‘Red Deer Cave’ People May Be New Human Species
- Posted on March 14, 2012 at 9:23pm by
Erica Ritz
- Print »
- Email »
Fossils of what could be a previously unknown type of human have been found in caves in southern China.
A rendering of how a "Red Cave Deer" person may have looked (Photo: BBC)
According to Darren Curnoe, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of New South Wales in Australia, “These new fossils might be of a previously unknown species, one that survived until the very end of the ice age around 11,000 years ago…Alternatively, they might represent a very early and previously unknown migration of modern humans out of Africa, a population who may not have contributed genetically to living people.”
According to Charles Choi of LiveScience:
The Stone Age fossils are unusual mosaics of modern and archaic human anatomical features, as well as previously unseen characteristics. This makes them difficult to classify as either a new species or an unusual type of modern human.
For instance, the Red Deer Cave people had long, broad and tall frontal lobes like modern humans. These brain lobes are located immediately behind the forehead, and are linked with personality and behavior.
However, the Red Deer Cave people differ from modern Homo sapiens in their prominent brow ridges, thick skull bones, flat upper faces with a broad nose, jutting jaws that lack a humanlike chin, brains moderate in size by ice age human standards, large molar teeth, and primitively short parietal lobes — brain lobes at the top of the head associated with sensory data. ‘These are primitive features seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago,’ Curnoe said.
Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people seen neither in modern nor known archaic lineages of humans include a strongly curved forehead bone, very broad nose and eye sockets, and very flat cheeks that flare widely to the sides to make space for large chewing muscles. In addition, the place where the lower jaw forms a joint with the base of the skull is unusually wide and deep.
All in all, the Red Deer Cave people are the youngest population to be found anywhere in the world whose anatomy does not comfortably fit within the range of modern humans, whether they be modern humans from 150 or 150,000 years ago, the researchers noted.
‘In short, they’re anatomically unique among all members of the human evolutionary tree,’ Curnoe told LiveScience.
Archaeologists Continue to Excavate the Region (Photo: BBC)
The people, which are being called “Red Deer Cave” people after where they were found, and what they preferred to eat, lived in China at the end of the last Ice Age. They even “shared the landscape” with early pre-farming communities, but it is unknown how exactly they interacted.
However, there is still some disagreement surrounding their categorization:
A key reason the scientists have not yet decided how to classify the Red Deer People scientifically has to do with one of the major ongoing questions for scientists investigating human evolution — ‘the lack of a satisfactory biological definition of our own species, Homo sapiens,’ Curnoe said. ‘We still don’t have one that most of us agree upon.’
Photo: BBC
‘I think the evidence is slightly weighted towards the Red Deer Cave people representing a new evolutionary line,’ Curnoe said. ‘First, their skulls are anatomically unique — they look very different to all modern humans, whether alive today or in Africa 150,000 years ago. And second, the very fact they persisted until almost 11,000 years ago when we know that very modern-looking people lived at the same time immediately to the east and south suggests they must have been isolated from them. We might infer from this isolation that they either didn’t interbreed or did so in a limited way.’
[...] Ultimately, to see how closely or distantly related the Red Deer Cave people are to modern humans or even the Denisovans, the scientists want to extract and test DNA from the fossils. ‘We’ve had one attempt already, but without success,’ Curnoe said. ‘We’ll just have to wait and see if we’re successful in our future work.’
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 580 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 406 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 406 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 357 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 406 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 406 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 357 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 406 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (345)
rasbo
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:42amevolution defined:From goo to you by way of the zoo…Keep searching folks,you wont find whats not there.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:28am“Keep searching folks,you wont find whats not there”.
They should print this on the inside of every bible.
drattastic
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:30amWhat are they talking about these people aren’t extinct I see them all the time.
Report Post »lbyrd26
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:33amI believe in evolution. I also believe in God. U all may not remimber back in the ‘70’s when the liberals took time out of their busy day milking the Global Freezing scam to tell us that ttere was proof that there is no God it was called the big bang theory. Now, that theory is accepted science and even more proof that there is a God. It proves how He made the heavans and the earth. As long as Liberals keep taking things so literally, they will never understand the things that confuse them, now. My point being, that with a few examples you can show how they spin things against God and they will spin this as the missing man.
I believe things to be simpler than that. The Bjible teaches us that Adam and Eve’s sons took wives. If they were the only children of Adam and Eve, where did the wives come from. It also states that these wives came from other tribes. That would explain why we are not alll extinct, due to inbreeding deformities.
Who is to say that these wives didn’t come from tribes of “humans” nature and DNA wasn’t already trying to form? If you believe the Bible, (I do) then you have to believe that these women can’t be the humans that God created IE Adam and Eve. Or there is a different explanation that must be plausable. The lost books of the Bible shed some light on this but not enough for me to understand entirely.
Maybe some of you would like to chime in. I would love to hear other opinions. Please.
3monkeysmomma
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:37amI never believed evolution and creationism were at odds. If you read the Genisis story as metaphorical instead of literally, it all fits quite well. “Eating of the tree of knowledge”
refers to the development of agriculture….and remember when Cain went to live with other people after he killed Able? Well, there you go. Neanderthals, “Red Deer people” etc. mentioned in the Bible.
IhaveOneToo
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:15pm@MAMALONE
Report Post »With that attitude we won’t be finding you where it really counts.
AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:28pmIf they think THESE people were weird, what is their explanation for modern day libturds?
Report Post »TEIN
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:37pm“Alternatively, they MIGHT represent a very early and previously unknown migration of modern humans out of Africa, a population who MAY not have contributed genetically to living people.”
Might and may is all I have to read to know they are trying to blow smoke….
Report Post »Onowicit
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:04pmNotice the wording that the evolution cults ALWAYS use: Might be, resembled, could have been. most likely, we suppose, “does not comfortably fit”,“ but it is unknown”, closest, probable, looks like,“the lack of a satisfactory biological definition”,A key reason the scientists have not yet decided ……..this stuff is crap it is a cult. They claim that we Christians don’t believe in FACTS. PLEASE notice every time they speak it is always SPECULATION, and make believe, could be , might be. It just as well COULD BE a Cheesecake.
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:23pm@Rasbo
Man evolved from a rock, and now is god. That is the essence of evolution.
Here you can see open minded people from Berkley defending evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvPaNCw92VY
Report Post »qzak491
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:33pm.
Report Post »There are two types of evolution, Micro and Macro. Micro is the type that actually exhists, the macro is the crap started by the idiots who wanted to take GOD out of the picture. If an animal is put is a new invironment it will adapt to that invironment. It will change to fit it’s new living conditions. This is what Darwin found on the Galopolus Islands, the animals there were different from the same animals in other parts of the world but they were the same animals. This accounts for the differences in people today, however we are all still people. The macro says we all came from a bunch of goo and over the years turned into what we are now, this is nuts, it can’t happen but we are being taught this to get GOD out of the picture. The people doing this are pure evil and cannot be believed or trusted, there anti-GOD.
Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:00pm@QZak
“There are two types of evolution, Micro and Macro.”
For the sake of accuracy, I think you should amend this sentence to the following:
“Science is pretty clear on evolution: it’s biological and genetic changes over multiple generations. Some people aren’t comfortable with this idea. The strictest will say “No evolution ever occurs.” The ones who see that changes obviously happened and are continuing to do so, but still don’t like the concept of evolution, will create new terms, “micro” and “macro” evolution. These have zero scientific basis, but create a comfortable (and artificial) goalpost between accepting and rejecting evolution. When a new example of evolution comes out, the goalpost of “micro” evolution will slide to include it, while deniers will still clamor around macro evolution being false.”
It’s a bit more accurate. There is no debate in the scientific community that evolution occurs. The only debate is how much has changed, how quickly, and what the definitions for species/family/genus should be (and thus, at what point new “species” come about). There is no differentiation between macro and micro evolution, because the concepts are philosophical, not scientific.
Report Post »palerider54
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 3:18pm@MAMMALONE, maybe your ancestors lived in the trees and swung by their tails, ( which would explain why your mama looked the way she did) but mine was created by God in the Garden.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 3:48pmI’ll never understand why it is so imperative for humans to believe they had magically materialized from nothing. Simpletons…
“Anything you don’t understand, Mr. Rankin, you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it.” –Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan’s “Contact”
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 4:09pmMr. Curnoe said; “These new fossils MIGHT BE of a previously unknown species, one that survived until the very end of the ice age around 11,000 years ago…Alternatively, THEY MIGHT REPRESENT a very early and previously unknown migration of modern humans out of Africa, a population who MAY NOT have contributed genetically to living people.” (Capitalisation is mine, for emphasis)
He does not sound very confident as to his theory.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 4:19pmWhy do evolutionary scientists talk like this?
Report Post »Because they know they have no proof.
Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 4:44pm@Whitefang
“Why do evolutionary scientists talk like this?
Because they know they have no proof.”
Because science is based on evidence, and sometimes evidence can be misinterpreted. It sounds like this investigation is VERY preliminary; without more samples, better dating, or extraction of DNA, it’ll be hard to pinpoint what the story is.
It’s the nature of science. Right now they have two hypotheses: new species or new strain of ho mo sapien. It’ll take more study to weed out which is the stronger explanation.
Report Post »JuniperLynn
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 4:44pmIn response to LBYRD26: you were saying adam and eve‘s son couldn’t have married their sisters… actually, they could have. When God made Adam he made a genetically flawless individual and Eve would have had the exact same DNA seeing as how she started as his rib. Over the course of time the gene pool has slowly deteriorated every generation. But the first generations would have had no trouble at all with the genetic problems inbreeding creates today. In fact, it wasn‘t even until Moses’s time that God finally laid down the law of no immidiate family incest. And up until very recently in human history marrying your first cousin was totally fine.
Report Post »My thoughts on the crazy humanoid bones they find are that perhaps they are pre-flood. It’s easy to forget that based on the geneolgy in the bible there was approx. 2000 years between adam and the flood. that’s a lot of forgotten time! also there is mention in Genesis 6 of the “sons of Gods” having children with the daughters of men. Genesis 6:4 “The Nephilim were on the earth on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heros of old, men of renown.” It always blows my mind to imagine the 2000 years between creation and the flood.
WhiteFang
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:15pmJuniperLynn,
Excellent comment.
