More than a little head - they have bodies

[guerilla]

What would register as evidence to you?

Some fossils would be a good start, don't you think?

Oh yeah, that's right... You don't trust carbon dating either, so that is obviously not acceptable evidence too...

There are a lot of criticisms of carbon dating. I don't take things at face value just because laymen through around terms like "carbon dating" or "peer review".

But what I don't understand is if you don't accept carbon dating as evidence, they why do you believe that any of those "artifacts" MST linked to before are older than your daddy?

I didn't.

I'm open minded to evidence, not belief.

 

[guerilla]

Dinosaurs, like elephants today, probably spent more time congregating in these areas than early humans did.

I'll be much more open to evolution if we find a skeletal remain. I'm not a theist, I'm fairly open minded about this stuff, but there seems to be too much consensus without enough hard evidence.

Two basic ingredients are critical to the development of separate subspecies: isolation and time.

This is back to the chicken and the egg. How much time have we had? How can we know if we can't find our past lineage before a certain point?

If humans can choose who they mate with (selective breeding), then by definition, human evolution is occurring.

I meant, the theory of evolution from primordial goo. I don't doubt that humans evolve, I am talking about the theory of evolution where we all come from single celled organisms living in water or some such.

That sounds like bollocks to me, but I welcome evidence of such a thing.

 

[lukep]

Some fossils would be a good start, don't you think?

As far as I know, there are at least two sets of very well studied fossils for each of the critters in the latter half of that human evolution film linked above. Some of them, like homo habilus, (SP?) have been found dozens of times, even on separate continents.

Lucy and Ardi are two very non-human looking 'tweeners that come to mind that they have found great fossils from:

They've got tons of Lucy skeletons now, and they're OLD... 1.2 Million years if I remember correctly?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7eTdSBrXhw]Lucy Exhibit- The Story of Humankind.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Ardi's even older, so they have less of him, but look how much research they've done on him... Not really any argument about his age or ancestry:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw_J6jV02eU]Discovering Ardi - How Ardi Walked - 10/11 @ 9pm E/P on Discovery - YouTube[/ame]

 

[guerilla]

I've got a good question for people who are into the man from simpler life form theory.

Why did we shed our fur and then decide to wear clothes?

 

[Moxie]

I'll be much more open to evolution if we find a skeletal remain.

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

This is back to the chicken and the egg. How much time have we had? How can we know if we can't find our past lineage before a certain point?

The fossil record goes back billions of years, so you must be talking about gaps. Because it does go back that many years, there is no way for it not to have gaps. So if you are looking for fossils from each individual year of the earth's existence, that is not going to happen.

I meant, the theory of evolution from primordial goo. I don't doubt that humans evolve, I am talking about the theory of evolution where we all come from single celled organisms living in water or some such.

Chicken eggs are full of "goo", but in a matter of weeks that goo can turn into a chicken.

Single celled organisms can now be directly observed in a lab, evolving into multicell ones.

That sounds like bollocks to me, but I welcome evidence of such a thing.

You could spend the rest of your life looking at evidence. What you want is solid black and white proof, and that is not going to happen any time soon either.

I've got a good question for people who are into the man from simpler life form theory.

Why did we shed our fur and then decide to wear clothes?

Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways - New York Times

 

[lukep]

I've got a good question for people who are into the man from simpler life form theory.

Why did we shed our fur and then decide to wear clothes?

That's an easy one... We learned to cook, & that gave us a huge upgrade in energy reserves & activity, and suddenly we were running and sweating everywhere. So fur was frankly in our way... Yet we still got cold at night so since we had all these animal hydes lying around...

 

[guerilla]

You could spend the rest of your life looking at evidence. What you want is solid black and white proof, and that is not going to happen any time soon either.

Well if the standard isn't proof, then I suppose we're all just picking and choosing among unproven theories.

At the end of the day, I don't really care how we were made. None of that ideological stuff impacts my day to day yet, and I am not sure it ever will.

I suppose that is why I am so choosy about facts with regards to creation.

 

[JerseyJoe]

I've got a good question for people who are into the man from simpler life form theory.

Why did we shed our fur and then decide to wear clothes?

