Poll: Evolution and the other side

[khantron]

Kent Hovind? Really? I mean, there are creationists who are outcasts among the community who think Kent Hovind is a few marbles short of having a marble.

 

[Knight Templar]

What would make the Greeks think up the Griffins as motherly? To come up with such far fetched details that even now our Scientists have to make HUGE leaps of faith to come up with instead of treating them as the same as mythical creatures.

Again, that source is saying they looked at fossils and came up with griffons.
Not living creatures. So waxing on the possible origins of particular traits attributed to bones is not helping your point.

And I see you ignored the dating part.

Do you have the page numbers by any chance?

""I was interested in the way legends of fantastic creature can arise from observations of the remains of unfamiliar extinct animals"
Page 15
Do you own the book?

He constantly refers to fossils, not living creatures. Where in the book does it suggest this is anything other than legend born from bones and paleontology? I mean look at the god-damn title!

You have yet again failed to take note of my rebuttal of your claim re:dating. Are you going to address it? Are you willing to admit when wrong?

 

[monfang]

What would make the Greeks think up the Griffins as motherly? To come up with such far fetched details that even now our Scientists have to make HUGE leaps of faith to come up with instead of treating them as the same as mythical creatures.

Again, that source is saying they looked at fossils and came up with griffons.
Not living creatures. So waxing on the possible origins of particular traits attributed to bones is not helping your point.

And I see you ignored the dating part.

Do you have the page numbers by any chance?

""I was interested in the way legends of fantastic creature can arise from observations of the remains of unfamiliar extinct animals"
Page 15
Do you own the book?

He constantly refers to fossils, not living creatures. Where in the book does it suggest this is anything other than legend born from bones and paleontology? I mean look at the god-damn title!

You have yet again failed to take note of my rebuttal of your claim re:dating. Are you going to address it? Are you willing to admit when wrong?

I believe I already addressed that 're:dating' thing you are speaking of.

And SHE refers to fossils because to think that maybe they came up with such details about their lives from real creatures would contradict her beliefs so she made the major claim that the Greeks had Paleontologists. The first one to do it according to my research.

I'd think someone who read HER book would know who the author is.

 

[DracoSuave]

Nobody has ever said that anything is unstudyiable, but if you're going to try and force your "theory" into the scientific world you'd better be prepared to support it with facts, and thus far, creationists have failed spectacularly at that. I'm not going to bother checking that video because you admit that it's a propaganda film, so I'm not even going to try and separate what facts they may have from their propaganda.

See, this is one of my biggest problems with evolutionists is they just flat out reject it. The smart thing to do would be to watch it and then take the "facts" and independently varify them.[/quote]

You mean that video where a guy asks the question 'Where could oxygen have come from?' in a state with electricity and water? Yeah. He's asking questions and pretending the answer isn't 'electrolysis'.

but no. It's by Creationists... it can't POSSIBLY be worth your time......

No. It's because a man who is actively ignoring non-evolutionary science, like basic fucking chemistry, is making the fallacious argument that just because individual experiments don't explain things those experiments were not trying to explain (which isn't how science works anyways) that therefore the explanations developed over decades of research must be wrong.

What he has NOT done is provide evidence that the conclusions are wrong. He hasn't provided experiments to SHOW the conclusions are wrong. He hasn't provided experiments to show his position is even defendable, never mind correct.

He's trying to pretend to be scientific to a room of people who don't understand science enough to know the basic fundamental errors he is making.

It's as bad as people ranting on Fox News when they only know how "bad" it is from watching the Comedy Show or seeing random info about them bashing games on gaming websites. I won't defend Fox News, I think they are biased. but I've at least watched them and pretty much every other news network to realize that on a scale from one to ten (ten being horribly biased, 5 being average for all news stations, and 1 being as fair as fair can be [mostly meaning that there are only facts reported without any journalistic input]) they are probably a 6... and that's not to praise Fox News, but is a knock on the horrid culture surrounding journalism and the news today.

