Jusunlee.com Forums

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
Show all 45 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Debate (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- evolution (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=528)

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 05-03-2002 06:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by huby40
that and if evolution really occurs, our pinkis will disappear.

now thats a substantial argument

, haha j/p

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 05-09-2002 10:28 AM:

biggest proof against creation so far:

"We've never found an organism that didn't have a parent."

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 05-31-2002 02:49 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by JungJInHo
First of all, it doesnt make sense to say the egg came first. An egg is extremely vulnerable to its surroundings. But a chicken, is much less vulnerable, and can create multiple eggs if it wants to.

Ok, so how did the chicken get there in the first place? G-d place it there or what?

quote:
Secondly, I disagree with any idea of evolution. If evolution exists, show me the "missing link" between dinos, and birds, or monkeys and humans.

friendly reminder from mod: if you want to debate more evolution vs. creation ideals, head over to the evolution thread for more fun! heh Anyway, i don't even need to go into how many "missing links" creation has but for one question only: what is the creationist connection between these?...but to answer your statement there is no one missing link, but rather many missing links that span about 5-7 millions years. You must realize the succession of the planet has caused us great difficulty in obtaining such fossils (i.e. where there is ocean now there may have been lucious forests with dinosaurs...thus prohibiting us from getting fossils). So, a word to the wise, just because we haven't everything about evolution yet in the fossil record really doesn't take THAT much away from the theory becuase the evidence we have collected so far pretty much lines up with the theory so far. Plus, evolution occurs today that is a working example of it and how is that so much more less likely to be credible than a divine power, or magic, creating us? Hominids found in ethiopia and africa indicate ancient origins of very early human years contain still monkey like aspects of them. We've found these bones from around 1.7 millions years ago, and we are just starting to get into it. There's a whole 7 million other years to look for these fossils and i bet they will yield conclusive results of chromagnon/early human fossils being of ape-like descent. I mean the bone structure is so similar, how is it that different.

quote:
Thirdly, why would you even want to accept the idea that you were once a monkey...or some primitive being? It may sound egoistic, but Id rather think of myself as something coming from God's own hands.... ..........whoa...i really got off topic....anyways.....THE CHICKEN CAME FIRST.... :laugh

i personally want to accept the idea that is correct, not the one that makes me feel the best. And yes, it is egotistic. My opinion: the chicken/egg came first through evolution. So it'd probably be the egg then since it would have to be born then but through an egglaying creature similar to what we call a chicken.

please, reply to this particular subject in the evolution thread, thanks -psychosnowman

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by JungJInHo on 06-02-2002 05:06 AM:

Hominids found in ethiopia and africa indicate ancient origins of very early human years contain still monkey like aspects of them. We've found these bones from around 1.7 millions years ago, and we are just starting to get into it. There's a whole 7 million other years to look for these fossils and i bet they will yield conclusive results of chromagnon/early human fossils being of ape-like descent. I mean the bone structure is so similar, how is it that different.

Well first of all, when you say bones found, those are just tiny bits of the jaw. These bits of pieces, when you sculpt the rest of the skull, would look just like a regular person, not a completely different person (when i find the name of the book i found this in, ill post it up). Also, when they say they have found humans in soil dating millions of years ago, you have to remember that man is the only "animal" that buries its dead. So that means its being artificially placed into older soil.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 06-02-2002 06:01 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by JungJInHo
Well first of all, when you say bones found, those are just tiny bits of the jaw. These bits of pieces, when you sculpt the rest of the skull, would look just like a regular person, not a completely different person (when i find the name of the book i found this in, ill post it up). Also, when they say they have found humans in soil dating millions of years ago, you have to remember that man is the only "animal" that buries its dead. So that means its being artificially placed into older soil.

haha, thought you were shifting advocacy for a moment, but i realized that was a quote. Anyway, you must remember that we don't know if they buried their dead that long ago, and i really don't think they did. Most likely they were left in caves or something, hence the reasoning for them being found in caves often.

These bits and pieces, by yielding a fraction of the skeleton...we have been able to render what we think they may have looked like. For example, if we have parts of the skull that fit together, say a fourth of the face, that reveal a large nostril cavity and bigger eyebrow emphasis, we could reconstruct the rest of the fact to fit that. Bits and pieces help fit the bones to a skeleton. And they aren't just bits and pieces of the jaw alone, read up on some more current findings.

Neanderthals are known to show these characteristics, and in this way, we also find in other parts of the world a group of people we characterize as Homo Erectus. This was not done by pure speculation, but the archaelogists make sure to gather a substantial amount of bones in order to compare this to the rest of the population at that time because different humans at different parts of the world have different features. But they found the range of difference to be significant enough to be considered a different type of species. The credibility doesn't need to be questioned because we have found little else species, and names aren't thrown around for mere proof.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 AM.

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
Show all 45 posts from this thread on one page