A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

The problem I'm having with National Geographic is the fact that before they ran the artical other scientest told them that the information was fake, and they ran the artical anyway. Which leads me to question thier judgement. It appears to me, they want to believe in Evolution so badly, that they will throw science out the window, and imbrace anything that supports the theory.

So you are saying the reason people are growing taller is because people find tallness attractive. Wow, would like to see what scientific jornal you got that from. Well here in America according to Robin McKie, science editor of The Observer, Sunday April 4, 2004. Researchers have made a startling discovery: Americans are shrinking. A nation once famed for it strapping, well-nourished youth is gradually diminishing in physical stature. Poverty and poor diet mean the average US man is getting smaller.
And it doesent seem to matter how attractive these people feel being taller. It's all diet.
You say man an apes came from common ancestor, the Theory of Evolution does say that. Yet it also states that man evolved from apes common ancestors or not, that's what Darwin believed, and if you are a true Evolutionist, that's what you need to believe. And no, we are no closer to finding are common ancestor today than we were 150 years ago. Your belief in this theory is only kept alive by fake evidence that is splashed across the pages of magazines only for them to recan't later. This is the kind of stuff that has been going on for years, and had it been any other theory science would of dismissed it years ago. But because it is the only theory that attacks the Bible, science needs to keep this ship afloat at all cost.

 

The scientific paper on Archaeoraptor was rejected by Nature, the journal which published previous finds of feathered dinosaurs, and after that by Science. These are the two top scientific journals in the world. It was National GeographicÕs plan to publish concurrent with the scientific publication. By the time NG found out that the paper had failed peer review, it was past press time and it was too late to delay the article. National Geographic is not a scientific journal, it's just a consumer-end magazine attempting to disperse the juiciest new discoveries to interested readers. They made a bad call; so do umpires in many sports games. If it were to happen again so soon, I'd be worried - but the Archaeoraptor was contained on one or two pages in the October, 1999 issue, and National Geographic corrected itself in the January, 2000 issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2190461.stm
The Observer avoids giving numbers for the sake of selling its headline. Americans aren't shrinking, we're merely not growing (as a population) as quickly as Europeans. Yes, the Dutch are now taller than us, but that's not because we got shorter - it's because we got 2 inches taller, and they got _6_ inches taller.

The theory of Evolution does not state that man evolved from apes. Your sources are incorrect. That is merely a commonly held oversimplification of the precept of the theory, just like "survival of the fittest" - it's actually "survival of the fit."

Yes, we are closer to discovering a common ancestor. It's amazing how much we've uncovered in just 150 years. It took at least 500, if not thousands of years (depending on your starting point) to establish that the Earth is round, and not flat. There are new discoveries made every day. A friend of mine on a dig last summer found elephants from 5-6 million years ago that had 4 tusks.

I love that you posit that because National Geographic had to correct itself on part of a single article, it (and by your implied extension, all other science-oriented magazines) cannot be trusted. Many sects of the Christian Church have had to correct themselves...I guess that means they can't be trusted either.

It's interesting to note that we have more evidence for our current model of the theory of evolution than we do for our theories of gravity. Would you like science to turn around and say that gravity doesn't exist?

And finally, science doesn't 'keep this theory afloat' because it's the only theory that attacks the Bible. Not only is evolution NOT the only theory that contradicts some few sentences of the Bible, but there is no reason why one cannot both accept the facts of science and still have faith in the Lord.

 

The Theory of evolution does not state that man evolved from apes?

Now get this through your head. Darwin taught that man descended from OLD WORLD MONKEYS. You will find this statement in the book ''Descent of man''
You will find his statement in next to the last paragraph of chapter six.

And your right, I don't trust any magazine Christian or otherwise unless I have other evidence that would support the artical.

We are closer to discovering a common ancestor?
A newly found fossil skull in Chad has confounded the proponents of the theory of evolution. The new fossil skull found in central African country of Chad has delt a heavy blow to the evolutionary claims regarding the orgin of man. Given considerable space in world-renowned scientific journals and newspapers, this new fossil has shattered the claim that ''man evolved from ape-like creatures'' so doggedly maintained by Darwinists for the last 150 years. Discovered by the French scientist Michel Brunet, the fossil was given the name Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted the '' New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution.''
Daniel Lieberman of Havard University said the ''This (discovery) will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb.'' The fossil in question is 7 million years old and is more human like than ape.
http://www.harunyahya.com/70New_Fossil_Discovery_sci32.php
The reason I donot believe in Evolution is because it is a theory that is more about make believe than facts, and a growing number in the science community are beginning to see this, and the Bible is a Book of facts, that are being validated and being revealed as true in ancient ruins.

 

Get this through your head: you're constrained to accept every single word the Bible says as the absolute truth. People who think have no such constraint, even when it comes to Darwin. Furthermore, monkeys are not apes, as any biologist will tell, you and you're twisting his words; he didn't have the evidence or the terminology that we now have about the hominidae.

The new fossil is quite interesting, but it hardly disproves evolution. As you can see yourself by looking at the image of the reconstructed skull, it's not a modern human. Discoveries like this are a commonplace even in the scientific community.

I refer you back to the example of the atom; for 2,000 years we thought the atom was just a little solid ball. Then the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electron were theorized - and the electron was thought to be a little ball that orbited the nucleus as the planets orbit the sun (hence the classic atom symbol, which is a Niels Bohr model). But then a weight discrepancy was discovered - the current theory didn't account for all the weight. Does that mean they should have just thrown the theory out? No! They discovered the neutron, and everything made sense again. Now we are discovering the Heisenberg principle, we know that electron's don't follow set orbits (though it's easier to discuss atomic interchanges using a Bohr model), and we've discovered an incredible variety of subatomic particles - a slew of neutrinos, positrons, negatrons, quarks of different types...and all of these particles were simple theories on paper until Fermilab or one of the other atom-smashers discovered how to produce and detect them.