Ad hominem. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. I have watched the video. The man is either ignorant of basic scientific principles, or is pretending to be to make a point. Either of those would be enough to discredit him. It has nothing to do with his opposition to evolution. It's his unwillingness to accede scientific processes such as electrolysis, or even the sceintific method itself, that make what he says absolute pap.

He's putting forth rhetoric, not evidence, and it's not hard to see if you understand it.

It's an hour or so long dude. Just watch the damn thing. So I don't COMPLETELY lose faith in the idea that there can be civil discourse about anything controversial, watch it... watch it for me.

The controversy is this.

Creationists believe that calling something a science makes it a science.
Evolutionists believe that actually performing science makes it a science.

There's no actual controversy in scientific circles with that. No science done = Not a science. The only place the controversy exists is where those who are not knowledgable in science are in charge of making policies to educate in science.

EDIT: I especially like how on a thread about whether or not you've actually seen evidence for Creationism, you refuse to look up evidence... irony is such an underrated word sometimes....

The burden is not on evolutionists to 'look up' the evidence to support the creationist debate. The burden of proof of your point in any argument is on yourself. It's not MY job to make YOUR case for you.

And we're not asking for 'evidence' which so far has consisted of rhetorical nonsense like the OP's link, or outright lies like 'the bible is empirical data.' We're talking about experiments. We're talking about the scientific method.

If you wish to advance creationism as a science, then you, not me, not anyone else, but YOU need to provide science.

Nothing less is acceptable.

 

[Sight Unseen]

See, this is one of my biggest problems with evolutionists is they just flat out reject it. The smart thing to do would be to watch it and then take the "facts" and independently varify them.

but no. It's by Creationists... it can't POSSIBLY be worth your time......

It's as bad as people ranting on Fox News when they only know how "bad" it is from watching the Comedy Show or seeing random info about them bashing games on gaming websites. I won't defend Fox News, I think they are biased. but I've at least watched them and pretty much every other news network to realize that on a scale from one to ten (ten being horribly biased, 5 being average for all news stations, and 1 being as fair as fair can be [mostly meaning that there are only facts reported without any journalistic input]) they are probably a 6... and that's not to praise Fox News, but is a knock on the horrid culture surrounding journalism and the news today.

It's an hour or so long dude. Just watch the damn thing. So I don't COMPLETELY lose faith in the idea that there can be civil discourse about anything controversial, watch it... watch it for me.

EDIT: I especially like how on a thread about whether or not you've actually seen evidence for Creationism, you refuse to look up evidence... irony is such an underrated word sometimes....

Why should I waste my time watching a video from a source that you yourself admit is outdated and not very credible? If that's your best source for information then maybe you should be the one doing more research.

 

[Thaliur]

But I already explained why it's not with the hydrogen-bond thing... although there's a whole plethora of other reasons (here's one more, you know the geological layers thing? You know, the idea that further down in the dirt you go, the farther back in history you are? Well that does not work for the entire world, and in fact this idea has to be constantly reshaped for every area of the world you're in. Answer me this: Why is it in China they can find dinosaurs several hundred feet below the surface of the average height of land above sea level but in Georgia a family can find a a dinosaur from the same era while digging a few inches to plant lettuce?)

You still owe the world an explanation of your apparently secret but infallible hydrogen bond dating...

Also, the "phenomenon" you pointed out is caused by tectonics. I will not explain it in detail here. You didn't explain anything so far, and at least with tectonics I know a Google search will yield results anyone should be able to understand (if you don't, step away from the computer right now, disconnect your phone line and cut off your electrical supply. You do not belong in the 21st century)

As for the other dating thing - I don't particularly trust carbon dating. Here's why: There are roughly 100 techniques known for carbon dating. only three are accurate beyond 1000 years, and of those three, after 1000 years, it is difficult to pinpoint the precise age of an object unless other archeological evidence is presented. Further, mosts evolutionists, when attempting to date something, go down a list of carbon dating methods until they find roughly the right age. For example, we know that the T-rex lived around 65 million years ago. One t-rex in Montana may test at 65 million years old using one method of carbon dating. But if they find a t-rex in New mexico and the same method says it's only 12 million years old, scientist simply shrug their shoulders and say, "I guess this method of dating doesn't work given the circumstances..." and then they go down the list of 100 or so methods until they find one that gives an answer coinciding with the scientists beliefs on exactly how old it SHOULD be.