Report Post »I also am fascinated with the time period before the Flood. What were conditions like, how bad was society, to cause God to extinguish what he had created.
Genesis chapter 6
Pontiac
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 6:10pm[Excellent comment.]
That is completely pulled out of his arse…
[how bad was society, to cause God to extinguish what he had created.]
Oh yes, what a loving god worthy of our worship…
I find it hard to believe you bumpkins even have the internet where you are let alone know how to turn on a computer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCiStLKzivM
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 6:11pmCain didn’t go to live with other people. He was banished, other people eventually came to live with him. Brothers, sisters, niece, nephew. So on. Hello.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 6:20pmHMMM? Maybe something to this. LOOKS like the first Democrat leaders. DOWNHILL though, since then!
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:04pmLooks like my Uncle Jimmy…
Report Post »voiceofreason305
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:38pmI have no idea what foundation of logic in most of your brains allows the arguement that since man has no real evidence on why We are here, this proves by default that all the universe was created by god and we were created in his image but we were bad so he sent his son down from heaven for us to kill so that if we believed in his son he would not make us burn for all eternity after we die but instead live awesome lives with perfect bodies and all kinds of awesome stuff FOREVER. I find it troubling that you people actually believe that man has no other way of coming to the reckoning that he should only do to someone else what he would not mind being done to him by way of the whole hearted belief that if you do not, you will burn in hell.
Report Post »Please forgive the run on sentences, or any grammatical errors for that matter, I was ranting.
4truth2all
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:39pmYo Locked:
Change within their kind , not apes into humans, fish into frogs, or birds into reptiles. Also there is never NEW information in these changes within kinds. One dog = fox, dingo or wolf, not duckbilled platapusses. Age or time passed is the big question …ever notice how evolutionists keep increasing that. They need a lot of time. Problem is someday they are going to run out of it.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:07pmHere‘s what I don’t get. Obviously there are are lots of creatures who used to live on Earth but no longer exist. Everybody know that dinosaurs are extinct, and trilobites, woolly mammoths and archaeopteryx and so on. But geologists who study the fossil record say that almost all the fossils they have found, 99% or more in fact, bear no resemblance to modern lifeforms. That includes creatures of the sea, plants both in the sea and on land, insects, mammals, reptiles and whatever else. They say in fact that +99% of all species that ever existed have become extinct. And yet every niche on Earth, from the deepest ocean environments, to the highest and the coldest regions on Earth have some form or forms of life.
So did God replace these creatures who died out with new ones? As species die is God creating new ones all along?
Or did he create so many right up front that the remaining ones fill in the gaps as the others die out? If that’s true, why don’t we find rabbit fossils, or the fossils of any mammal next to dinosaurs?
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:12pmOh look, more knuckle dragging creationist fallacies…
It is not apes into humans, it is primates onto apes and humans which are distinct from each other.
It is not fish into frogs, it is tetrapods onto frogs.
It is not “birds into reptiles” (backwards anyway), it is reptiles onto winged and feather reptiles then onto birds. FFS we have fossils of feathered reptiles.
Cats don‘t become dogs and dogs don’t become cats. Their genetics diverged so long ago so stop setting deceitful goalposts expecting to win your stupid arguments. I’m sick and tire of creationist and their little mind games. Evolution is based on logic, creationism is a fairytale, get over it.
http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:20pmYo JZS:
What you have just said is totally untrue. I bet you get it from atheist scientists websites (evolutionists), where they do not show you the numerious fossils found that are exactly like those living today. Also for fossils to be formed/preserved it has to happen quickly, and yes fossils of all kinds are found.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:37pmUp to you’re same old attempts to insult and empty corrections that have no bearing on the discussion or truth.
There is not ONE reptile ever found that has feathers. They have been found out to be untrue and outright lies. One that was touted as the missing link was a couple of fossils pieced together.
The difference between a feather and a scale is enormus … birds don’t turn into reptiles or reptiles into birds .. you understood what I was saying or you really are stupid and should not be mocking anybody else.
Report Post »tersky
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:06pmThe assumption that Adam and Eve had only three sons comes only from ignorance. The Works of Josephus state that they had, I believe 57 children with Cain, Abel and Seth being the last three.
That said, people who continue to deny evolution when it can be seen in some species even within our lifetime… need to get their heads out of the sand and find a way to bring their faith in compliance with obvious science, or at least come to terms with what we don’t know. How much of the story of Adam and Eve is metaphor and how much is literal? I don’t know. I believe they were real people and that much of the story is literal. But, really, to fail to accept that the Bible is full of metaphor leaves one in a position where… either their faith is vulnerable, or they must avoid thinking too deeply.
Report Post »thetreyman
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:27pmanyone can plainly see this is the skull of an alien.
Report Post »PRRedlin
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:31pmHoly crap there are some undereducated rednecks on this site.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:36pm@tersky
Report Post »Good post and not an unreasonable amplitude of faith.
Unlike others which just cement their heads so deep into the sand that they’re suffocating themselves…
Pontiac
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:37pm[There is not ONE reptile ever found that has feathers]
Well, only in that we probably wouldn’t classify it as a reptile anymore.
[The difference between a feather and a scale is enormous*]
Duh. Yet an Ostrich clearly has both and it doesn’t even fly.
[They have been found out to be untrue and outright lies. One that was touted as the missing link was a couple of fossils pieced together.]
They? Pieced together? It was not pieced together… It was two fossils in one very real rock that was just poorly examined. There are many more fossils of feathered dinosaurs which are not in dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur
Educate yourself and stop being a butthurt crybaby creationist.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFKnY_YCu2s (5parts)
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
thecid100
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 1:04amHey, Pontiac and PRRedlin,
Atheism is the belief there was once absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever, into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs and humans.
And you have the gall to mock my beliefs!
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 1:41am[Atheism is the belief there was once absolutely nothing.]
Report Post »Wrong from the start.
COFemale
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 2:08am@Momma
Frankly, I was thinking that a sign you should hold up at an OWS Protest. Kind of fitting don’t you think?
Report Post »mauijonny
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 5:26amSeriously, I really can‘t understand why many people who have God in their lives can’t also see the facts of evolution. Like Glenn has said so many times, and I’m paraphrasing: “Compared to God’s existence, we’re only here for 5 hours.” So, in God’s time, what makes you think God wasn’t working on (and is still working on) us? I don’t find that, in the least, threatening to God’s existence. In fact, I find it to make God even more interested in bringing us closer to Him, and I’m grateful for that.
Report Post »ClunkerT
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 7:30amA couple of comments, evolution is an adult fairy tale. The evolution scientist believes the frog eventually ends up being a human being, that came right out of a children’s fairy tale. One cannot reconcile evolution with the Bible, that would be the equivalent of a NFL football referee going into Madison Square Garden and refereeing a Knick basketball game with the NFL rule book. NOTHING fits. You are forced to compromise your faith in order to accommodate the theory of evolution. If Creation Science had the opportunity to present their evidence in our kids school books evolution would lose every step of the way. You give the kids a chance to evaluate evidence from both camps and I promise you the kids will always choose creation. They have been teaching evolution for decades without any competition and still 65% of Americans polled believe in creation. It seems the evolutionist is very good at presenting their propaganda. The evolutionist has to buck the laws of probability every step of the way, the odds that life came from NOTHING (Goo) and advanced to the Zoo and then eventually us, are always bucking a 10 to the 50th power chance that it cannot happen. at all.
It is always better to do you own research rather than gathering hearsay from comments. Here is a site that will intelligently answer your questions:
http://www.icr.org/
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 8:28amLBYRD26
The Bible says the Adam and Eve also had “sons and daughters” after telling of Cain and Abel. The marriages were incestuous. The Bible does not forbid incestous marriages until Moses. Adam and Eve lived over 900 year. I am 37 and have 2 sons and 3 daughters. How many kids do you think they were able to produce?
Also, if you believe in evolution, you don’t believe the Bible. Evolution puts death before sin which make the Bible a lie. The Bible claims the plants were created before the sun, that could only occur if the plants only had to wait 1 day for the sun to exist. There are countless other reasons why it’s impossible to credibly believe both. There is NO scientific reason to not believe the Bible over the religion of macro-evolution.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 9:14amYo Pontiac
They were pieced together and the person that did it admitted it was a hoax and that very fossil is on the link you posted … EDUCATE YOURSELF
However, let‘s go with you’re statement of being poorly exaimed … the hole idea of evolution is assumptions poorly exaimined … they saw what they wanted to see, just like you.
And nobodys crying here , so again the best you can do is insult … that makes me cry.
Address a fool according to his folly.
Don’t address a fool according to his folly.
I tried the first one .. now I do the second. If you want to remain a nasty, insulting person have a good life. Oh, by the way have you heard the latest concerning the chip/human genome… not nearly as similar as we were told … but then to close you’re eyes to the truth.
Report Post »georgette
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 10:57amGod invented Science ……it’s a treasure hunt
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 11:12amNotice how creationist, like Delusions4all latches onto one mistake in my haste, but ignores the other fossils of feathered dinosaurs listed in my links. Yeah…
[latest concerning the chip/human genome]
That’s nothing new. We didn’t evolve from a “chip” or chimp anyway so cry some more.
@mauijonny
The Torah meant literal days and makes no claim that it is “Gods time”. Stop making excuses for that crap translated version of the bible King James put out.
@Clunker
[evolution scientist believes the frog eventually ends up being a human being]
Bullcrap. No scientist makes that claim we descended from “frogs”.
[Creation Science had the opportunity to present their evidence in our kids school books evolution would lose every step of the way.]
Wishful thinking would be an understatement.
You cannot refute the logic of evolution without distorting it, taking it out of context, or flat out lying about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=868heM4W-BI (ICR debunked)
http://www.reduciblycomplex.com/index.php/evidence-for-creation-debunked/
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 11:47amPontiac,
“”Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.”” – 1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 8:22pmYo Pontiac:
Report Post »I brought up the chimp because you brought it up in my last attempt to talk with you because you said creationists have a problem explaining something concerning them and humans and within 15 min. of checking out your link I found a huge flaw.
In fact, I want to thank you, because of what you did I studied some more and learned more, and reminds me of how much I don’t know.
