Do you support evolution? (atheist, quote, believe, California)
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.
There is no scientific evidence to back up your claim.
Carbon dating, for one, supports the theory that man and dinosaur did not live at the same time. DNA supports this. The dinosaur was much earlier in the evolutionary chain.
You may have a scientific background but you apparently know very little about evolution. When someone says "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" it's obvious that they don't understand that the branching out of a species into a variety of species is common in nature. The reason we still have monkeys and apes is because they are adapted to the environment that they live in. As early primates spread to various environments and became separate from each other they adapted and evolved to survive in the local environment that they happened to be located in. The great majority of organisms that have ever lived are now extinct and the same is true for primates that are living today. Many of the early primates did go extinct such as the Neanderthals but they were a branch of the early primate ancestral stock just like all living primates are, including human beings.
Evolutionary theory doesn't state that humans are one variety of the species of apes from which we supposedly "evolved". It states that we are an entirely different species. I think that it is easy enough to see how humans are quite different from gorillas, although there are plenty of similarities.
I agree that a lot of species are now extinct, and that a lot of species have adapted to their environments. For example, most humans who live in tropical areas have dark skin... which helps them avoid getting roasted in the sun. Does that make them any less human? No. Their dark skin is an adaptation. I even heard that polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species, just with different skin colors which help them in their natural environments. That's adaptation... not evolution.
Last edited by NWPAguy; 05-11-2008 at 12:37 PM..
Reason: typo
Really, so you have been to Dinosaur National Monument and seen the huge fossils in the rock? THey look nothing like the anything roaming the earth today.
Quote:
I am not trying to argue here. i am merely stating my opinion. as i said i even believed that human evolved from neanderthals and cromagnon man. coz i was taught that on 5th grade.
I understand that is your opinion, but you need to understand that your opinion is baseless. BTW, we didn't evolve from neandertal, the human species would be considered a cousin, not a direct decendant.
Quote:
what do i know?
That I believe.
Quote:
i was only 11 that time. i just realized darwin's theory's flaw as i mature. and i was not even influenced by anything or anyone. i just pondered one day, how can they exist loong before God created man? i am not trolling. but if you think i am. suit yourself. my exhibit a that the fossils found might just be that of animals existing today:
Why is it a problem if God created them before man? What about trilobites or chrinoids. The existed before man, do you not believe those are real?
they look oddly the same. and don't tell me rhinoceros evolved from Triceratops. coz dinosaurs supposedly were extinct so how can they evolved if they were extinct.
Compare a trilobite with a horseshoe crab, so what. Science is not based on gut feelings. I think you are going by what you remember when you were 11.
Carbon dating, for one, supports the theory that man and dinosaur did not live at the same time. DNA supports this. The dinosaur was much earlier in the evolutionary chain.
Carbon dating can only be used to date bones up to 50,000 years. Not bones you claim are 65 million years old. So that arguement does not hold water. And please tell me, what does DNA have to do with dinosaurs and man living at the same time?
Evolutionary theory doesn't state that humans are one variety of the species of apes from which we supposedly "evolved". It states that we are an entirely different species. I think that it is easy enough to see how humans are quite different from gorillas, although there are plenty of similarities.
I agree that a lot of species are now extinct, and that a lot of species have adapted to their environments. For example, most humans who live in tropical areas have dark skin... which helps them avoid getting roasted in the sun. Does that make them any less human? No. Their dark skin is an adaptation. I even heard that polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species, just with different skin colors which help them in their natural environments. That's adaptation... not evolution.
Where the heck did you learn taxonomy and what have you been smoking?
In REAL taxonomy, we have things called classes, phylas, division, kindgdoms, and so on and so forth. While a grizzly bear and a polar bear are not the exact same species they do belong in the same class, kingdom, and division because of their characteristics.
On that same note, humans share a common bond with polar and grizzly bears depending on the classification they fall under. For example, all mammals are defined by body hair, three bones in the inner ear, and mammary glands to nurse their young. So, with that being said, the Eutheria Subclass encompasses mammalia in which humans and polar bears branch off into their own groups. Humans then belong in the primate class and bears would belong in the carnivora class. So, in essence, a polar bear and human are most certainly different species but if you go up the chain of classes, orders, phylas, kingdoms, etc... you realize that things like polar bears and humans are more closely related than say something like a lizard because of their certain shared characteristics.
On a similar note, monkeys and humans although belonging in the same class as humans are separated in the classification of "family" because of other taxonomical characteristics.
So, the difference between dark skinned and light skinned people is not enough to constitute a different family (in taxonomical speak) but different race. So, if you want to get really picky, than race could be a "branching" method but it would not be enough to constitute belonging in a different species and/or family most in part because of the capability for us to breed with one another regardless of race.
Evolutionary theory doesn't state that humans are one variety of the species of apes from which we supposedly "evolved". It states that we are an entirely different species. I think that it is easy enough to see how humans are quite different from gorillas, although there are plenty of similarities.
Human Taxonomy (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/kids/science/Biology%20Cells/Studies/Human%20Taxonomy.htm - broken link)
Carbon dating can only be used to date bones up to 50,000 years. Not bones you claim are 65 million years old. So that arguement does not hold water. And please tell me, what does DNA have to do with dinosaurs and man living at the same time?
Correct, other radiometric methods are employed to get absolute ages for strata containing dinosaurs, well beyond the date determined by carbon dating. This is where that 65 million year date comes from.
Correct, other radiometric methods are employed to get absolute ages for strata containing dinosaurs, well beyond the date determined by carbon dating. This is where that 65 million year date comes from.
Other radiometric dating? And what dating method have they used?
Seriously, tell me what method have they used to date bones to 65 or 75 million years?
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.