And here's an example of how carbon dating can be so wrong. in the 1960's, the Nile flooded its banks and in a matter of weeks petrified a well. Carbon dating put the wood in the well to be several thousands years old by one method, and several million by another... yet the well was only a number of decades old. the natural occurence of the flood that caused the petrification of the wood accelerated the radio-decay. Creationists would say, if you applied the same concept to a catastrophic, world wide flood, it's no mystery as to why you'd have things that appear millions of years old.

The point is, for one reason or another, radio-carbon dating is possibly one of the worst dating methods ever devised by the scientific community.

There is one method for radiocarbon dating. measure the activity (or, if the sample does not need to be preserved, the actual amount of C-14) in a sample as precisely as possible, and you have a pointer to the age of the sample. I really doubt the measurement you hinted at, determining the age of something as 65 million years, since radiocarbon dating has a range of less than 70k years (don't know the exact number, and I'm sure you will point that out as a flaw in my argument. Look it up if you care). The age of the well being different than the age determined by radiocarbon dating is also explainable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Carbon_exchange_reservoir.
The lowest resolution ever achieved with radiocarbon dating is 700 years though, so nothing to worry about in geological timeframes.

Oh, and here's another interesting Wikipedia article that explains really well how the belief in creation and intelligent design and all that junk is said to be well-proven and true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

And SHE refers to fossils because to think that maybe they came up with such details about their lives from real creatures would contradict her beliefs so she made the major claim that the Greeks had Paleontologists. The first one to do it according to my research.

I'd think someone who read HER book would know who the author is.

So, a book where it is explicitly stated that the belief in griphons and the like originated (much like dragons) from bones of prehistoric creatures mistaken for and partially misassembled as mythical creatures proves that these creatures really existed because you think the author didn't want to tell the readers that the creatures were alive at the time the stories about them were written because you believe that this is true?

 

[ninetails593]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

 

[AMMO Kid]

As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science. Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely). When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism. For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact), therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument). But do you see where I am coming from, Joe Evolutionist? Creationism isn't formed on the studies of "billions of years ago." It's formed on observational science. Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species. A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

I know that this isn't a discussion thread so if anyone wants to chat just inbox me. Plus I'll pick and choose who to reply to based on how short the message is. 300 points for me to reply to isn't much fun, so keep it to your five most important points please.

 

[DracoSuave]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't mean to offend your need to be overly defensive, but he is correct. [http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-practices/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey.aspx]

Now, granted after that is just rhetoric, but do be aware that he is correct that studies have been made (some by religious groups) that support his statement. You can ignore them facts if ya like. But. What you read into the statistics is entirely up to you.

 

[Evidencebased]

Wow, your post is composed of 100% Creationist Propaganda. Would you like a Golden Crocoduck?

I really, really, really, seriously hope, FOR YOUR SAKE, that you are trolling. If not, then Science and Reason help you.

I can't even begin to facepalm with this post.

Oh wow. Oh wow. Bahaha. Come on now, seriously. You can't surely be serious. Yeah, you must be a troll. This post can't be legit.

Oh man you almost got me there, phew. For a moment I thought you were serious.

evilneko: if you think you can prove me wrong, please don't let me stop you.

And lotr rocks 0: I'm not trolling. That is what I believe. But I have often been banned from places for stating my belief.

I'll say again, if you can prove me wrong on anything. I'll shut up.

Aw, that's adorable. Luckily for you, doctors and researchers have a much better grasp of science than you do, and we're even willing to treat and cure people who don't believe in the very basic foundations of our work. If you get sick, the Theory of Evolution is gonna be why we are able to help you.

 

[monfang]

So, a book where it is explicitly stated that the belief in griphons and the like originated (much like dragons) from bones of prehistoric creatures mistaken for and partially misassembled as mythical creatures proves that these creatures really existed because you think the author didn't want to tell the readers that the creatures were alive at the time the stories about them were written because you believe that this is true?

