Stupid Creationist!

[Rachel Bronwyn]

See how both the links you provided are arguments based on unverifiable ideas? Creationists dont' get that. At all. They can't verify gawd exists nor can they verify unicorns ever did.

Non-verifiable and absolute lack of evidence = non-science.

[genderhazard]

The links were jokes.

However the challege was not.

Mitochondrial DNA exists
Mitochondrial Eve exists.
Her offspring exists in an unbroken chain of female decendants.
Mitochondrial Eve contemporaries exists.
Ardi exists.
Lucy exists.

Show me evolution of species.

There is a reason evolution is a theory and not a scientific law

from Yahoo news

In 1994, scientists discovered the remains of a female hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago. The female was named "Ardi" (short for "Ardipithecus"). This past week, scientists announced that they now believe Ardi is actually a million years older than Lucy, that other famous human ancestor. What's the significance? Well, for one, this will certainly change the way experts study evolution. The AP explains that the long-held theory was that humans evolved from chimps. This new discovery "provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor." Although Ardi isn't that common ancestor, she is "the closest we have ever been able to come," according to Berkeley's Human Evolution Research Center. News of the find inspired big searches on "ardi discovery" and "ardi vs lucy."

from here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/hea...ry/121065.html

This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Translation: The things we thought we knew about evoultion were completely wrong.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor - but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

but Ardi isn't that common ancestor, just another member of the genius

But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor.

So that's what they conclude? (here's the best of all scientifc queston?) why? "Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes". Well clearly that can only mean that the apes evolved extensively."

How about you found an extinct hominid.

[OhZone]

I thought the bananaman cleared this all up already!

[TF-Viewer]

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor - but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

Well yeah, that's the basic idea. This isn't new. This is why we have many varieties of similar animals that live in different locations around the world. They evolved from common ancestors and share many traits but are also clearly different.

There is no "missing link" no one individual that magically had many traits at once that didn't exist in his parents that suddenly made him more human-like than ape-like. This was a extremely slow and gradual process that took millions of years of random DNA being combined that occasionally resulted in some new trait (mutation) that either worked out for the better or didn't. When it worked out that individual lived and could pass on their DNA and that trait could be carried into the next generation, if it didn't work out that individual may likely have died and the trait might never have been passed along. Some traits don't really affect survivability, and are simply cosmetic changes on relatively small scales but are still visibly apparent (eye color, hair color, hanging ear lobes vs attached earlobes etc).

The very fact that humans have a sexual drive (mating instinct), and that they can pass on their traits to their offspring through their DNA should be proof enough that humans are simply another kind of animal living on this planet that evolved the same way as any other animal has. But we want to think we are better than common animals. We want to think there's something more to life than just living and dying. So we invent this imaginary world that exists beyond it, and encourage others to share in that belief. Why? So we'll have something to talk about with them that isn't as boring as the weather. It's the same concept as someone making an anime (any fictional work will do, but this is my example) that some people like and those people encourage their friends to see it hoping they'll like it. And like all works of fiction there are going to be people who don't like it, they like some other fictional work instead.. and some people just don't like fiction, or that particular medium it's presented on. It's all because humans are gifted with this big brain that's always hungry for stimulation. We have active imaginations, the real world alone sometimes isn't stimulating enough so we invent new ones in our heads, write them down in books, draw pictures of them, make them into movies or TV shows, and way back when the early concepts were religions. We're a very opinionated species and love to argue and debate over things, even things that aren't real. Could Batman beat Superman, which Aliens movie is the best, what is your Zombie Invasion plan, is there a god? All that it's the same thing.

How is any of this not obvious? How is any of that not common sense?

[LOD]

Wow that has to be the most persuasive case for atheism I've ever heard. But I can't take you up on it....








The Zombies are coming I tell you!!!

Just ask Clickme!!!

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I tend to think religion originated from early human?s absolute lack of understanding of the world. When something they didn?t understand (which was pretty much anything) occurred, they assumed it had to be the result of a conscious being making a decision and acting upon it. Why else would the tide come and go or the sun rise of lightening flash?

Early on some clever sons of bitches realised human?s belief in this all-powerful supernatural being was easy to manipulate and did so in order to enforce particular behaviours. People are a whole lot less likely to fart in public or wear white after Labour Day when they believe the dude that makes bolts of fire shoot down from the skies doesn`t approve of it and will give you a licking. He`s a tough, venegeful guy! And so religious doctrine came into play.

In an attempt to save their loved ones from harm, people quickly began to indoctrinate children into religion. At a time mythological stories sounded somewhat reasonable and alternative answers to life`s big questions weren`t available, making people believe it and teach it to their children was easy. And so religion was bred into the species.