Delusions4all will now explain you’re bird fossils link . I did not latch on to only one , that was the one in our “discussion”, and promptly disproved you on it. I could have taken every bird listed/pictured on that link and done the same. So I was not ignoring them Why waste my time.
So I factually disprove you, and you’re responce is to call ME delusional … again with the insults … sounds like you’re the one acting like a baby. I have tried to talk with you in spite of you’re continued nastiness, I hope you read BEARFOOT’s post, it suits you to a tee, and I doubt Bearfoot meant it as an insult, more to get you to look at you’re own words. I really don’t hate you but as scripture states I am not going to continue to try and have a civil discussion with someone that seems incapable of doing so. Even now, I take my supper break to talk with you, I should be eating, fact that’s a good idea…
Pontiac
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 10:15pm[and promptly disproved you on it.]
You didn’t disprove me. I never claimed it was a real avialan dinosaur. I gleamed some information and said it was “one rock” that was “poorly examined”. The only thing I got wrong was it was ONE rock. Again, I never claimed that one was a real avialan dinosaur.
What a victory for you!
Not.
[I could have taken every bird listed/pictured on that link and done the same. ]
Do it. Post evidence that the 30 fossils in the wiki link, *List of dinosaur species preserved with evidence of feathers*, are undoubtedly fake fossils of feathered dinosaurs.
(In before he comes back with links containing the word “creation” something dot com…)
As for “BEARFOOT”, I couldn’t give a flying rats ### about his copy pasted “anti-reason” & “anti-rationalism” drive-by scripture.
[I am not going to continue to try and have a civil discussion with someone that seems incapable of doing so]
Report Post »I couldn’t care less. Regardless of how I reply, you fearful dogmatic fools always do more harm to yourselves than I ever could. Creationist are on the verge of extinction and everyone knows it.
4truth2all
Posted on March 17, 2012 at 3:02amNever said all the other ones were faked …. and any links I would provide would not have outright lies in it, like the ones you post.
Report Post »and like I said, I’m not going to waste any more time “trying” to talk to you.
Pontiac
Posted on March 17, 2012 at 11:05amIOW “I can’t prove diddly squat. I halfway admit Dinosaurs (Reptiles) had feathers but you‘re still a liar liar pants on fire and I’m going to intentionally remain ignorant and run back to my sky daddy to comfort my fragile ego because I can’t cope with life otherwise.”
Okay then. This page was to much scrolling anyways.
Report Post »Postolic
Posted on March 17, 2012 at 11:48am@Locked
There’s no debate in the scientific community on whether or not Evolution occured? Have you ever heard of Intelligent Design? A large body of scientists (appx. 30%) actually have rejected Evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. As they have looked into the “scientific evidence” they have found it to be anything but evidence.
The reality is Evolution is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. (If you don’t know what that means, then you need to go back and take General Science 101 to learn about the scientific method.) You cannot place the fundamental principles in a lab and test them. You cannot test the theory to prove whether or not it is true.
Evolution is a philosopy, just as creation is. In fact, it is a fundamental tennent of Secular Humanism, a recognized religion in this country.
Report Post »Arminius23
Posted on March 18, 2012 at 10:14am@ 4truth2all The time limit is already established. Any student of thermodynamics ultimately knows that the Billions of years paradigm is a farce. Erosion rate, lack of evidential support of magnetic reversal, lack of neutrino generation from the sun, presence of short half-life elements within rocks, lack of subsatantial amounts of moon dust encountered by the astronauts, and the moon‘s gradual stray from Earth’s gravitational pull. All these contribute to destruction of the Darwinian thought. Atheism is a religion. The scientific community is not solidified just quick to ostracize. Atheists have declared Jihad in the name of enlightenment slowly poisoning the youth. Morality is no longer defined just what the ruling elite deem as such. So come on let’s all become Atheists then we can have no restrictions, live life they way we want, and live in Utopia. UNTIL the ruling elite take it upon themselves to cull the herd to preserve the species. You are worth nothing so let’s kill….oh billions. You are just pawns fit for slavery. Yay! If I’m an elite: I can murder, lie, steal, enslave, and have s*x with anyone or anything I want. Oh the peon, he has the pleasure to serve and be my toy. Talk about the 1%. This is a reality, pick up a copy of 1984. It already happened in Russia. Don‘t think it won’t happen here.
Report Post »Amarath01
Posted on March 19, 2012 at 9:08am@ pontiac
“[They have been found out to be untrue and outright lies. One that was touted as the missing link was a couple of fossils pieced together.]
They? Pieced together? It was not pieced together… It was two fossils in one very real rock that was just poorly examined. There are many more fossils of feathered dinosaurs which are not in dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur”
From that page itself:
“The ”Archaeoraptor” fake In 1999, a supposed ‘missing link’ fossil of an apparently feathered dinosaur named “Archaeoraptor liaoningensis”, found in Liaoning Province, northeastern China, turned out to be a forgery.”
Yeah. There are quite a few forgeries, but your “righteous” indignation just makes me ask READ MUCH?
Thought i do agree with most of your posting in this thread, so lol.
I used to use a heavy hand also, try a lighter one.
My person perspective, is I don’t know because no one does. DNA will not tell us much if its non-human (there is no Correct way to map evolution form dna atm, past some pretty basic stuff {mammal, cold blooded, etc. more than this but not enough}) and if its human that means this doesn’t really matter.
This is an interesting finding but not really all that important; not enough to get hateful over.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on March 19, 2012 at 9:39amYo Amarath01;
I don‘t suspect that you believe in creation per you’re statements, however I appreciate you’re comments as I could have listed all the info on this particular fossil and others, don’t feel like taking the time. I will add at this point that that bird was the front cover, main story on National Geographic .. in which they NEVER produced a retraction that people would see. What they did if I recall was last page smallest print one sentence might of made a mistrake comment concerning it. Pretty disingenious. I searching for truth and that ain’t it!
Report Post »EndTheGOPTEA
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:41amWow, Most of you are as dumb as a bag of rock.. Might want to look at Evolution closer.
Report Post »Science people! I am sorry if your small minds don’t understand things like evolution, space, time… Do any of you believe in time travel? You are in it now you know? Time is moving slower on the Space Station just as it is moving slower for the guy driving by outside right now.
Please do not home school your kids.. There is no Santa… Earth has been here billions of years.. BILLIONS!! Do you have any concept of time? Evolution is fact.. it is going on right now.. Get your Flu Shot each year?
4truth2all
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:14amNo Santa ???? How do you look at yourself in the mirror, you have just ruined my life !
Report Post »TexasHunter
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:00am@ ENDTHEGOPTEA. “Most of you are dumb as a bag of rock”? So the bag only has one rock in it? Please before you try to criticise everyone here lets go back to school and get your puns correct. You veer off the subject like a drunken liberal. Or Owebama trying to answer a straight forward question. Stop drinking the kool-aid and put down your rock.
TEA !! Forever the Republic will live and prosper! I know it just eats you alive..
Report Post »Seede
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:15amRight on nutball– Everyone knows that somehow, thousands of years ago there was a monkey who split it‘s gene and produced today’s humans. The bible should read that God made monkey after his image and likeness and after thousands of years the accident produced humans. That is according to your nutball theology. Now you might have had a momma monkey but I sure didn’t. My mom was a lady and my pop was a man and not a monkey.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:21amENDTHE….I’m always amused by the self-labelled “enlightened” liberal who conflates, morphs and mangles the principles of cosomology, anthropology and archeology in the manner you’ve just displayed.
Report Post »Freedomluver
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:39am@EndTheGOPTEA
Hey genious…just how have you God haters explained Eigen’s paradox?
http://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Issues_XFer_Hereditary_Info.html
Hhhhmmmm, seems you folks always forget about that little problem with your “theory”…eh?
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:52amSo which line of evolution is a fact? Macro-evolution or Micro-evolution? If it is macro, when did it stop and why? Where is the evidence in the fossil records? Where is one single solitary piece of evidence to support macro-evolution? When did evolution become considered a fact rather than a theory?
Report Post »lbyrd26
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:59amENDTHE GOPTEA is just another example of what you can expect from the public school system, he adores so much. You can tell that he is just full of hate and rage for anyone who disagrees with his liberalbent, from his screen name.
His science told us that the world was flat and anyone who disagreed was stupid. They then told us that the earth was the center of the universe and anyone who disagreed with that was stupid. Then when time was moving slower around ENDTHEGOPTEA They tried to tell us that Obama was the second coming of Jesus, now they say he isn’t the Son of Go and anybody who disagrees is stupid. Are you getting the drift, here.d
Report Post »localwildlife
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:50pmENDTHEGOPTEA: Wow, “Time travel”,“Home school”, “Santa”, “Flu shots,” care to elaborate ?
Report Post »Might you be just a teeny little bit confused, or is your thinking so far ahead on the evolutionary scale that no modern human can possibly hope to understand what the H– you’re talking about?
I am open minded though, and would love for you to explain before I chalk it all up to you just being a pompous ass.
encinom
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:04pmBible thumpers give it up, until you explain to me why the creation myth of middle eastern goat herders is more correct than the creation myth of an older religion like Hinduism without running back to your collection of myths, shut up.
The Bible is a 1,500 year book compiling ancient legends and myths from the middle east, it is no different than the poem of Gilgamesh or Homer’s Iliad.
Real science develops its theories, they change with new evidence are refined, whereas with creationism the evidence and facts are bent and twisted to fit the theory. This is wht the Creation Museum looks like a realistic version of the Flintsones with Dinosaurs and Cavemen living together, even though this flies in the face of actual science.
Report Post »Freedomluver
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:19pm@encinom
What cracks me up about those like yourself is your ideas are nothing new, as all you and your side have done is to re-hash Pantheism. Surely you fail to grasp this, but your ideas are really nothing but an old religious belief. “Nature did it”…eh?
LOL
Report Post »lbyrd26
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:21pmINCINOM Don’t know which one is telling the full truth but until “Accepted science” can show the “missing link” that would prove the athiests theory any better tha n the theory of God. I think I will stick with the theory that will get me into Heaven, kwhen I die. That way if fI’m wrong- no harm, no foul but if you’re wrong, I don’t want to let you lead me to hell, just to tell you, I told you so.Why should I shut up. Just becauuse your liberal lack of values can’t take disagreement? What makes you think you are so much better than anyone else. That you can rule who gets to talk. I believe that U are so stupid that U are a liberal because U are dumb enough to buy into the theory that we came from a rock is more scientify than the theory that we are made in the image of a God who sent his son to0 blaze an trail for humans to go into the hear after without spending eternity in the misery you will experience if your psudo -intellectual liberalism is wrong. I don’t tell U to shut up.
