Evolution is not science - it is nothing less than false religion

[Biggs3535]

You are the reason why I hate religion and push me away even more.

I've tried to tell Thomas/OneTruth multiple times that his continued posting is having the opposite effect of what he intends, but the poor fella just doesn't get it.

[Bookert1905]

I really don't hate religious people. Multiple friends and family who are. As long as you keep your entitled ideas and don't try to push it on me were good. I live my life just as well as you and don't need you to sit here and say you're an idiot for not believing because I don't do it to you.

Onetruth, get a life.

[Escobar06]

If evolution is legit, where are the remains of the millions if not billions of those before us that represent each step along the way of the evolutionary process?

[VinBucFan]

the worst type of blindness is the kind you willingly accept.

You say stuff like that but I would be hard pressed to find any original thought you have posted on this message board.  Everything you posts is someone else, usually a you tube video.  I am sure you know that the absence of orginal/individual thought is not a new commentary on your beliefs/organization.

[Bookert1905]

If evolution is legit, where are the remains of the millions if not billions of those before us that represent each step along the way of the evolutionary process?

Because th fossil record isn't all found and not all bones are preserved in the same position. Other evolutionary ties have been found for many other animals and species.

[Escobar06]

Well it seems logical to assume some would have been found. After all, evolution wouldn't take place quickly, so there should be countless examples to show evidence of each step in the human cycle.

[VinBucFan]

If evolution is legit, where are the remains of the millions if not billions of those before us that represent each step along the way of the evolutionary process?

I am not sure if that is a serious question because I presume you are aware that it takes a combination of unusal events to preserve "remains" and I guess by "millions if not billions" you must mean a sum, over time. Anyway, how about one simple example.  I do not know precisely, but doesn't the Bible put the age of the earth at something like 7,000 years?  How do we reconcile that with "Lucy" who lived more than 3 million years ago, walked upright, but had a cranium not much larger than an ape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

[Escobar06]

I don't know the exact number, I just know that evolution wouldn't happen from one generation to the next...it would require a lot more time than that. You wouldn't have mothers walking around holding babies that have already started to change into the next stage. My question remains, if evolution is accurate there would seemingly be a lot of proof, considering there are how many full dinosaur skeletons on display?

[VinBucFan]

I don't know the exact number, I just know that evolution wouldn't happen from one generation to the next...it would require a lot more time than that. You wouldn't have mothers walking around holding babies that have already started to change into the next stage. My question remains, if evolution is accurate there would seemingly be a lot of proof, considering there are how many full dinosaur skeletons on display?

I think there actually is a lot of proof, but I am not sure I can grasp why you seem to think that a skeleton of, say, a 5 foot tall man should be as likely to survive as a dinosaur that has a 5 foot tall femur?  That does not seem to make sense. Neither does the argument that less examples of early man means it did not happen? I don't get that, but maybe I am missing something.

Although not necessarily directly related to this discussion, I also don't understand why scientifc evidence of evolution is somehow inconsistent with belief in God such that people who view themselves as profoundly religious have to knock evolution? 

[Escobar06]

I'm not knocking anything, I'm asking basic questions. In theory there should be countless specimens showing significant change from one period of the human cycle to the next. The dinosaurs were here millions of years before we were, yes they were obviously larger, but given the amount of time they were decomposing before we even arrived you'd think the size difference wouldn't be too big a deal. I just think that human evolution would be so easy to prove if it were true. We can prove dinosaurs existed, and they came before us, yet we can't show the varying stages of human evolution...supported by x number of skeletal remains for each stage? It all sounds very fishy to me.

Another question. Has the evolutionary process stopped? If evolution is an ongoing thing wouldn't there be relatively recent examples of "hybrid" humans? We apparently evolved from something, there is very little if any evidence to show the process along the way, and all we have now is a clear line between man and animal. Not being argumentative here, I'm curious how people explain this.

[Bookert1905]

It's not humans we need to worry about:

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/thinking-study-turns-ape-intellect-143151074.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

[VinBucFan]

I'm not knocking anything, I'm asking basic questions. In theory there should be countless specimens showing significant change from one period of the human cycle to the next. The dinosaurs were here millions of years before we were, yes they were obviously larger, but given the amount of time they were decomposing before we even arrived you'd think the size difference wouldn't be too big a deal. I just think that human evolution would be so easy to prove if it were true. We can prove dinosaurs existed, and they came before us, yet we can't show the varying stages of human evolution...supported by x number of skeletal remains for each stage? It all sounds very fishy to me.

Another question. Has the evolutionary process stopped? If evolution is an ongoing thing wouldn't there be relatively recent examples of "hybrid" humans? We apparently evolved from something, there is very little if any evidence to show the process along the way, and all we have now is a clear line between man and animal. Not being argumentative here, I'm curious how people explain this.

The first paragraph is confusing, which might say something about the thoughts you offer.  There should not be "countless specimens showing significant change from one period of human cycle to the next" because  evolution is very gradual. For example. its not like in one defined period of time early humans had an "x" centimeter cranium and then the day after that period and going forward the cranium was "y." The artifacts found are snapshots  of a gradual process

You also seem to think,on the one hand, that recovered bones were "decomposing" while on the other hand not seeing the disconnet between that concept and a 5 foot tall human versus a dinosaur with a 5 foot long femur. I cannot reconcile those thoughts

 The last sentence says "yet we can't show the varying stages of human evolution...supported by x number of skeletal remains for each stage" when that is precisely what science has done. Anyone with Google can see the "various stages of hum evolution." You seem to think the "x" in "x number of skeletal remains for each stage" is not high enough, but that does not mean that we "can't show varying stages of human evolution."  We can.