Originally Posted by genderhazard

The links were jokes.

I realise that. I didn?t realise you were at all serious when you posed your ?challenge? though.

Mitochondrial DNA exists
Mitochondrial Eve exists.
Her offspring exists in an unbroken chain of female decendants.
Mitochondrial Eve contemporaries exists.
Ardi exists.
Lucy exists.

I?ve no idea who this mitochondrial Eve is. You?ll have to expand on this notion prior to my responding. As of right now, I don?t know if mitochondrial Eve exists or if her offspring exist through her descendants or if her contemporaries exist.

Show me evolution of species.

Do your own homework.

There is a reason evolution is a theory and not a scientific law

And that?s because it can?t be observed. The scientific method will never allow for evolution to become fact or ?law?, not because of missing evidence, but because of the simple fact it?s an extremely extensive process that cannot be viewed. Evolution of a species takes a fucking long time. Watching a land mammal become aquatic is not possible. It is possible, however, to find extensive evidence of this process, hence the legitimacy of evolution.

Translation: The things we thought we knew about evoultion were completely wrong.

No, no, no, no., no, no, no, no, no, no. The things people who think they understand evolution know are completely wrong.

You?ll note this discovery has not shaken the evolutionary theory at all as it leaves plenty of room for what Ardi teaches us to occur.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor - but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

Pardon my valley girl-ism but, well, duh. Very few species are perfect. As their environments change, species adapt to them via natural selection. As desirable genetic mutations are perpetuated via natural selection, species change. Slowly, evolution occurs, more in some species than others.

Did you think the chimpanzee was immune to evolution? That we evolved from modern day chimps? Of course not. Chimpanzees have evolved alongside us. We didn't evolve from them anymore than they evolved from us. Our common ancestor simply evolved in very different directions. Sharing a common ancestor, however, does not equate to evolving from a particular species.

but Ardi isn't that common ancestor, just another member of the genius

I fail to see how she?s ?just? anything. She?s a member of the family.

But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor.

Yes, and there?s no reason to presume Ardi?s ancestors hadn?t evolved extensively and were completely different from she.

The fact remains, we share a common ancestor.

So that's what they conclude? (here's the best of all scientifc queston?) why? "Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes". Well clearly that can only mean that the apes evolved extensively."

Why wouldn?t they have? Evolution is fluid, not static. That makes perfect evolutionary sense.

How about you found an extinct hominid.

It?s possible but the same can be said for all other no longer existing animals for which we have fossils. The idea all these creatures died off as opposed to evolved from their previous forms is creationist and entirely non-sensical as it doesn?t begin to take the fossil record into account.

Ardi fits into our family tree beautifully, between CLCA and Australopithecus. That?s why the primary conclusion scientists are coming to is chimp ancestry goes back further than we?d predicted. Thank you, new findings!

Homo floresiensis is the one that leaves the door wide open for the extinct hominid argument. That is a fossil extremely difficult to fit into any particular evolutionary tree. Ardi, not so much.

[qzar9999]

I've long since given up trying to discuss evolution vs. creationism, for several reasons--not least of which being that I agree that creationism doesn't meet the criteria to be classified as "science." Also, I've come to realize that people will believe what they want to believe, and it's unlikely that something I post in an internet forum is going to change that. If someone wants to believe God doesn't exist, or that Buddha or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the supreme being, that's their call.

Having said that, I wanted to say that it's unfair (if not completely vicious) to assume/imply/state that people who believe in creationism are stupid, backward, or ignorant of science. I believe in creationism, yet I consider myself reasonably intelligent, and I believe that science is vital, both to learn from the past and present and to make the future better. I mean, where would humanity be without advances made in fields like chemistry, physics, or genetics?

All I'm trying to say is, I don't name-call just because someone is an atheist and/or evolutionist. It would be nice if we creationists were extended the same courtesy, and things like comparing a belief in God to a belief in unicorns weren't said.

I do agree with HOB that the person from his original post is a jackass, though. I hate people who cut me off and won't let me finish making a point.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Here's the banana guy's butt boy (anyone a fan of Growing Pains?) demonstrating his idiocy while my pal Cristina provides commentary, exposing him for the bullshitter he is.

[Vengeance1701]

Cristina...smart, Russian, attractive.

Single? If so, she might be nigh on perfect:P

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Sorry, dude; she's Romanian.

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Here's the banana guy's butt boy (anyone a fan of Growing Pains?) demonstrating his idiocy while my pal Cristina provides commentary, exposing him for the bullshitter he is.

I like this person. She's kewl. And, yes, almost perfect.






Romanian, eh? Some great stuff comes from Romania!



I know! They're Maldovan, but they speak Romanian and made it big there.

[LOD]

Romainian girls are jst as exotic...