Report Post »In fact the idea of a deity, who created us is every bit as plausable as the THEORY that we came from a rock. Your so called science has had ‘Scientific theory” that has been wrong many times and continues to do so today.
qzak491
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:48pmEndTheGOPTEA
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:41am
From your comments you seem to be as smart as the goo you think you came from.
Report Post »qzak491
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:53pmENCINOM
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:04pm
Bible thumpers give it up, until you explain to me why the creation myth of middle eastern goat herders is more correct than the creation myth of an older religion like Hinduism without running back to your collection of myths, shut up
We could explain it to you but you don’t have the abilities it takes to understand it.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:56pmActually ENCIDIOT…the historicity of the New Testament is remarkably good and not really in question (except to blind idiots like yourself of course). Luke in particular is excellent in his accuracy. We never had any physicial evidence of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea at the time of Jesus other than Roman records and the New Testament. No coins, no buildings…nothing. Recently a stone was found in that region naming him. Luke uses the term “Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abilene” to describe an official. No evidence of that official with that title was ever on record…until it was unearthed in Greece a few years ago.
Report Post »The Gospel of John notes “the pool of Bethesda” where Jesus performed a miracle. He describes it as having 5 porticoes. Lo and behold…it was excavated EXACTLY as John described it. Then I can quote Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Josephus (yes even with the removal of the later Christian additions) as secular historians who give evidence (mostly hostile evidence) of the events described in the New Testament. The archeology alone makes your infantile assertions about the historical veracity of the bible worthless ENCIDIOT. You bleat before you think.
encinom
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:29pm@AvengerK
Again, basic historical facts the bible gets right, the names of towns, kings, officials, much like Homer’s Iliad. ANd like the Iliad, there is no evidence to support any of the Bible’s hocus pocus. No proof of the walking on water, no evidence of the many acts of Gods or angels. No evidence to support the creation myth. The Bible is no better than other classical works of fiction that are based around actual events.
Report Post »bakerpasd24
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 4:27pm@encinom\monicne\sleazyhippo
First off, you already label yourself as insane by logging into The Blaze and posting, as of now, 3 known ID’s. There is no reasoning with insane people. So, instead of reasoning, I suggest a reading…. The book by Frank Turek “I don’t have enough faith to be an athiest”. Read this and then let me know your thoughts.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 4:49pm@Kaydee
“So which line of evolution is a fact? Macro-evolution or Micro-evolution?”
Oh, if that’s your own issue, then it’s easily solved. There is no difference, scientifically speaking, between the two; science does not divide evolution the way theologians and apologists do. Evolution is simply biological change over time (ie, through generations). When a species changes enough from others of its kind, it may be reclassified. There are plenty of examples of “similar” species that can no longer mate; but reproduction isn’t necessarily a key trait of a different species; it can be something as simple as different wing structure or an adaptation that allows digesting new minerals.
So, rest assured… outside of religious circles, your question is completely moot.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:09pmYo eincinom:
You say… “real science develops it’s theories”
I suggest you look up the word science.
What you’re people do is everytime the are found out to be wrong they change their THEORY.
FACTS DON”T CHANGE
I would spend the time and pick what you say to pieces, but some have already touched on this and you just ignor it, much of what you say is utter nonsence and FACTually untrue.
Report Post »YouAreMistakenSir
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 12:13amOriginal Poster: This is a poor method for winning arguments. Calling people stupid solves nothing and worse, turns them off to your argument on an emotional level which means you’ve already lost…you idiot.Also your writing was of poorer quality than most on this sight. And a lot of it is pretty bad.
Eigon’s Paradox Guy: Simply because a problem has not been solved does not make it unsolvable. People didn’t know how to fly for a very long time. But planes are pretty cool.
Fossil Record Person: Asking for evidence in the fossil record is like asking what is the smallest number between 0 and 1. Whatever you say there will always be a smaller number. Scientists long ago were satisfied that fossil evidence supported the theory of evolution. Its a weak sauce argument. Go take a lesson from Eigon’s Paradox Guy. My response to him was way flimsier.
Lybrd26: What are you talking about? I literally do not understand. Heliocentrism was figured out (most famously anyway) by Galileo. He was called a heathen by the inquisition and put under house arrest until he died some time later. D+. Let’s try for some coherent counter arguments hmm? Also you‘re think of Pascals Wager which isn’t a good argument for religion especially if thats your only reason for belief. Example: I could believe my dog is actually a well spoken Harvard Graduate with a PHD in Art. But he hides all this very well to make me feel smart. This causes me no harm nor anyone else. It’s still pretty lo
Report Post »I am Jacks patriotism
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 12:29amI’d take a closer look if I had reason to believe there would be something to see or find…but come to think of it there are many, many scientists far smarter and better funded than I that have been looking closer for about 152 years and still evolution is just a theory, not fact or law. That long with believers that cannot prove it…hmm sounds like a religion to me
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 1:56pm@YOUAREMISTAKEN
This is the classic evolutionist argument. If creationist can’t prove it wrong, it must be right. Since macro evolution only exists as a scientific hypothesis, NOT THEORY, because of taxpayer support via the public school system. I believe the burden of proof is on you sir. Science generally aknowledges the lack of data for a proposed hypothesis even after over 200 years of searching, makes for a poor argument. Einstein said he never tried to prove himself right, he tried to prove himself wrong! That’s how great scientific minds work. Evolutionists already have a dogmatic settled outcome and lie, cheat and steal (there have been books written about this) to fabricate the scientific method involved to support it.
Report Post »TheSoundOf Truth
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 2:45pmfact?
Don’t misrepresent it like that: it is called a theory because the evidence does not support the theory into becoming law. It MUST be true in every case without fail. This is why E=MC2 was called a “theory” because on the quantum level it did not apply.
Evolution is not a fact, at least not when applied to humans. Scientists really have no idea how we got here, and how we evolved so fast if it were spontaneous evolution.
Truth is, something happened approx 11,000-25,000 years ago that sped up our “evolution” rapidly, and no one has any idea why.
Except, well, maybe the story of Gilgamesh can shed some light on this…
But calling a theory a ‘fact’ is a painfully ignorant understanding of the word “science”.
Report Post »BobtheMoron
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:21amI’ve seen black men who look like this guy. Go to any predominately black area and find one or two men who look like this.
Report Post »sedition
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:46amKimbo slice!!!
AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:17amActually BOB…you’re not far wrong. Look at some paintings done by early explorers of Australia and New Guinea….the picture in the article looks remarkably like them. The first thing I noticed was the striking similarity (outward appearance) to Australian Aboriginals.
Report Post »JAMACAMECRAZYMAN
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:38amHis ears aren’t big enough………
Report Post »The Sergeant Major
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:03pmI’m going with Kimbo Slice also…..spooky resemblance. Can this guy fight?
Report Post »tersky
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:28pmNo, the error is in the artwork. The beard covers up what is different. Look at the picture of the skill; THAT is radically different from a modern human skull. Most monkey skulls look more like a modern human skull than that one. The zigomatic arches (cheek bones) and mandible (lower jaw) are absolutely bizarre. Heck… a dog‘s zigomatic arches look more like ours than this guy’s do.
Report Post »BobtheMoron
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:19amIts Bushs’ fault.
Report Post »Rajabear1
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:00pmCrap, that one made me laugh…needed it with this heavy subject…
Report Post »Sayre
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:15amLast I heard, the theory of evolution was still a theory. Not unlike global warming, i.e. aka, Climate Change or whatever the heck they are calling it this week… On the other hand, I used to believe Darwinian Evolution, even that man evolved from primates…
Now, here is, my new theory …
Entertaining the possibility that a more subtle form of evolution where by some, of the family of man, evolved from primates, as evidenced by a sheepish lack of personal will. These became the Occupy Movement, Union workers, and other such members of the proletariat useful idiot crowd.
And then there is the more ideological left, whose ancestry magically evolved from parrots… as evidenced by any group of Democrats, or mainstream media types, with a fist full of talking points.
The only remaining group, ideologically right wing, would be those created in the image and likeness of God. I suggest this evolutionary trinity, is every bit as plausible as anthropomorphic evolution, or for that matter, anthropomorphic global warming, or any other leftist delusional fantasy.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:33amScience is all too wiling to stretch facts to provide a missing link to prove evolution.
This sounds like another Nebraska Man sighting to me.
Just sayin’.
Report Post »www.dwbcard.com
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:01amI really liked reading your comments, thanks for posting!
Report Post »ScreaminEagle
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:12amOrigins of Bigfoot?
9-12
Report Post »Isitover
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:22amSayre, you are brilliant. I really liked the parrot reference. Thanks for the visual. Now if you could bring in a reptile. That would cover Nancy Pelosi and “Mad-dog” Debbie Waserman-Schultz.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:37amYou do not understand the word “theory”. Please do the rest of us a favor and go stick your head back into your hole.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:43amwhat about “hypothesis” FOXHOLE…like the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. As an atheist that‘s your leap of faith isn’t it?
Report Post »cariboodragon
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:59pmAs opposed to man being created from dust say, if man was created in GODS image how many GODS would be needed to account for the different races of humans on earth, asians look different than africans that look different than middle eastern people that look different than caucasians that look different than native americans etc. If all the humans on earth before and after the CREATION of organized religion do not believe in organized religion whose image were they created from. Why is the Christian GOD so weak and ineffective on earth if HE created everything. There would be no SATAN on earth or anywhere else in the universe if there really was a GOD he would be able to make SATAN disappear because SATAN was created by GOD right, isn’t SATAN a fallen angel. How about SIN, no need for SIN if the Christian GOD is as powerful as you all believe, no SATAN no SIN. Just some of many questions I have about all organized religion. Again feel free to worship and believe what you like but a bit of tolerance goes a long way in this world as does COMMON SENSE and CRITICAL THINKING. One thing does puzzle me about this site though, GLEN BECK is a MORMON and I cannot figure out why so many Evangelical Christians are on this site when you say that MORMONISM is not a Christian faith but a cult? Anyways carry on……………
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:00pmWhy is it so hard for you to understand the meaning of the word “theory”? Gravity is a fact, the THEORY of gravity is a scientific methodology in an attempt to explain the FACT. Evolution is exactly the same thing. Global Warming in not, btw. Try to follow along.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:24pmSimpleTruths
Report Post »Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:00pm
Why is it so hard for you to understand the meaning of the word “theory”? Gravity is a fact, the THEORY of gravity is a scientific methodology in an attempt to explain the FACT. Evolution is exactly the same thing. Global Warming in not, btw. Try to follow along.
