Please do not patronize me wouldnee. I have been nothing but polite to you. Please address me with the same degree of courtesy and respect. Thank you.

You did not answer my question. It is quite simple.

What do you understand the skeletal remains of early hominids to represent? The bones that have been exhumed from these various excavations across the planet. You can not get much simpler than that. My 8 year old niece could tell me what she thinks after a visit to the natural history museum. This is all I am asking of you.

We can ignore the DNA for now if you like. I must tell you that we are a little far off from DNA evidence being referred to as "voodoo". That seems to be what you are implying. It also appears that you seem to feel that science has this absolute imperative to "tear down the Christian myth of Creationism." I don’t think that is anything you need to fear or become defensive about. If you suddenly showed me absolute proof of the existence of Adam and Eve or one of the others stories from the bible, I would be forced to believe. It would be in front of my face. Science does not even require that you, or anyone else accept its theories.

The fact that the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old has been confirmed in many ways far beyond the need for carbon dating.

Astrophysics has shown that it would have taken this long for the planet to have 'evolved' into the state it is currently in even if it had turned out to be a lifeless ball of dirt.

Geologists have also shown that all of the geological features of the earth would have taken this long to have come about.

So the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years old is as well-established as it can be. Even if we remove all life forms from the planet and never even heard of carbon copy dating.

Mr. B,

please read closer -

but i will say - until someone >>>without an agenda<<< to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as -




">>>unreliable."<<<

By an "agenda" i mean "any agenda" be it christian or atheist, all i'm stating is, that it is "not accurate" in dating organic or inorganic materials such as fossils or beeswax or resins as to actual time placements.

my sources do not have an agenda past trying to discover the "age"
of the types of coating material used in the past. they are not or could care less about the religious or non religious nature of the substances being studied - they only want to confirm the age and C-dating does not provide them that ability in any sort of consistancy. However they are currently working on other methods to do so. If and when those are fully developed and can show me consistant accuracy across the board as to timelines - i will be more than glad to offer or accept such evidences in the future - i have no agenda in this matter accept for not applying unacceptable evidences for either side to say -

>>>>>see here!!<<<<<<<

through those so called text books your always referring to.......show me where their is absolute scientific proof that the earth is 4.5 million years old......through language, civilizations, anything.....Besides just saying that astrophysics has shown it.......show me that proof....

And I say the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old.....because nothing was around before 6,000 years ago....and if you think so don't just say it prove it.

hey haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hating on me yet???????????????????

clearly you can go to any museum and see bones.....but the carbon dating is not accurate.....again refer to samples that were dead for 50 years that they claimed much older.....and even the seal that had just died......so please.......it is real simple that the cardon14 dating is not proof positive.....there are just to many holes in that theory....sorry....

Im assuming you are talking about the christians, as no athiest I have read on this site hates anyone religious because they are religious.

.....Besides just saying that astrophysics has shown it.......show me that proof....

Dragoness,

here is your first clue about redefining imperical evidence, as the "experts" are prone to do.




Goodyear, who has garnered international attention for his discoveries of tools that pre-date what is believed to be humans' arrival in North America, announced the test results, which were done by the University of California at Irvine Laboratory, Wednesday (Nov .17).

"The dates could actually be older," Goodyear says. "Fifty-thousand should be a minimum age since there may be little detectable activity left."





you are so gullible.

"could be" ?

"little detectible"?

let me translate this for you, OK

the idiot is guessing and seeking attention.

It is exactly as I have been saying, all along.

it is nothing more than endless conjecture parading as fact, ad infinitum.



get a clue.


HELLO?

anybody in there?


Seriously, no disrespect intended.


Just apply some of my pointers to your explorations and you will see that the whole charade is a cospiratorial facade cloaking a hidden agenda and pontificating delusions as fact.

It is not amazing to me that such simplicity in truth is so very evasive to people, because people are prone to being deceived quite easily, in general.

Especially that idiot Darwin and all of the idiots that bought into his imaginary muse and were led by the nose of their own filters and prejudices to inspire further prejudice and imaginative distractions from anything resembling the truth.


and abra, you're even more of a "delusional" than any.

you just love jumping aboard lazy assumptions that blind you further from exercising your own long buried critical thinking skills. You are testimony to the presentation of your own judgements.

How emotional of you to plunder the cheap shot and antagonize the simpletons that find solice in your inept though cunning arrogance.



dance kiddies, dance.


save your penny to pay the fiddler, won't you?






this is too easy.


yup, His burden is light.

His yoke is easy.

Our Primate Origins: An Introduction Like all other organisms, humans have evolved over time from earlier species, and share a genetic relationship to all other forms of life on Earth. The study of human evolution involves understanding the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior.