The second paragraph: of course evolution is ongoing.  Human beings are evolving as is the rest of living things in the world. The funny thing is that one example I would quickly point to is something that Darwin seemingly got wrong, which is the appendix:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

[Escobar06]

Of course evolution is gradual, which is verbatim what I've said in several posts. Not sure why you felt the need to repeat something I've already said, it leads me to believe you don't understand what you're reading. The sentence you quoted from my post doesn't mean what you think it means. What I'm saying is that there should be x number of human remains for what humans looked like at the beginning of the process, fast forward however many years were needed to show significant change, and there should be x number of examples from that period as well, and so on and so forth.

As for your second paragraph, you again prove you aren't great at understanding things you read. If a dinosaur femur is five feet, and original humans (apes, whatever you want to call them) had a femur one foot in length, do you not see how the millions of years separating the existence of the two bones could potentially even the playing field in terms of probability of finding one or the other? One bone might be bigger, but if it was decomposing for millions of years before "humans" arrived, yet still lasted long enough to be discovered, don't you think smaller bones could also exist long enough to be discovered considering they've been decomposing a much shorter period of time?

As for the "proof" you speak of, how do you know it's proof at all? Probably not the best example, but what if millions of years from now someone stumbled across the remains of a midget who lived during our time period. Is that proof that everyone who lived around this particular time was 3 ft tall?

I keep going back to it, but if the existence of dinosaurs can be proven, the theory of evolution should also be proven at this point if that's what happened. Yet as it stands right now it's still just a theory...to me it's obvious why.


Edit. And you didn't really answer my question about whether evolution is still occurring. We have monkey's, apes, etc...and we have humans. There seems to be a big gap that's missing, why are monkey's staying monkey's? They evolved into what we are today, yet a certain segment of their population remains the same as it was millions of years ago? How do I know they ARE the same? I don't. But I know the jump from walking hunched over with a body full of hair,  being unable to speak and do many of the other things humans can do isn't a generation away from happening for them. It seems as though the line should be less clear, hybrids should be more abundant...as in they should still be in existence. Are monkey's the hybrids? If so what would be the phase before them, and where are those creatures? A lot of questions to be answered, very little of it seems logical.

[VinBucFan]

Of course evolution is gradual, which is verbatim what I've said in several posts. Not sure why you felt the need to repeat something I've already said, it leads me to believe you don't understand what you're reading. The sentence you quoted from my post doesn't mean what you think it means. What I'm saying is that there should be x number of human remains for what humans looked like at the beginning of the process, fast forward however many years were needed to show significant change, and there should be x number of examples from that period as well, and so on and so forth.

There are. Simple. Many examples. Anyone with Google can find.  Here's one:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

As for your second paragraph, you again prove you aren't great at understanding things you read. If a dinosaur femur is five feet, and original humans (apes, whatever you want to call them) had a femur one foot in length, do you not see how the millions of years separating the existence of the two bones could potentially even the playing field in terms of probability of finding one or the other? One bone might be bigger, but if it was decomposing for millions of years before "humans" arrived, yet still lasted long enough to be discovered, don't you think smaller bones could also exist long enough to be discovered considering they've been decomposing a much shorter period of time?

I was pointing out that your premise is based on a fallact ("decomposing"), but if that was not clear, oh well . ..

As for the "proof" you speak of, how do you know it's proof at all? Probably not the best example, but what if millions of years from now someone stumbled across the remains of a midget who lived during our time period. Is that proof that everyone who lived around this particular time was 3 ft tall?

The world might be flat too.  Lot more evidence than one "midget." There's overwhelming evidence of evolution/natural selection all over the place, but you have to be open to seeing it. :-) I know a little bit about you from reading your posts on a number of topics.  Your point of view is consistent with other posts you have made on this board. I am aware, therefore, of the futility of this conversation 

[VinBucFan]

We have monkey's, apes, etc...and we have humans. There seems to be a big gap that's missing, why are monkey's staying monkey's? They evolved into what we are today, yet a certain segment of their population remains the same as it was millions of years ago? How do I know they ARE the same? I don't. But I know the jump from walking hunched over with a body full of hair,  being unable to speak and do many of the other things humans can do isn't a generation away from happening for them. It seems as though the line should be less clear, hybrids should be more abundant...as in they should still be in existence. Are monkey's the hybrids? If so what would be the phase before them, and where are those creatures? A lot of questions to be answered, very little of it seems logical.

Matthew Harrison Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!
 Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the capacity to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one thing that sets above the other animals? What other merit have we? The elephant is larger, the horse stronger and swifter, the butterfly more beautiful, the mosquito more prolific, even the sponge is more durable. Or does a sponge think?
 Matthew Harrison Brady: I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!
Henry Drummond: Do you think a sponge thinks?
Matthew Harrison Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks!
Henry Drummond: Does a man have the same privilege as a sponge?
Matthew Harrison Brady: Of course!
Henry Drummond: [Gesturing towards the defendant, Bertram Cates] Then this man wishes to have the same privilege of a sponge, he wishes to think!