____________________
Because actually thinking rationally would only confirm that the bile is not true, shattering their little minds. So instead of debate the facts they attack by confusing the issue and using different meanings for the words.
qzak491
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:14pmFOXHOLEATHEIST
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:37am
You do not understand the word “theory”. Please do the rest of us a favor and go stick your head back into your hole
Since you, by your name, are in a hole, we don’t want to be around idiots like you so you can stay in your hole by yourself.
Report Post »qzak491
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:17pm.
Report Post »As far as theroies are concerned they are the crap scientists try to pass off as fact when they can’t find any real facts.
SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 4:01pmIt’s not even a theory by the scientific method. It’s only a hypothesis at best. A theory, by definition, has been successfully observed in an experiment. Macro – evolution has NEVER and I repeat, NEVER be successfully observed. Evolutionists will give you scientific examples of micro-evolution or adaptation (which creationists do not deny) by macro-evolution is at best, a hypothesis. Words mean things.
Report Post »Seede
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:12amAt least this story is better than the finger bone story. From part of a finger bone and a tooth they even drew up a picture of what the gal looked like. Talk about reaching out. I guess the scientist needs another grant so here we go. Anything for good ole scientific work.
Report Post »palmettopalflorida
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:08amWith no respect intended, please take this evolutionary tale and stick it up a primates butt.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:55amAnd according to the picture very well groomed
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:20amShave and a haircut… 2 bits.
Report Post »Conservativeman
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:51amHow did they become extinct? My theory, their gall bladders have medicinal properties and other parts were an aphrodisiac. I believe they were eaten in chinese medicines.
Report Post »Atilla
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:44amWonder what will happen when the science proves intelligent design???? Talk about freaking out.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:39amThe difference between we both is that if science ever really proved intelligent design, I will start believing in a creator. No matter what facts are presented, you and your ilk will continue to undermine science and will never ever change your ignorant views.
Brainmuffin
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:02amScience has shown there is a design to life, but it cannot prove beyond that. Science has already disproved Evolutionism, but people keep wanting it to be true.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:08amThere would be no freaking out at all…unlike you and your ilk who will only look at evidence that supports your 2000 year old myth, scientists (and science by definition) look at the evidence and fit a theory around that said evidence. If there was obvious, factual evidence that pointed to a creator (let alone your narrow Christian religious view) I, as long as others, would obviously see that evidence and change our theory and views. You, and those like you, will NEVER, NEVER change your pre-determined view no matter what other evidence is presented. I swear, people like you are like children….
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:11amBrainmuffin…you can spout any load of crap you hear, but you are 100% factually wrong. The vast majority of scientific data, from virtually all branches from biology to geology to astrophycis, etc..ALL support the theory of evolution in one way or the other. Saying something doesnt make it true. I have no idea if there was a creator, Im open to that possibility, but dont say the scientific evidence proves evolution to be untrue, becasue you are simply wrong.
Report Post »Atilla
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:43amThe real difference between both of us is the operative words of “when” and your use of the word “if’. That and the fact that I do not need to call you ignorant for having different view of the world. A commont trait of bothe the athiest and the Marxist is name calling. Have a great day.
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:01pmIntelligent design is a fable, like the Bible.
Report Post »cariboodragon
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:11pmINTELLIGENT DESIGN would not prove the existence of a CHRISTIAN GOD or any other GOD only that the UNIVERSE was created by INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:42pmOh come on SIMPLETONTRUTHS….you already believe in fables..that’s why you swallow what Obama and his handlers give you..hook, line and sinker.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 2:36amFoxHole why do you feel that there is no one greater than YOU; a sign of arrogance is not allowing for the possibility that someone greater than you created you. This is what faith is. We trust that God did what he said he did. It boggles my mind just how closed-minded you are. Have you looked in the mirror and asked yourself “What if I am wrong”. I have and about 8 years ago I started to read the Bible. The more I read it, the more I understood. When I read the different books again months later, I read something new and see things differently. Try it, you might like it.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 8:19amCofemale – Ive read the bible – did again last year. yes, there are great truths in the bible, there are great lessons……but there are great truths and lessons in many of the great books, philosophies and religions in the world. It doesnt make it literally true, nor does it discount the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I wish we would all come into the 21st century and realize that we can live our lives by the lessons in the bible, be good people, but dont throw out other truths even when the evidence is right in front of you. It makes you look silly….
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:29amAs much as I love scientific advances, I’m finding some of this… well, “interesting” as in “fishy.”
The article that’s quoted is notoriously sparse in detail of the dig itself. Looking online I found an article from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/14/red-deer-cave-people-species-human#start-of-comments) that gave a bit more detail on the history of the find. Apparently a farmer found the fossil back in 1979, and while some of it was examined, most was simply filed away and forgotten until a couple years ago. If the fossils were “lost” for all these years, why did it suddenly pick up interest again?
Most search results on the subject are from the last 24 hours. Nothing from 1979; and considering that’s when they found the skeleton and obviously saw the skull (which is distinctly different from a human), it seems odd that no one chose to examine it until a couple years ago.
After some of the frauds out there, I’m just a bit skeptical.
That said, if the work is on the level, it’s incredibly interesting and a great new chapter of the varied variety of Hominini tribe (I’d say h o m o genus, but I believe The Blaze censors the word). I really hope they pick a better species name than something like cervidae rufus (assuming they’re not sapien, of course).
Report Post »sw12
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:51amRemember Genesis Chapter 6? Fallen Angels were having sex and babies with earthly women.
Report Post »meerkie
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:18amThere are hundreds of thousands of scientific samples sitting around in storage. There are not enough scientists to do all of the work. We need more people working in science, asking questions, processing samples, and testing theories. I especially encourage anyone who refutes the theory of evolution to devote their life’s work to such efforts.
lbyrd26
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:42pmWOW! I have really enjoyed reading this thread. I have learned a lot from both sides. Don’t know which one is telling the full truth but until “Accepted science” can show the “missing link” that would prove the athiests theory any better tha n the theory of God. I think I will stick with the theory that will get me into Heaven, kwhen I die. That way if fI’m wrong- no harm, no foul but if you’re wrong, I don’t want to let you lead me to hell, just to tell you, I told you so.
Report Post »Pacapapa
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:28amFunny, he doesn’t look Chinese.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:35amActually looks Aboriginal. It’s probably not too much of a stretch that think that a piece of China became Australia.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:46amAgreed ANONYMOUS…the first thing that struck me was the similarity to paintings done by early explorers of Australia and New Guinea of Aboriginals there.
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:54pmAnd of course, they drew him with monkey-like facial hair. That’s always a favorite trick of the evolutionist artists – combine human and ape features in the drawing when they have absolutely no evidence to go by. Another deception they often use is to draw an ape head with the eyes showing white around the iris. (see pictures of Ardi) We’ll find out later that “Red Deer People” were humans, no more, no less. But that story will be buried.
Report Post »Dianne SZ
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:28amI went on to read three other articles on these “people” and a watch video of one of their founding scientists talking about them. Guess what! They only have 30 bones and three “partial” skulls. I note from he skull reconstruction that the bones on the right side of the photo are not a smooth fit where the cheekbone flares out. I also note that the width of the lower jaw has been constructed to match the poor fit of the upper jaw by the use of plaster. Not a large population, possibly one family with similar characteristics?
Look at the artists rendition. I see a modern man with similar characteristics to a few TV personalities and to a moden day Nigerian ethnic group seen in the Encyclopedia Britanica. My own Irish brother in law has the same chin shape and my husband has even more hair!
I doubt they have found any “new species” but simply a new ethnic group of modern man. No evolution seen here.
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:31amI agree. Well said.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:04amThat seems more like it.
Report Post »GeorgeWashingtonslept here
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:24amThis is a picture of Uncle Remus without a shirt on………….WTF?
Report Post »SShink
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:24amThis proves odumma was not born in the US !
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:21amEvolution is as the proof that brainwashing works. The theory essentially says that man evolved from a rock! It is a religion that is widly embraced because it gets rid of God and puts man in place of God. So one an pursue ones any lust or sin without feeling guilty about it. The fact is that all men know they are guilty! This is the reason for the sacrifices, by tribes and civilasations throughout the ages. Today thesacrifices has been replaced by recycling,not eating meat, or riding a buss etc… Just look at how selfrighteous the liberal left is! The theory of evolution gave rise to racism that we saw during ww2. Just look at the full title of the book: The theory of evolution by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. This in large part caused the downfall of the west. Do your own research. You can start by watching thie video. Skip to 6:07 to get to the start:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxedHvY9hds
Report Post »This video points out in a simple way how the science for evolution is very flawed at best. If you don’t watch it, ask your self why. Could it be that you are a religous evolutionist, and are afraid to face the reality of your own closemindedness.
I have heard many critics and some of them prominent scientists. But I have not heard anyone come up with solid counter arguments to refute what this man says.
Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:35am“The theory essentially says that man evolved from a rock!”
False. Do you know what evolution is?
“It is a religion that is widly embraced because it gets rid of God and puts man in place of God.”
False. Scientific theory is not religion.
“So one an pursue ones any lust or sin without feeling guilty about it.”
False. (Moral darwinism is not science)
“The fact is that all men know they are guilty! This is the reason for the sacrifices, by tribes and civilasations throughout the ages. Today thesacrifices has been replaced by recycling,not eating meat, or riding a buss etc…”
Not even sure you’re sane at this point.
“Just look at how selfrighteous the liberal left is! The theory of evolution gave rise to racism that we saw during ww2.”
Yup, probably insane. Racism didn’t exist before WWII? People never judged or killed others based on their looks? Huh. That would be news to history.