To understand human evolution one must understand where humans fit in relation to other forms of life. Modern humans belong to the group of mammals known as Primates. This is the scientific category describing such diverse creatures as lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, the monkeys of the New World and Old World, and also the apes. As primates we all share many characteristics, such as overlapping fields of vision caused by forward looking eyes (this allows for greater 3D vision), fine ability to grasp and handle objects in our hands, and enlarged brains relative to body size. The evolution of the Primates started in the early part of the Eocene epoch (about 55 million years ago).


Olive Baboon: Papio anubis
Old World Monkey "Common" Chimpanzee: Pan troglodytes
African Ape
Photographs courtesy of Don Wilson, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Vertebrate Zoology

By comparing humans and other living species, scientists have learned that humans are most similar to the large apes of Africa and Asia. Among all animals, humans and apes are the most alike in brain and body form, by having a complex social life, and in many other major and minor features, including the lack of a tail. The fossil record of several ancient ape species collectively called Proconsul shows that the split between the common ancestors of the Old world monkeys (above left) and the apes (above right) happened in the earliest Miocene, at least 20 million years ago.

Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species.

So when did humans originate? The answer to that question really depends on what traits are meant by the term "human."

Our understanding of the fossil record shows that distinctively human traits appeared neither recently nor all at once. Rather, they evolved piecemeal over a period of roughly 5 million years. By 4 million years ago, humans were habitually bipedal (walking on two legs) yet had brains roughly a third of the size of a modern human's (about the size of a modern ape's brain). By 2.5 million years ago the manufacture of stone tools was common. Large increases in brain size occurred even later. Complex behaviors such as adaptation to a wide range of environments and cultural diversification emerged only within the last 100,000 years.



No where does it say that the apes of today existed then. Everything is evolved from something earlier. Evolution being a natural process taking place due to internal (genetic) changes, evironmental changes, etc...

I feel that the connection with ALL life on this planet is an honor. I cannot understand how anyone could think of this as an insult.

OK, abra.

now explain the fossilized remains of sequoia trees on the surface in the forest where they fell, coherently.

Dragoness,

As i have mentioned to Krimsa, my motives for wanting to look at evolution has nothing to do with Christianity or atheist taking on the subject.

Merely to look at what evidence is available to look at as to this evolving from a fish to an ape to a man or any such jump in evolution.

Jenniebean brings forth what she believes is evidence as evolution but i disagree, if the animal had brought forth a goat or a monkey or some other animal rather than one which still quite closely resembles its ancestry, then that would be a proof beyond a doubt. But a horse and a mule bringing forth a kind that much resembles its parents not.

I don't care what the jump is - only that it can be shown now at present time to be such. That i have not been able to deduce from any such as i have read or seen on so far. Do you have proof of such? A clear line of man evolving from apes that had evolved from lemurs or dogs or cats or fish or less than this? just asking.?

Why should I bother?

No one has been able to explain away all of the inconsistencies that I have pointed out in the Bible.

When you pan out, maybe I will to.

In the meantime, even if I were to agree that science has no proof for anything, where would that place us?

Only on equal footing.

Then we'd just be arguing between two things that have no proof.

Of course, that's not the case. Science does have overwhelming evidence for its claims.

Religious people who even tread into the science arena screaming "No proof! No proof!"

Are the silliest creatures on the planet Wouldee.

Where's your prove that Jesus was born of a virgin?

Where's your proof that he walked on water?

Where's your proof that he rose from the dead?

You're lust for proofs is clearly artificial. You couldn't care less about proofs. If I give you proof you'll just deny it anyway.

Clearly you'd rather believe in fairtales than anything that has any proof behind it.

Take away all proof that science has for everything and then you're merely at square one in a stand off of total equality.

Trying to strip science of it's evidence is just an act of deperation to try to bring it down to the level of the unproven myth that you'd like to sell.

Even if you could succeed in dispoving the evidence of science, you still wouldn't have proven that it's wrong. All you would have done is proven that it might not be right.

And where would you go next? Trying to put the eart back at the center of the universe?

How far back into the dark ages so you plan on taking this?

Is witch burning next on your list?

After you've denounced science, are you going to call for the massacre of pagans?

Where are we going with this?

Owl bet you won't have any trouble at all calling the scientists back in to build you nuclear warheads to play "The Battle of Armageddon"

You religious fanatics are truly scary.

Sir Tribo wrote.

A clear line of man evolving from apes that had evolved from lemurs or dogs or cats or fish or less than this? just asking.?

as each uncrupulous scientist with love is filled, and the purpose of all truth spoken by all, and given by god is fulfilled, the spirit of truth hover the earth for the second beginning, and the law of the hardended heart that pronounce ignorance, is left starved and thinning, and weeping of tears of misery pour forth, as the truth called as god used for professions of ignorance are no more, and the vain shoutings of self professed wisdom comes to a whisper, as the once wise tremble with fear, over the fellow men that were mocked and jeered..........