Evolution is a fact. How it occurs - whether God exerts divine influence on the world's gene pool, or if natural selection has been responsible for all life on the planet - is still under hot debate, and will be for hundreds of years. We are living in the infancy of evolution, just as people in ancient Egypt were living in the infancy of electricity. In hundreds, perhaps a thousand or more years, anti-evolutionists will be put in the same category as those who maintained that the Earth is flat.

 

No campbell, not from monkeys. Please read up on evolution thanks.

 

Hey, lets not forget who stopped responding in the forum about the prophecies of the Jews as we tried to explain to you the validity of the Bible. But of course you wouldn't want to know that there may be any truth to the Bible, because then all your Evolution (aka faith) would not be as valid as you thought. It's okay I am sure Paul felt bad too when he found out that he was arguing against the truth for all those year too, perhaps thats why he became one of the strongest for the true faith.

Oh yeah, it was also written in the Bible that the earth was round hundreds of years before the true shape was discovered! How could just mere men know such knowledge?

 

Just because the bible states that the sky is a "dome" does not allude to the fact that the actual earth is round.

 

I honestly do not know what to say about that... don't tell me you are a flat earther... how come people can transverse around the world if the world is flat?

 

this thing gets more silly by the threats

 

I stopped posting in the Israel thread because none of the posts added after my last response contained anything to respond to.

I am fascinated by any truth that may be in the Bible - all myths fascinate me, from the Bible to the Greco-Roman tales to the Nordic sagas to the religion of the Mexica tribe (Aztecs). That doesn't mean I'm going to believe people who distort reality to fit some silly prophecy in a book. Not to mention that the Bible being true has nothing to do with evolution - why can't you people see that? Evolution could simply be directed and ordered by God. I also think it's funny that the people who take the Bible most literally are the ones who twist it and the world around them to make it all fit together - in the end, they are the ones who are furthest from the Word.

Oh, and incidentally, the Bible explicitly says that the Earth is flat. Literally.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

 

Colours was responding to a prior [false] comment that the Bible states that the Earth is round.

Interestingly enough, if one assumes that the world is a disc, with the North Pole at the center and the southern ice cap at the outermost edge, the world can be flat. Observe the seal of the United Nations.

This belief relies on believing that no one ever has or ever will cross Antarctica. It also implies that at night, every star in the heavens would be visible from every point on Earth at once. Now, I'm no astronomer, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that there are certain constellations that appear only below the Equator, and some that only appear above; this would seem to prove that the Earth is, in fact, not flat, and exists in space as we believe it to.

 

are you saying IF we never have a chance to actually go into space ourselves? like, if all of the pictures are just part of some incredibly elaborate hoax?

 

There are people who believe quite firmly that the entire history of space exploration has been a giant hoax.

Those people are morons.

The Earth is round, it exists in outer space, end story.

 

Yeah, i knew a girl once who was convinced that the moon landing was a hoax after reading an article about it... =\

 

wait wait no one has ever crossed Antarctica? What if there are like aliens or a different species up there??

 

The point the artical is making is the skull is 2 million years older than the 5 million year old Australopithelus ape species yet even thought it is older it appears more human like, which smashes the Darwinsts belief that man slowly evolved to where we are today. The ladder of evolution is missing it's progression of intermediates. It is the gradual progression that now appears to be false. Evolution is a fact? Only a die hard believer would ever say that. Especially when you have zero trans-species in the fossil record. Also you mentioned that discoveries like this are common place. Well tell me, how many 7 million year old skulls have they found? Also you can only believe in Evolution if you ignore the other evidence that they have found over the years that refute it. You know what I'm talking about I'm sure. How about all of those man made objects found in coal that is stated to be hundreds of millions of years old, and that evidence is ignored by the science that push evolution. And you know why they ignore it? Because it would throw Darwins theory right out the window. This time the one's who will look foolish are the one's who ignored solid evidence, and turned away from it rather than give up their pet theory.

 

I'm sorry, those are Darwins exact words. Old World Monkeys, not mine. I did my reading.

 

"Well I would say the reason science cannot explain how we got here is because they have been trying to prove a theory that never happened.This fact is finally coming home to roost because after 150 years of evolution propaganda, they were never able to present one fossile that would show trans-species"

What the hell? They've discovered like 4 or 5 creatures that existed that show a natural progression from apes to humans. The only one I remember off the top of my head is homo erectus, the first to walk on two feet.

I don't understand why anybody continues to claim evolution is false. They seem to think that the implications of it being true would destroy their religion. Well, according to christianity in the past, the earth is the center of the universe, and is flat.

Anyway, evolution doesn't disprove religion. In fact, it'd be a mighty clever way for a god to have created humans. So why do you so adamantly deny it? Why do you think so many animals are so similar to us? They have similar organs, alot of the reproduce in exactly the same way we do. Is this coincidence?

And, really, evolution is proved through logic. There are bacteria today that have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics. It's all natural selection - those animals that can't survive what nature throws at them die, and those who have traits that allow them to survive will pass the traits on to their offspring. Let nature select traits that will remain and die out over millions of years and a new species will inevitably result.

 

mabey only animals evolve....I cant belive that humans evoled form apes or monkeys(which ever they think it is...Maby there were once animals that were close to humans that mabey even walked on 2 legs so yeah its all theroys......

 

Humans are animals. Jesus, what is this species-wide character flaw that allows us to view ourselves as better, superior, than animals?