“Just look at the full title of the book: The theory of evolution by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. This in large part caused the downfall of the west.”
Right… a book title caused the downfall of the west.
I think you might need a straight jacket.
Report Post »Truth in Christ
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:58am@SQUAREHEAD … Nice video link, another really good place to find information on how Evolution is a lie & that it is undeniable that we have a Creator is here… http://www.answersingenesis.org/ … go to “Media” & then down to “Video on Demand” and you can watch a lot of information there.
Report Post »bowenit
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:20am@LOCKED
Evolution does teach man came from a rock (Long chain, Rock fell to earth giving us common ancestry which replicated, with minor defects eventually giving rise to man)
According to the SCOTUS Atheism is a religion. While Evolution may in and of itself not be a religion it is a major component of Atheism, Just as Intelligent Design (God created nature) is a major component of various religions.
Regarding racism of WW2, until the rise of eugenics we didn’t have a scientific basis to our racism. So long as there has been divergence of the human species there has been racism.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:25am@Square
Also, a couple of notes of your video source. It’s produced by Creation Science Evangelism; the founder (Dr. Kent Hovind) is currently serving a 10-year sentence for 58 federal offenses. Even Young Earth creationist groups (like Answers in Genesis) disapprove of his actions, as he uses disproven and discredited arguments and is seen as giving even less credibility to the “science” of youth earthism.
Last but not least, he’s the guy who made the infamous Dinosaur Adventure Land. Yup… Dr. Dino.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:31am@Bowenit
“Evolution does teach man came from a rock (Long chain, Rock fell to earth giving us common ancestry which replicated, with minor defects eventually giving rise to man)”
False. Abiogensis teaches that biological life can come from non-organic materials. Evolution does not say this. Evolution is: “a developmental process in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by differentiation of its parts; a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.” It’s change over generations. Hence why I said Square doesn’t know what evolution is (nor do you, apparently).
“According to the SCOTUS Atheism is a religion. While Evolution may in and of itself not be a religion it is a major component of Atheism, Just as Intelligent Design (God created nature) is a major component of various religions.”
A nice argument, but it’s a logical fallacy. Saying “B uses A as its basis, thus if B is wrong, A must be wrong” is logically unsound. Atheism might use Evolution, but Evolution does not need nor prove atheism.
“Regarding racism of WW2, until the rise of eugenics we didn’t have a scientific basis to our racism. So long as there has been divergence of the human species there has been racism.”
As you said, there has always been racism. Eugenics was undoubtedly part of Hitler’s rise to power, but it was not the sole reason for WWII (and doesn‘t even explain Japan or Italy’s efforts).
Report Post »Christhefarmer
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:16amWhy are some animals young born were they can walk and run just a few minutes later? Oh because if they couldn’t then their young would die? That would seem to be knowledge and a solution. So your telling me an animal had a genetic mutation that caused either it to carry it‘s young longer or that it’s young developed faster…. See my problem with species to species evolution is the knowledge gap, say everything was just mutations…. Evolutionist are just saying well there were 6billion years worth of mutations so it’s possible… Possible to go from a single cell, to a human in random mutations…. Single cell to “fish” of some sort. Where did the knowledge come from for the single cell descendents to know the fish needed to breath water. Where did the single cell descendents get the diagram of how to build a water/oxygen separator. How did the single cell come up with the idea the fishes descendents needing both gills and lungs so it could venture forth from the ocean. How did gill-lungs know when to use gills and when to use lungs, which animal figured out it needed to feel pain and devolved a system of nerves. Knowledge and direction cant be denied by men of science, since it is that makes them followers of “science”. Also illogical because what they believe is against their own belief structure.
Report Post »Leader1776
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:34am@LOCKED
Either your fairly young or old enough where some level of Alzheimer’s disease has manifested. I say this because if you truly believe the ‘theory’ of evolution is still a theory then you know regardless of your recitations from dictionary.com evolution is yet unproven. If you DO believe evolution to be true in the face of inadequate data, then it is a religion to you as you are basing your belief in faith, not facts/data.
Regarding this rock to life argument. Let’s ask first what was produced immediately post-big bang. Most would say basic elements (H, N, C, O, AU, etc.) Organic (CHO) compounds forming by chance under those conditions is remote at best. The chances of ‘rock’ formation after intense heat is most likely long before the less stable organic molecules or more complex compounds. The question then becomes: where these primordial precursor organic compounds came from or when they were able to form? Certainly, they had to post-date mineral formations (rocks). Over time did the wear of rocks in the conditions favorable to organic compound formation take place? Possibly. Hence, the statements that were made.
So, the concept of man coming from rock has as much plausibility as organic precursors arriving from a meteor strike (where did they come from). Currently, the source of precursor molecules is as much speculation as many portions of the larger theory.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:09am@Leader
“I say this because if you truly believe the ‘theory’ of evolution is still a theory then you know regardless of your recitations from dictionary.com evolution is yet unproven.”
I‘m honestly not sure what you’re trying to say here… defending or arguing against evolution. Scientifically speaking (not the dictionary definition, but the scientific one) the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. That means that it is yet to be disproved, and all current evidence supports it. That’s what a scientific theory is. It is accepted as true, because the evidence supports it and nothing disproves it.
“So, the concept of man coming from rock has as much plausibility as organic precursors arriving from a meteor strike (where did they come from). Currently, the source of precursor molecules is as much speculation as many portions of the larger theory.”
Which, once more, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, which states that organisms and organs change genetically over time (ie, through generations). Hence my point; much like saying “atheism uses evolution,” abiogenesis uses evolution… but the validity of either atheism or abiogenesis does not affect the validity of evolution. Both could be “wrong” and evolution still “right.” And as far as science is concerned, evolution is “right.”
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:42amAnd then LOCKED runs into some problems…“spontaneous generation” (life arising from non-life)cannot be proven or credibly demonstrated. No one can prove or has proven that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA. Nor has anyone been able to create it in a laboratory or even on paper. Every modern lab that has claimed to have “demonstrated” it has had to use contemporary elements to “help” the process. In other words, they can’t replicate the conditions of a primordial earth to create “something from nothing” as it were, and they cannot create molecules that lead to self-replicating ones…so they cheat. Kind of like fudging the numbers for “man-made global warming“ then claiming ”the debate is over”. Some “scientists” even go as far as saying biological elements landed on Earth from outer space which “kick started” the growth of life on Earth. Because they have nothing to work with here…so they go “out there…somewhere” with the hypothesis of Pan Spermia for help. Again..absolutely no evidence of it can be demonstrated. And then there’s the Cambrian Explosion…an event that turns evolutionism sideways because in evolutionary terms, the explosion of numerous forms of far more complex life (for the time) during the Cambrian Explosion happens way too fast in the context of evolutionary theory..and no mechanism is made evident that sparked this incredible event.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:11pm@Avengerk
“And then LOCKED runs into some problems…“spontaneous generation” (life arising from non-life)cannot be proven or credibly demonstrated.”
How is this a problem? “Spontaneous generation” is the layperson’s term for abiogenesis (biological life arising from inorganic materials). I don’t personally believe in it; but it does NOT disprove evolution (see the logical fallacy already outlined when someone implied “we come from rocks”). Welcome to the conversation, Avengerk!
“And then there’s the Cambrian Explosion…an event that turns evolutionism sideways because in evolutionary terms, the explosion of numerous forms of far more complex life (for the time) during the Cambrian Explosion happens way too fast in the context of evolutionary theory..and no mechanism is made evident that sparked this incredible event.”
The rate of evolution since the Cambrian Explosion was never seen before… but the rate continues at a similar scale into modern times. Keep in mind Cambrian organisms were still incredibly simple compared to what we have today; they were just much more complex than what came before. Again, not disproving evolution: organisms change genetically over generations.
You‘re right that there’s no conformity on why Cambrian happened. Still doesn’t help a lick in the discussion of “does evolution occur.” Cambrian provides more evidence than ever before that yes, it does.
Not sure if that’s the conclusion you were going for ;-)
Report Post »BostonHarold
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:10pmActually some on this thread evolved from rockheads…
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:17pm@Locked
You can divert by pointing out about Kent Hovind’s tax problems. But you won’t disprove the many great points he has made over the years that points out the lack of “real science” to back up evolution.
Yes, a dog can produce other dogs, and a fish can adapt from fresh to salt water, and that we do have mutations over time. But every mutation is a loss of information, and DNA. It is not gaining information, or DNA.
Just because we can see, and scientifically prove that there are mutations that causes adaptations within various kinds of living things, does not prove that Man came from a Rock!! That is what you are trying to prove. When someone points out that you can’t prove Man did not come from a Rock, then evolutionist point out minor mutations as can be proven and that no one disputes, and claims that anyone that doesn’t believe in evolution somehow disagrees with the proven science of minor mutations.
Kent Hovind does a great job of pointing out that the “Emperor has no clothes” as can be seen in his seminars and his countless debates that can be found online. Here you can see him at Berkley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvPaNCw92VY
There one can see many people like @Locked, that are supposed to be so “enlightened and educated”, trying to defend evolution. They look more like religious zealots than people who just want to get to honest truth.
Your faith is “millions of years” and it takes grea
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:42pm@Square
“Just because we can see, and scientifically prove that there are mutations that causes adaptations within various kinds of living things, does not prove that Man came from a Rock!! That is what you are trying to prove. When someone points out that you can’t prove Man did not come from a Rock”
I’m really not sure what else to tell you. You’re arguing that evolution is abiogenesis, when they are clearly different things. Evolution is biological and genetic changes that take place over generations; abiogenesis is the hypothesis that biological life can come from inorganic materials. I can’t even think of a comparison to show how they are completely separate ideas… because the only thing that I can say is “they are completely separate ideas.”
I was joking about the straight jacket before, but now I’m not so sure I should have been joking. It‘s like I’m pointing to the floor and saying “this is the floor” and you’re going “It didn’t come from a tree, you say it comes from a tree!”