Yes, a book where it is stated that the Greeks supposedly had great paleontologists who, during the Greco-Roman era, were supposedly able to figure out dinosaur behavior without the aid of computers that we only recently been able to think of though the use of Computer simulations. and NOWHERE else had anyone else had even the thought of such a thing possible.

Her statements requires that the Greeks and Romans had knowledge that we only recently figured out though machines. Something I call a stretch of the imagination.

 

[monfang]

Wow, your post is composed of 100% Creationist Propaganda. Would you like a Golden Crocoduck?

I really, really, really, seriously hope, FOR YOUR SAKE, that you are trolling. If not, then Science and Reason help you.

I can't even begin to facepalm with this post.

Oh wow. Oh wow. Bahaha. Come on now, seriously. You can't surely be serious. Yeah, you must be a troll. This post can't be legit.

Oh man you almost got me there, phew. For a moment I thought you were serious.

evilneko: if you think you can prove me wrong, please don't let me stop you.

And lotr rocks 0: I'm not trolling. That is what I believe. But I have often been banned from places for stating my belief.

I'll say again, if you can prove me wrong on anything. I'll shut up.

Aw, that's adorable. Luckily for you, doctors and researchers have a much better grasp of science than you do, and we're even willing to treat and cure people who don't believe in the very basic foundations of our work. If you get sick, the Theory of Evolution is gonna be why we are able to help you.

Wow, this is a first. I'm treated like I have a disease. Not surprised, but still, a first.

 

[ninetails593]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't mean to offend your need to be overly defensive, but he is correct. [http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-practices/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey.aspx]

Now, granted after that is just rhetoric, but do be aware that he is correct that studies have been made (some by religious groups) that support his statement. You can ignore them facts if ya like. But. What you read into the statistics is entirely up to you.

I'm not as offended as I sound, but it's always aggravating to see people insulting my religion
And that study isn't really against religion... It's against us Catholics XP
Catholicism is kind of laid back, just not in bed.
And still, even if there is proof against what I say, he failed to provide it. So it really was just biased speculation.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't expect you to have read the whole thread, but I did provide a source further on on the thread. This is a different one from the one I used but it cites the same study:

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/29/faith-vs-religious-knowledge/

 

[ninetails593]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't expect you to have read the whole thread, but I did provide a source further on on the thread. This is a different one from the one I used but it cites the same study:

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/29/faith-vs-religious-knowledge/

People don't tend to learn much from arguments. So usually when you say something to somebody, it really doesn't matter how old it is. But I refer you to what I said to that other guy. Faith doesn't require knowledge, Atheists that know a lot about religion are just researching things to say against Theists.

 

[christhenoob]

I'm going to start with the video first.

IT'S A JOKE!

Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.

Now for my proof:

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.

Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.

Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings

Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.

Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg

Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1

For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

Any questions?

I have to give you some credit, I assumed you wouldn't respond, but it seems you have, and now I must go through the arduous task for shooting them down one by one.

Let's start with claim two considering I only need common sense to refute it. "Scientists hide facts and lie." I can tell you right now that no respected scientific paper would be published these days without a good deal of solid evidence. What does that make the religious? There are thousands of creation stories, not to mention other claims made in the name of religion which have time and time again been disproved. At least science can be challenged and tested for whereas religion, and creationism, is just supposed to be some universal truth that you can neither prove nor disprove. There is a remarkable thing... just because there are tracks of a dinosaur and a human next to each other, which I doubt because you have no evidence to prove it, does not mean that they came from the same time period. If I found a dinosaur footprint and I made my own right next to it, it doesn't mean that they happened at the same time! I also don't think your personal opinion counts as proof... Moving on.

Claim three is inherently ridiculous, but I'll try my best to to refute it. For one thing, the mythological griffon looks NOTHING like the picture of a dinosaur that you posted, and I doubt that it could jump or even simulate flight in anyway shape or form. Also, all of the cultures you describe are less then 10000 years old, how could they have possibly seen a dinosaur! Mythological beasts are just that... mythological! I'm not quite sure what to say at this point...

Claim one is just... absurd. I'm going to give you a bit of a logical test to see if you understand what an argument is.