I wish you were trolling. It'd make far more sense. But since you're not

Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways - New York Times
Hair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On why (some) humans have lost their body hair? Why are we the only hairless primate? « Anthropology.net

 

[JerseyJoe]

If humans can choose who they mate with (selective breeding)

to be clear for those that don't understand these concepts, this is sexual selection. many organisms engage in it and it's why some have males who over generations have developed features and adaptions that seem to be extraordinary or void of any potential benefit.

examples: male peacock's tails and the massive antlers on some elk

"better" feature = more females swooning = "losers" with short tails or antlers not being able to pass on genetics = shift in the population toward more pronounced traits for sexual selection

 

[DewChugr]

 

[RaptorJesus]

This is not what I expected this thread to be about.

 

[productionhead]

BLUNT SMOKE

 

[smsguy]

oh, didnt think it was bodies, seemed to be popping heads from the sands ...

 

[-joe-]

Well if the standard isn't proof, then I suppose we're all just picking and choosing among unproven theories.

I don't think anyone, in anyone on Wickedfire's lifetime, will be able to prove definitively either the spawning of human life on Earth by aliens, or the theory of evolution.

I think it's more about which is the most likely.

 

[Dark Cognitive]

JerseyJoe wins.

He's completely right when he says that most people in here havent studied evolution enough to be able to make educated comments regarding it, some of the views / idea's proposed in this thread are hilarious, and it's evident that most people simply don't have a clue what they're talking about.

He goes on to address many of the problems that are being discussed, but because of the size of the Ego's in this thread who are unwilling to concede the possibility of being wrong (ever) then his posts simply fall on deaf ears, which is a shame.

 

[guerilla]

I don't think he is being ignored because his truth is unpalatable.

I think he is being ignored because he's a shithead who thinks that being right means people should listen to him, sort of like atheists, when getting people to listen to you is the art of being social, which he struggles at. He's have been much wiser to explain the facts than to start attacking his readers knowledge and intelligence level. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

While JJ might have a meaningful contribution to make (I wouldn't know, I have him on ignore) it's not exactly information we can't get from somewhere else.

I'm open to good information about evolution. I don't see much of it. It's become (like the government, or the church) this self-reinforcing belief for a lot of people. Maybe there is really good evidence out there, but that's not how most evolutionists present it.

 

[rusvik]

JerseyJoe wins.

He's completely right when he says that most people in here havent studied evolution enough to be able to make educated comments regarding it, some of the views / idea's proposed in this thread are hilarious, and it's evident that most people simply don't have a clue what they're talking about.

He goes on to address many of the problems that are being discussed, but because of the size of the Ego's in this thread who are unwilling to concede the possibility of being wrong (ever) then his posts simply fall on deaf ears, which is a shame.

Lol at Evolution being some kind of science like Physics. It is simply an untestable theory. I doubt most people here are retards, probably more intelligent than average and many of us don't think evolution presents a conclusive argument. I've yet to see math being used to show how RANDOM mutations of single cells turned into thousand and thousand of different species so diverse. I just can't buy that random mutation of single cell and bacteria to fucking t-rexes, whales and man theory. Sorry bro, but most ardent pro-evolutionists are usually atheists and mad at their christian parents.

 

[guerilla]

Lol at Evolution being some kind of science like Physics. It is simply an untestable theory.

It's ironic, because to be scientific is to be skeptical, and yet when people are skeptical, they are attacked for not being scientific.

I'm not a theist. I'm just looking for good, reliable information to base conclusions on.

 

[rusvik]

It's ironic, because to be scientific is to be skeptical, and yet when people are skeptical, they are attacked for not being scientific.

I'm not a theist. I'm just looking for good, reliable information to base conclusions on.

I'm not a theist either, but I am still skeptical of some of the dogma of the atheist science like evolution and the big bang theory. Neither answers the big questions about the universe imo. Beginning with the meta-physical question of what 'nothing' is or what time is and how something can come from nothing. The usual answer from Big Bangers is that everything came from a singularity but they fail to understand that this theory is a never ending pandoras box, since you must always ask where did the singularity come from and so on. The theory may explain what happened just after the universe came into existence but it can't explain HOW the universe began. If someone can't acknowledge this paradox, then they are not scientific but just using dogma no better than any other religous people.

 

[JerseyJoe]

JerseyJoe wins.

He's completely right when he says that most people in here havent studied evolution enough to be able to make educated comments regarding it, some of the views / idea's proposed in this thread are hilarious, and it's evident that most people simply don't have a clue what they're talking about.

He goes on to address many of the problems that are being discussed, but because of the size of the Ego's in this thread who are unwilling to concede the possibility of being wrong (ever) then his posts simply fall on deaf ears, which is a shame.

i expected it. i had another 10+ posts in me on the topic but i figured, why waste my breath. no one will touch those posts.