As for your comments on “minor mutations,” that’s a common argument I hear against evolution; namely, “macro versus micro.” However, macro and micro evolution are NOT scientific terms. They were specifically created by the lay community who don’t want to accept that evolution occurs but cannot deny that genetic changes do happen. Both “macro” and “micro” evolution are evolution, and both happen. Moving the goalposts by creating new terms doesn’t change
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:04pm@Locked
I supposed you are “locked” in your view and no amount facts will sway you. I don’t think that you have looked into the sciences that dis prove much of what has been taught as evolutionary facts. Evolution has been riddled with dozens of front page stories of “new finds that supposedly prove evolution” Only to be caught later in forging the evidence. When fraud is proven, or it turns out the evidence is was incorrect that gets reported on page 14, if at all. That leaves the impression among the uninformed public that there is facts to back up the theory. Darwin himself expected that there would be ample evidence of these cross breads that would show half monkey half man. Or a horse with a long neck on the way to “evolve” into a giraffe! Non of these things materialized. But back during Darwin’s time, archaeology was at its infant stage. The truth is that there is no consistent geological column, as is evidenced by the many places where we can see petrified trees standing up vertically through all these layers even through separate coal layers. All of these obvious facts are hidden by the religious zealots that push evolution because it fits their debased morals. That is the only thing that can explain the numerous lies that have been fabricated over the years, and the refusal to remove them even after they have been proven lies. We even see it in the lack of interest in an open discourse in the schools and universities.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:08pmSee…that’s your problem LOCKED. You’re absorbed in your pontificating and syllable dissecting. Your lost in your mouth-breathing efforts to counter every letter in every sentence in every paragraph in every post…that you don‘t understand what’s being said to you. This is you at your myopic best. I’m not trying to “disprove” evolution. I’m demonstrating that “faith” is much a part of the evolutionist’s playbook as the Christians they denigrate for their faith. Why is extra-terrestrial seeding of the earth a “plausible” and acceptable answer (as some scientists hypothesize) for the “enlightened” elite and God is not? Do you have evidence of aliens with swaths of protoplasmic life for seeding planets for us to review LOCKED?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:29pm@Avengerk
“. I’m not trying to “disprove” evolution. I’m demonstrating that “faith” is much a part of the evolutionist’s playbook as the Christians they denigrate for their faith.”
Ohhh, see, now if you had only said that, we’d be peachy! Instead you had to talk about me and abiogenesis, which I had already said is separate from evolution.
And which, oddly, both you and @Square keep going back to. Try keeping on topic, please! You dance a bit too much.
“Do you have evidence of aliens with swaths of protoplasmic life for seeding planets for us to review”
Nope. I believe God is responsible for life; I’m just not sure how it happened. Nice job assuming though, buddy! This is why I quote, so I make sure to use your own words and not assume too much!
@Square
“Evolution has been riddled with dozens of front page stories of “new finds that supposedly prove evolution” Only to be caught later in forging the evidence.”
The problem with your argument here, however, is that plenty of evidence does support evolution and is perfectly sound (including, as said, proven lab experiments and direct observation). The frauds don’t disprove evolution like, say, finding an alien space probe with a broken biological tank would. The frauds were either tricksters looking to make a buck, or overzealous scientists who used too little science and too much hype.
But there’s no evidence disproving evolution; hence why it is accepted as a scientific the
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 9:33am@Lockhead
I am surpriced to hear that you believe that God created the earth. I guess I should not have assumed you are an atheist.
There are allot of evidence that disproves many things that were previously stated as facts by evolutionist. You can just go back and view the links that I already posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1euw-TOmpw
Anyone that is interested in finding out what sciences that points us to creation should watch this link, as well as others by Kent Hovind. I have yet to date seen anybody attempt to go and disprove the points he makes in his presentations.
Mount St. Helen’s proves that Grand Canyon is not “millions” of years of erosion from the Colorado River: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB4J14KnE-E&feature=related
Here you can see how Noah’s flood covered the entire earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKO-vTwYCo8 The fact is that there are 300 flood legends from every continent, and many of them puts the even approx. 4000 years ago. Perhaps those legends evolved by chance from the same rock :)
The fact that you believe that Man comes from a Rock, is what is at its core. We all know that that is foolishness. If one does not then, I would say that public education performed its primary purpose, which is to control though, and suppress reasoning, that does not conform to their religious view that places man as god on top of evolution and where one can live unconstrained pursuing the lusts without guilt and shame.
Report Post »Treaty
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:13am150,000 years from now they’ll find the skull of a liberal, with it’s small brain cavity, and claim it was a different species.
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 11:36amThat small pea brain cavity would have to be Pelosi’s.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 7:47amAnother great find for science. Piece by piece we’re able to understand how humans evolved and continue doing so I might add.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 7:56amI would like to point out there have been many transitional fossils found.
Report Post »http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/#5
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://transitionalfossils.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
Polarized America
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:11amyou might want to add this one to your collection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:19amThanks for the link. I’m surprised there have been a few no creationist comments yet. But soon. “Zombies”.
Report Post »Truth in Christ
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:41amWho ever pieced that skull together, did a horrible job of it. Just looking at it here, it looks to be deformed from all the white bulky and uneven sections they added themselves because those pieces were missing. The human race has always been just that, the “human race.” Evolution is a lie, “big bang” + “primordial soup” + “lots and lots of time” does not equal Life on earth, it equals a fairy tale… and a bad one at that. So many lies & false findings have been made over the years to “support” the evolution garble… many “findings” of which have been proven to actually be false, but yet are still in our school text books today & taught as facts. Without a shadow of doubt, we did not come from a rock, or slime, or even a monkey… The earth, Universe, Humans and all living things etc came from a Creator… there is order and design in the world we live in, it is unexplainable through a “chance process” but perfectly explainable through something that has been designed and has a designer/Creator.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:53am@TRUTH IN CHRIST: There is numerous evidence to support both evolution and the big bang. Yes, science has made mistakes but that is why pencils have erasers. What I’m saying is that science is subject to change when there is good enough evidence to improve, disprove, etc a current scientific theory or fact. I’m no expert in any form of science. Over the years of studying evolution I have come to accept evolution because all the evidence support evolution. The same with the big bang. Science is not perfect but that is what I love science. It teaches to observe, study, enjoy, etc ourselves and our surroundings. Look at evolution and how life adapts to its environment; how flowers adapted to attract insects to pollinate it and how different insects will be attracted to those plants; How the human mind adapted to learn how to use early tools, etc. There is so much support for evolution I don’t understand how anyone can be critical of evolution. Yes, evolution does not need a creator to happen. However there are many religious people or people like me who believe in a supreme being created the universe. As a deist I accept evolution and the big bang.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:21amCHAMELEONX Yet so far there are also things in science that disproves evolution and big bang. Both evolution and creation will never be proven. We cannot recreate either situation, so we cannot observe therefore prove or disprove either one. Of course I say this from a scientific stand point, make no mistake I am Christian and believe in creation. However, we‘re talking about science so I’ll use science if we were talking about theology I’d use theology. To be blunt any transition chart is useless because the changes take so long. Most of the necessary changes required to go from primate to human deal with DNA, brain tissue, and muscles. We do not have those samples so we can only go off the skeletons. This is one reason why there is so much dissent and vehemence on both sides. Most people cannot sit back and talk logically while their belief system is assaulted, an unavoidable happening when trying to have a logical debate. While I believe in creation I also believe that in foresight God would have created the ability for his creation to adapt and therefore prosper. Humanity is case in point on this, to date we have not been able to find anything for complex and advanced as our own bodies. Our ability to adapt has allowed us to grow and prosper, an ability that while is shared with other creatures is not as advanced or effective in others. I seriously doubt that people now would look vastly different from Adam and Eve.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:30am@GOAHEAD.MAKEMYDAY: Everyone has their own opinion and I can respect that. But I will have to respectfully disagree with your comment. Evolution has been observed numerous of times in different ways. A good example would be two similar articles I read yesterday after browsing Stumbleupon.
Report Post »I have seen numerous links that go over different topics regarding evolution. If you or anyone else has questions then just ask. As I mentioned I accept evolution because the evidence that supports evolution; I do not accept evolution like a religious view. Hopefully you do not see me that way.
“Cells trying to keep pace with constantly changing environmental conditions need to strike a fine balance between maintaining their genomic integrity and allowing enough genetic flexibility to adapt to inhospitable conditions. In their latest study, researchers at the Stowers Institute for Medical Research were able to show that under stressful conditions yeast genomes become unstable, readily acquiring or losing whole chromosomes to enable rapid adaption…”
http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/16/evolving-multicellularity/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120129151104.htm
Hell of the Upside Down Sinners
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:55amTruth in Christ – You creationists astound me. You are so quick to say there is no evidence of evolution, it is all a lie and a FAIRY TALE. LOL, does noone see the irony in saying scientific findings are lies and fairy tales but the truth lies in a book written by man that tells extrodinarly far fetch stories about our creation? Im not saying that there is no god, perhaps he created life in the universe, just got it rolling and it evolved naturally. who knows, but to not even lok at both sides and just accept what some book says seems very short sited.
In 1000 years scientology may actually seem like a completely sane religion with its wild stories of aliens populating the earth but I bet you look at them like they are crazy. Is it really that much crazier than a magical supreme being creating us? It actually seems more logical that an Alien race put us here. At least aliens have more of a possibilty of being real than a God.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:02am@Goahead
“Yet so far there are also things in science that disproves evolution and big bang. Both evolution and creation will never be proven.”
False. A scientific theory is only kept as theory until it is disproven. The correct term is “There is no evidence disproving the theory of evolution, and all current evidence supports the theory.” You are only correct in saying that it is not proven; but it stands as “true” until something new comes along to change or outright reject the theory.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:08amCHAMELEONX Thank you for being respectful and I don’t doubt that you accept evolution on a scientific bases not religious. I’m glad you pointed those articles out to me, as always. However, I did notice that the yeast that naturally regained the chromosome grew faster but also regained the intolerance for tunicamycin. This shows a natural effort to keep to the set chromosomes. While the branch off group by the writing of this study had retained the the changes, they also grew slower. In a nutrient deficient environment most likely this strain would be killed off. As for the study and it’s correlation to cancer is very intriguing, I wonder if they will next do a study on animal tissue? As for the the multicellural growth, they did stress it was not under natural conditions. But it is something to think about, I would like to see the entire study. And any follow up studies on these. While yeast is a far cry form animals it is curious how they form multicellural clusters, and how they share the labor. While this is a major discovery they didn’t observe any form of signaling changes. So the cells still act and “think” as individuals not a group. The questions that comes to mind is if this is naturally occurring what damage would this cause to the single celled yeast? If given enough time and no stimulation what happens to the clusters? Is there any genetic changes? While the articles are good they didn’t have enough information for me. And Blaze doesn’t have comments big
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:10amYour right LOCKED I did phrase that wrong didn’t I?
