. Ask God directly. Go boldly to the throne and tell Him you need to know more. You will be amazed what you will experience if you are sincere and have enough character!\n\nUpdate 5-1-06\nI read with interest one of the answers below that demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the churches today. Sure, just ask someone (other than God). And if you don't like that answer just go ask someone else. That say's two things:\n1. The "authotities" in the churches don't even agree on truth.\n2. People only are interested in what they want to hear.\n\nThat's what I meant when I said God will show you the truth if you seek it from Him with a true desire to know. Why ask another man who has no clue anyway? We are talking about something as important as the salvation of your soul. Why wouldn't you go directly to the source if the source asked, indeed pleaded with you, to do so?\nAnd Paul absolutely did not encourage people to believe whichever way was best for them. He wrote to the Ephesians in Ep. 4:5 that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". You see this repeated throughout the New Testament. There are not many paths to God, there is one.  Please, read the scriptures for yourself. You do not need someone to interpret the Bible for you. Let God show you
8356
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
1154759
Post an addendum to your question - you don't need a whole new question.\n\nLeoin is obviously blissfully unaware (or more likely doesn't want to hear) that man and ape SHARED a common ancestor and evolution is based on branches not strength lines.\n\nOne more bit of amateur science to try to bolster an obviously wavering faith.
765050
"Evolution operates on several assumptions, the first being that there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god, so it must be true by default. "\n\nAbsolutely wrong.\n\n"Many people just say that the fossil record proves evolution, but they don't realize that it doesn't actually represent intermediates between two species but dead branches that became extinct."\n\nThe fossil record shows transitional forms, the kind that the theory of evoltuion predicts should have existed.\n\n"Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they sometimes lived at the same time and place as other early humans, like you might see depicted in some drawings."\n\nTrue, but modern humans did evolve from a earlier primate ancestor that wasn't human.  Neanderthals are more like our cousins.\n\n"If changes can happen within species by chance, like different strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human. "\n\nBut the metabolic similarities, the universality of the genetic code, the fact that mitochrondria are in fact desceneded from bacteria, these are all best expained by common descent.\n\n"Not to say that it's wrong, but you can't prove something by inductive reasoning alone."\n\nEvolution is proved by the evidence.\n\nThe below links contain more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable person.