Chicken is good.
Beef is good.
Therefore, beef is chicken.

If you now believe that chickens are now bovines, I highly recommend professional help. Just because there was a mistake in science ONCE due to a contamination or other experimental error does not mean that ALL science is wrong. There isn't much more to say about that. I implore you to research on your own carbon dating. It's quite effective and aging ancient rocks and such.

I'm impressed by your trolling abilities, they are worthy of a true master. Few would go so far as to look up bogus websites.

 

[Knight Templar]

What would make the Greeks think up the Griffins as motherly? To come up with such far-fetched details that even now our Scientists have to make HUGE leaps of faith to come up with instead of treating them as the same as mythical creatures.

Again, that source is saying they looked at fossils and came up with griffons.
Not living creatures. So waxing on the possible origins of particular traits attributed to bones is not helping your point.

And I see you ignored the dating part.

Do you have the page numbers by any chance?

""I was interested in the way legends of fantastic creature can arise from observations of the remains of unfamiliar extinct animals"
Page 15
Do you own the book?

He constantly refers to fossils, not living creatures. Where in the book does it suggest this is anything other than legend born from bones and paleontology? I mean look at the god-damn title!

You have yet again failed to take note of my rebuttal of your claim re:dating. Are you going to address it? Are you willing to admit when wrong?

I believe I already addressed that 're:dating' thing you are speaking of.

Where? What is the post number?

And SHE refers to fossils because to think that maybe they came up with such details about their lives from real creatures would contradict her beliefs so she made the major claim that the Greeks had Paleontologists. The first one to do it according to my research.

So you list this as a source, yet belive it is making things up and untrustworthy?
If you need to argue against your own source then you have issues. Your source doesn't agree with you, and pretending they do is exactly what you did at the start of this little issue.

Let me be clear while interesting and fun to discuss the concept of griffons being inspired by bones I don't really hold to it. Your position, that they saw real creatures then made them almost twice as big, and made from two different animals, neither of which looks like the original, is not supported by that source in any way shape or form.

It is just you throwing ideas out that lack any basis in what is seen. You are looking at cave paintings and seeing aliens.

I'd think someone who read HER book would know who the author is.

I am aware of the gender, I just use male pronouns without thinking. Thank you for catching that.
Anyway it's not as if I'm listing it as a source as if it supports my position when in fact the source refutes my position.

That would be silly.

 

[Evidencebased]

As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science. Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely). When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism. For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact), therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument).

Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution, but I'm curious: how do y'all debunk the RNA Hypothesis (or Metabolism First Hypothesis)? You've claimed that amino acids can't survive in water (um...cite? ) but I'm not aware that the more current models of abiogenesis rely on them to in the first place, validity of that aqueous-insolubility aside.

Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species.

What about the mutations in bacteria that let them develop resistances to antibiotics? Those aren't beneficial for us (usually) but they certainly benefit the bacteria. And for that matter, what about the selective breeding of animals like dogs where we have increased the frequency of traits we find desirable in particular breeds? They aren't always strictly beneficial, but they do illustrate a sort-of evolution.

A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

Goodness! Lucy got debunked? Along with all the other Homo sapiens sapiens precursors? Could we get a citation for that? As far as I've heard we have tons of samples and fossils of Neanderthals and early humans; what makes you think they are not legitimate specimens?

 

[crudus]

OK... so you got some facts right there, but NO educated biologist will tell you humans evolved from apes. We have the same origin as the modern ape, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes or hominoidea is as you said a super family and neither super family nor super group is a good phylogenic way to arrange things. They're there because it's more convenient than the normal divisions. You might claim there is no difference between saying we evolved from apes and had the same origin, but every biologist curse the man who first said that. It's the statement that is the root to the creationist defense "Then why didn't all apes end up as humans?". What we evolved from is a specie that is extinct a long time ago.

I am not saying we evolved from gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. I am saying we evolved from apes. Our (most recent) common ancestor with gorillas and orangutans would be classified as an ape. At least I hope so; creationists might have a point if our (most recent) common ancestor was a jellyfish or something.