Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If humans evolved from apes and monkeys, why do we still have apes and monkeys?
Same reason you have cousins even though you both descended from your grandparents. As others have pointed out, even Answers in Genesis thinks this argument is wrong.
Quote:
Why don't we see this type of evolution happening anymore? There is no record of this happening for many thousands of years.
Which type specifically do you think we don't see? Massive changes in humans over only a few thousand years would go against most of what we understand about evolution. Creationists are the only people who require hyper-evolution from the original created kinds in a few thousand years.
Quote:
The "evidence" of this type of mutation of humans is only conjecture from those who don't (want to) believe in God. There is no documented proof, or photographs. So how can evolutionists be sure that it's true?
Mostly from the fossil evidence such as this - 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 - but there are other reasons as well. None of it has to do with disproving god.
Quote:
They have faith that it is, just like Christians have faith God created it. The same atheists who scoff at Christian faith have faith themselves, believing in something they haven't seen, touched, experienced or witnessed with their own eyes.
Let's see some pictures of your god and Jesus to match the pictures of fossilized human ancestors I posted before you claim that the two have equal evidence.
Quote:
If you're walking through some woods that no man has ever walked before and you see a pocket watch lying on a tree stump, where would you think it came from? You would think that someone must have put it there, right? After all pocket watches don't just materialize from nothing, right? Why not? If no one had ever been in those woods before, why couldn't that perfectly pieced together, working pocket watch just have materialized from billions of bits of nothing floating around in the atmosphere and suddenly falling in exactly the right formula to create that working pocket watch?
That's exactly what evolution is trying to say happened to the earth, which happens to be tilted at the EXACT angle and pull, to sustain life. Trees taking in carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen while humans do the reverse.
Well, it's not exactly the same since pocket watches don't reproduce and aren't subject to natural selection. So in that sense, pocket watches and living things have nothing in common.
Quote:
I've even been with "atheists" (of which the bible says there aren't any) who, after seeing a beautiful site (like a sky filled with billions of stars), have said things like, "It just makes you feel grateful, doesn't it?" Wouldn't it stand to reason that if a person feels gratitude, that there must be someone to be grateful to?
It's a figure of speech. The Bible's full of them, you have to have seen them before.
And if the Bible claims there are no atheists, that's just another claim it makes that disagrees with reality.
Quote:
Just as atheists say that God cannot be proven, they cannot disprove His existence. This is where faith comes in.
If I told you that you can't prove that you don't owe me a thousand dollars, would you consider that a good or bad statement to take on faith? I assume faith wouldn't be a virtue in this case. Why would it be better to take a claim about your very existence on faith when it would be dumb to use faith on a much less important claim? I'd think that for something as important as your eternal soul you'd have a bit more than "you can't prove me wrong so I must be right".
Is this post going to be ignored campbell? or are you going to reference it but post irrelevant stuff? My bet is on the second one.
Show me a fossil of a half elephant, and half something else. Show me a picture of a half bird and half something else. Show me a picture of a half rabbit, and half something else. Show me anything, that we can see today as being a tranistional fossil. Darwin said there should be a great number of these, (if his theory was true). WHERE ARE THEY? The fact is, I believe that the believers in Evolution have lost all objectivity, and common sense. What is so obvious today to so many that are real thinkers, is this evidence is not to be found. You had over 100 years to produce this evidence, and what do we have. We have fossils of dinosaurs, we even have mummified dinosaurs, yet not one obvious tranistional. And you are the same people who call Christian blind faith believers. And then you make the claim you have science on your side. The only thing you guys don't have is facts, and evidence. The Bible today has many more facts that support it's stories, then Evolution could ever hope to have supporting it's failed theories and myths. Tell me, what claims have I made that are considered asinine? And don't come here giving me some vague reference to something I said, unless you can tell me exactly what it is you consider asinine. Were not playing the old shell game here. And don't send me to some web site so I can do your homework for you. If you can't spell out what you believe for yourself, please don't waste my time.
Show me a fossil of a half elephant, and half something else. Show me a picture of a half bird and half something else. Show me a picture of a half rabbit, and half something else. Show me anything, that we can see today as being a tranistional fossil.
The leading paleo-ornithologist and evolutionary critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, Dr. Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist himself, sounded a note of caution about the 'feathered dinosaurs' in general in an interview with the evolutionary Discovery magazine. It certainly seems strange that all these 'feathered dinosaurs' come from a single province of China-the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax! Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossiles out there, and they cast a dark shadow over the field. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.
New four-winged feathered dinosaur? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp - broken link)
And cute too ! The Platypus was of course considered a scientific hoax way back when it was first discovered by the white man in the late 18 th century! Duck billed, otter "footed" , and yet a mammal ( albeit an egg laying one) and a poisonous one at that !
Perfectly evolved for his environment too. Evolution at its most bizarre, endearing and clever.
The theory of evolution is the only one that makes any sense, to me. This is not to be interpreted as my not believing in *something* greater than what we are, even if it was just a big bang.
And cute too ! The Platypus was of course considered a scientific hoax way back when it was first discovered by the white man in the late 18 th century! Duck billed, otter "footed" , and yet a mammal ( albeit an egg laying one) and a poisonous one at that !
Perfectly evolved for his environment too. Evolution at its most bizarre, endearing and clever.
Ok, we have a fully formed platypus, can you show me a fossil showing us what the Platypus evoloved from? I still see no evidence of Evolution here. Just a fully formed platypus. Many species have similarities, this does not show evidence for Evolution. Elephants have legs, and eyes ect, so do humans, yet I don't see that as evidence for Evolution either. Where is this evolution found in the fossil record? We have lots of fossils of past and present animals found in the fossil record, why is it that we have no evidence of transitianals found in the fossil record? Since the Theory of Evolution stated that it would take millions of years for all these conversions of animals to evolved to another. We should be finding these transitianals all over the place. The fact is, the fossil record is one of the biggest embarassments to Evolution. The fossil record does not support Evolution, in fact it totally rejects the Theory, because it offers no evidence for the theory. And that evidence should be overwhelmingly obvious by now.
The theory of evolution is the only one that makes any sense, to me. This is not to be interpreted as my not believing in *something* greater than what we are, even if it was just a big bang.
I don't understand how a Theory like Evolution can make any sense. Especially when one considers there is no evidence to support it. And much of the evidence that was presented in the past was proven to be either wrong, or faked. And fake evidence is still coming out today as being evidence for Evolution. Such as some of the recent fossil finds coming out of China. Evolution was never good science, it was human speculation gone mad. And speculation based on non existant evidence. When they could not produce anything to support Evolution in the fossil record, they turned to artistic drawings to show us what a transitional fossil was suppose to look like. This is not evidence, and this is not science. This is a fairy tale that science got some adults to believe in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
