Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[kebotDiNaMute]

---

ever heard of Theistic Evolution?

I don't have to know all the philosophy malic, because it never mean anything to what i need on-a-daily basis. What I need is how to survive. I can live without that philosophy...

let me tell you a story malic.

Before the Theory of Evolution, all Bible scholars and people believe that everything is created in 7-(24 hrs ) literal days. When the theory came up, people on the religious side where trying to recover and gues what they did.. They extend the 7 day creation to a million/billion years... and the basis... one single verse in the bible that never talks about evolution, against the 300+ words that describe a 7(24-hr ) day.

Point is It creates a lot of confusion and a lot of lies. What did evolution without creation had proven so far? hmmm... guessing games... story... make sketches they never even had and idea if its fur or hair... tsk tsk tsk...

[Malic]

Malic if the person cannot back up his story and make things public... you know whats the legal consequence right? Why would one take the risk and upto today nobody can refute the idea presented... why because there are possibilities on the story...

its called his-story or my-story. Evolution is about story... used science to make you believe. I love the story by the way.. i just don't believe it...

what?

Is this about the articles provided in the link?

the article in Yahoo had a link. it leads you to a website where you can see a certain page explaning about the fossil.

[chad_tukes]

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and ***: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).

did the science community, prove him wrong? no... science community hears another story... they just dont want that story...

did the science community prove him wrong? OH YES, long before you were born.

Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et al. criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.

Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough, but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are the best method of determining relationships. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus.

Less controversially, Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding, as an afterthought (or in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the human manner".

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines

[kebotDiNaMute]

where'd you get your sources from?

wiki? don't rely on wiki... wiki can be edited by my 6 year old brother. post your sources.

if you dis-agree chad, just say it, don't question wiki... every other thing makes an error... so try to settle on that reality... dont complain wiki have errors... you also have one... going back to the topic. well google it if you want... find a story of nebraska man saying its real... i bet you can find one...
lets keep it that way... We all know yo don't beleive me and i don't believe you in the first place... so why do we have to prove we are right... actually i am not proving i am right... i am proving your evolution is WRONG! I only claim on this part...

[Tirong-say]

I look like Brad Pitt, perhaps Brad Pitt is my relative.............he-he

[kebotDiNaMute]

allow me to say something about this...


The Nebraska man was like what? a thousand years ago? Evolution using the fossil evidence as proof had gone a long way already kebz. Recent discoveries of fossil had shaped the theory smoothly.

why do you always focus on the failed experiments? i see no point but only desperation to prove you are right. naa man untay mga accurate nga mga evidence and results.

because what you are beleiving are people who are capable of lies... what i told you are people trying and desperately proving your evolution. Malic its not my fault. Malic if the fossil does not qualify for evolution, they just drop it... so how? they will only tell us what to believe? hmmm... i don't trust those people, but i enjoy them doing it... coz it entertains me... /popcorn

[cromagnon]

That would be very safe to say that the CREATIONIST was owned by EVOLUTIONIST . That the THEORY now is a FACT . If science can only find out what was before the BIGBANG THEORY and it should debunk all the arguments presented by the CREATIONIST . WHy ? Its because the EVOLUTIONIST's BIGBANG THEORY is closely related to the CREATIONIST'S 1st day of creation , the separation of the NIGHT and DAY , DARK and LIGHT respectively . So if there is something else earlier than BIGBANG ... nothing is earlier than the first day of creation so it justifies that the Book of Genesis is indeed a STORY not worth telling .

If they can only present something na fact about just anything before BIGBANG ... it is indeed a BREAKTROUGH ! It will put to an end sa lalis sa EVOLUTION and CREATION once and for all .

================================================== ================================================== =====

For the moment and hope in our LIFETIME , we'll wait for more SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH regarding the origin of BIGBANG and dont discount yet the story of creation as a basis of summarized presentation versus the evolution's systematic and detailed theory .

bible did able to guess some of the similarities in the process , and science was not there yet during that time. so it was a really master piece during that time.

a Breakthrough in solving whats before the big bang , would probably take a very long time from now. however it is never logical to rationalize that it is exactly the 6 day, a representation maybe.

it will be the issue of heaven or hell . but right , they can work together . it's will be inevitable about the arguments between the 2 . not much we can do bout it .


1 thing is important how we will deal with our life . and the future of our planet and human race.

[Malic]

I don't have to know all the philosophy malic, because it never mean anything to what i need on-a-daily basis. What I need is how to survive. I can live without that philosophy...

let me tell you a story malic.

Before the Theory of Evolution, all Bible scholars and people believe that everything is created in 7-(24 hrs ) literal days. When the theory came up, people on the religious side where trying to recover and gues what they did.. They extend the 7 day creation to a million/billion years... and the basis... one single verse in the bible that never talks about evolution, against the 300+ words that describe a 7(24-hr ) day.

Point is It creates a lot of confusion and a lot of lies. What did evolution without creation had proven so far? hmmm... guessing games... story... make sketches they never even had and idea if its fur or hair... tsk tsk tsk...

sure, but if you want to dive onto something that matters to you a lot like your faith in God and Creation then you need to read all the necessary notes to give you a better view of what defines truth or not.


evolution is still creation and it stands proudly apart from biblical creation story.

[kebotDiNaMute]

what?

Is this about the articles provided in the link?

the article in Yahoo had a link. it leads you to a website where you can see a certain page explaning about the fossil.

are you sure you want to believe it? Check out my posts about CHariots in the RED SEA.

additional posts:

People claimed that they unearthed a BELL on a COAL DEPOSIT. Do you know how many million years is coal? hmmm, its before dinosaurs as some people claimed... so wht did the bell do in the COAL? hmmm.

Yes fossil record malic is an evidence that something had died. If you want to believe the physical details, well you are surely welcome, but please take note the variables before are never the same as today... hmmmm. If you want to believe they hunt in packs... go ahead. I wont argue.. but don't force me to believe because this is how this topic started... A FACT OF LIFE maybe A FACT OF LIES.

[cromagnon]

because what you are beleiving are people who are capable of lies... what i told you are people trying and desperately proving your evolution. Malic its not my fault. Malic if the fossil does not qualify for evolution, they just drop it... so how? they will only tell us what to believe? hmmm... i don't trust those people, but i enjoy them doing it... coz it entertains me... /popcorn

bible stories are more of a lie . The research in evolution and the universe will always be a steping stones. assumption , theories more research and experiment to understand . it is not a lie , thats why its a theory , but has all the attributes to consider it a fact .

not just believe in a written lie , and becomes a claim. being stagnant.