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:27am@GOAHEAD.MAKEMYDAY: I’m glad you look at the articles and are both accepting and critical. As I replied to Trust in Chris as a Christian you can accept evolution. But evolution doesn’t need a creator to happen. I can understand many Christians do not understand evolution and might feel evolution will challenge their concept of creation. I wouldn’t doubt it. Most of the information I get is through the internet: YouTube, StumbleUpon, Facebook updates from science pages, etc. You will come across many that will be critical of topics of the bible and other religions. But it is up to you to chose how you live your life. I’m happy being a deist and learning about science. Take care.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:56amCHAMELEONX I’m glad I was able to have a nice conversation with you. I try to always think about something before replying, but I also follow the saying. Keep an open mind but don’t let it fall out. Have a nice day.
Report Post »Truth in Christ
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:48pm@CHAMLEONX “I’m glad you look at the articles and are both accepting and critical. As I replied to Trust in Chris as a Christian you can accept evolution. But evolution doesn’t need a creator to happen. I can understand many Christians do not understand evolution and might feel evolution will challenge their concept of creation. I wouldn’t doubt it….”
There is so much error in what you’ve said here. It is not possible for someone to be a true Christian and yet still believe in Evolution (a.k.a. goo to you by way of the zoo theory).. the Bible clearly states otherwise. Without the inerrancy of scripture, you lose Christ and all of the Christian faith is based upon Christ who is the Word of God, John 1:1. There is numerous amounts of data/info to support a young earth. For me personally, I enjoy studying.. specifically in this area of Creation and the Science behind it… I am accepting of truth & actual facts, but not accepting of lies that is fed to the masses (especially when it has already been proven to be false) as some sort of answer for “how we got here”.. which is only Man’s way of yet again trying to deny a Creator.
Report Post »Romans 1: 20-25
Truth in Christ
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:53pm@CHAMLEONX “But it is up to you to chose how you live your life.”
It is up to us to make choices in life, but will still be accountable for those choices & for denying the truth thats all around us… I hope you chose wisely.
Romans 1:20-25 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:09pm@Truth
“There is so much error in what you’ve said here. It is not possible for someone to be a true Christian and yet still believe in Evolution (a.k.a. goo to you by way of the zoo theory).. the Bible clearly states otherwise. Without the inerrancy of scripture, you lose Christ and all of the Christian faith…”
False premise. Believing in the Bible is, by definition, belief and not based on fact. It requires no more leaps of faith to believe in a God you cannot verify through scientific experiments or your own senses than it does to believe the Bible can be metaphorical in some places.
This is coming from a Christian, by the way, who believes that the Bible was written by man and inspired by God. But inspiration doesn’t mean everything came across clearly; translation errors alone have completely changed our concept of much of the Bible (see, for example, how the King James Version is so freaking terrible at translating the original Greek and Latin texts).
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 2:13pm@TRUTH IN CHRIST: In my opinion there are all kinds of Christians throughout the world; I do not believe there are certain Christians who are only true Christians. The reason why I’m critical of religion (Abrahmaic religions [Judaism, Christianity, Islam], Indian religions [Buddhism, Hinduism], etc. Is that there is no evidence to support what is in their religious text is true or historical. All religion copied from one another to recreate new religions throughout history. Now before you try to counter my claim I have look at numerous of supposed evidence that has been refuted way too many times. As I mentioned to the other user the choice is yours to create your life. I accept evolution because of the evidence to support evolution being a scientific theory and fact. Yes, I’m a deist so I know people will beef with me on that topic. However I am my own individual. I believe in reason, logic and commonsense. Look through the links I’m hotlinking.
Report Post »http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Shrugged
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 7:41amObama’s secret birth certificate must say “red wing cave”. Actually, this artistic rendering looks a lot like Derrick Bell.
The pieces are starting to fall into place . . . . .
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:18am“Obama’s secret birth certificate must say “red wing cave””
Thank goodness it wouldn’t say “Red Deer Cave,” huh?
Report Post »BostonHarold
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 12:55pmRedwings are work boots. Mighty fine ones at that!
Report Post »Mad_as_Hell...
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 7:28amIt’s nice to see these “other” articles in the Blaze.
Variety is nice.
Is it okay to use the word diversity?
Report Post »jcizarter
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 6:27amIce age? who melted that ICE? What SUV’s did they have back then?
Report Post »Ask Mr. Al Gore how that Global Warming thingy is going…HOAX Meister…
The sheeple do not think any more.
seldomscene
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:00amA question I ask every knuckle-head that brings up the subject of global warming. Have you ever heard any statement to that effect from any media source government employee? WTF
Report Post »EndTheGOPTEA
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:48amYou don’t believe in any of the Ice Ages? If so.. please do some traveling, I have had 1 billion year old rocks in my hand.. I have seen glacier effects at 10000ft… It could ONLY have been cause by mile high ice from above.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 6:12amSorry, but the bones of a malnurished, diseased Human do not a previously unidentified human relative make.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 7:41am“People” not “single set of remains”.
Report Post »nelbert
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:16amWow, Sheepdog, I didn’t know you had been a member of the research team.
From what has been posted here (and elsewhere) the scientists have been very cautious about classifying this find as a new species without further tests. That’s good science. After **** floresiensis was discovered, some suggested the remains were from humans suffering from microcephaly. Further research more strongly supported the initial idea of a new species, but good scientists are inherently skeptical and everything is always open to further analysis.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:42pmSince when have “good scientists are inherently skeptical and everything is always open to further analysis”? There is zero evidence of a Big Bang, zero evidence that the Moon is 4.5 B years old, zero evidence of macro-evolution and most recently not only zero evidence of Anthropomorphic Climate cahnge, but all claimed evidence was faked. Now THAT is what your “good” scientists do when they religiously cling to a wholly unsupportable theory that says there is no right or wrong in the universe. OK, well except the leftist mantra that there is no God.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:55pmPeople eh? Or maybe a heard of pre-humans? So, given no other knowledge of a group of people, if you found a long lost colony of little people, formerly known as midgets, how do you think a research team thousands of years later would classify them? Ooops, now I’ve been insensitive. Yes, now it‘s time to mock me for having a brain that doesn’t need you to tell me what to think of something. The missing link is the link that belongs between your ears.
Report Post »grannyrecipe
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:58amThese people were referred to other tribes of the day as the Gunyalo or “Goons” but most notably as the original “nut jobs” because they only ate whole nuts, shells and all as they were too stupid to crack the shells. They were known to only have 4 words in their vocabulary, “uk, um, do, fu” (left,right,up,down). One day in 9,534 BC one of them stood up and said “Uk” and they all just walked into the ocean and were never seen again.
Report Post »One Man Progressive Wrecking Crew
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:08amAnd we can see his ancestors in all this time haven’t changed that much at all…their vocabulary’s improved to include hope, change, beech, ho, Bush sucks and GIMME GIMME is their favorite phrase…. used to be Oonga Boonga, but they learn fast on the Serengeti Plains and soon will be taking up full fledged Ebonics as a first language in no time!! … ;)
Report Post »BostonHarold
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 1:05pmBoongaloongazugzug my long lost brother…wognoggyboog…drinks are on you…peace out.
Report Post »JackColquitt
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:55amI’m so grateful that God saw fit to design several versions of the same creature, each more successful, better adapted, and advanced than the last. It’s almost like things evolve over time, except any reasonable person knows that beings only “evolve” at the will of the invisible man in the sky.
Report Post »Quiata
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 6:02amHow do you know that evolution isn‘t God’s mechanism? Just asking.
Report Post »youdidthis
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 7:59amq,
Report Post »thats real lame.
9111315
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:00amHe breeds us like chickens just for amusement.
Buck, cluck, cluck. We are just fowl.
Report Post »Hell of the Upside Down Sinners
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:12amNo one knows if evolution is gods plan, but the bible sure goes out of its way to distance itself from evolution. Created in his likeness, Adam and Eve and so forth. Truth is, the bible cant explain these earlier forms of the same creature. More likely in my eyes would be god creating life in general and evolution being a natural part of that life. Maybe he just created the compounds that started the whole thing.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 9:31amWhile we can’t observe evolution we can observe adaptation. Humans have the greatest ability to adapt out of all known creatures. I believe when the bible say God made us in his image he made us human as in thinking ability, bipedal, two arms and one head. If God didn’t include the ability to adapt humanity would have been forced to stay in one small area to survive. We couldn’t handle a wide range of temperatures or even eat different foods. Both of those are basic examples of adaptability. However, there are many things that so far science cannot explain. So I believe God created things up to a point, as in the basic species. But like a good inventor made it so there doesn’t have to be constant watching and constant effort or adapt it.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 10:05am@Goahead
“While we can’t observe evolution we can observe adaptation.”
False. There are been numerous lab studies confirming evolution in fast-reproducing cell cultures and flies. Similar work has been done with types of plants, which genetically change over generations. Field work has been done with species such as birds (Darwin’s original test subjects, for example) and moths.
Report Post »Quiata
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 9:59am@YOUDIDTHIS Thanks for the analysis.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 4:30pm@Locked
Sorry that’s not macro-evolution, that is micro-evolution. Not at all the same thing. Darwin observing bird’s beaks is examples of micro-evolution. At the end of the day, they are all still birds. The Bible clearly states the animals, plants brought forth after their “kind”. A bird will always be a bird. We have NEVER observed a bird become anything else than a bird. That’s why we have never seen animals mate with other kinds and produce offspring. A horse and a mule is the same kind of animal. So, sorry but no macro-evolution has been observed in the laboratory in the fossil record.
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 4:58amI think they look like one of Obama’s relatives.
Report Post »Quiata
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 6:00am@RIGHT WING TACO Wow. Careful with that sword….
Report Post »Kisses6350
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 7:37amWow! Your so insightful……. A laugh a minute, a real riot act! …………***Smirks***
Report Post »