Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
You cannot determine if a species is bipedial from its skull, and the fact you seem to think that is the case pretty clearly demonstrates you know little of the field.

The baby chimps skull would never be mistaken for a human, or for a member of the homo genus. And it would be blatantly obvious, from the shape and orientation of the hands, that it was not a bipedial species.

Oh that's right was have size of limbs, metacarpals etc which if you examine humans from across the globe can range significantly in size, especially in pre teen children. You might not be certain of the baby chimps orgin if found in early strata, but I'm certain some scientist would have pinned legs on it and we'd have another data point to hang our hats on. The problem you have is the science community has a handful of datapoints and have used that to extrapolate from apes to humans. As a matter of fact, the data is so sketchy they're not even quite sure where to classify some of the earlier hominids. Ultimately, outside of an artists rendition of what it might look like, you have apes, and you have humans.

"And a seven-million-year-old hominid from Chad, known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis and nicknamed Toumai, may also have been bipedal. The assessment is based on an analysis of where the animal's spine would have entered the skull and the position of muscle attachments on its head. "
 
If you're discussing the existence of Jesus, most of the world is in my camp.

Major Religions Ranked by Size

Barely, I believe Islam claims Jesus was a prophet though. Without Islam you are at 33. However, we don't make decisions based on "mob rule". Having a majority of opinion isn't evidence of anything if that belief isn't based on empirical evidence. People used to think the sky was a ceiling shell and all were wrong. They thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, and all were wrong.

In your case, 33 percent of the world thinks Christ was the savior and all that it is indicative of is that 33 percent of the world believes in Christ.
 
Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.
Only after milking every ounce of attention out of it then the retraction is usually done quietly with no fanfare.

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.
Only because of the embarrassemnt of Piltdown Man. However it still shows that men are ultimately corrupt. Now that corruption doesn't make the whole bad but it should mean that you and I don't swallow every detail, hook, line and sinker.
 
Barely, I believe Islam claims Jesus was a prophet though. Without Islam you are at 33. However, we don't make decisions based on "mob rule". Having a majority of opinion isn't evidence of anything if that belief isn't based on empirical evidence. People used to think the ceiling was shell and all were wrong. They thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, and all were wrong.

In your case, 33 percent of the world thinks Christ was the savior and that it is indicative of is that 33 percent of the world believes in Christ.

Considering were examining the historical Jesus, you can count the muslims and Judaism. The Jews don't deny his existence only his status as the Messiah.
 
Yes, the majority of people in the world would agree that Jesus existed. That alone does not mean he did exist.
No but the totality of the evidence makes it foolish to deny it.
 
No but the totality of the evidence makes it foolish to deny it.

Interesting, creationists in particular do not usually have a problem ignoring overwhelming evidence. :shakehead:
 
There you go again, plagarizing from an internet source without giving credit to the source, thus passing the words off as your own.

Bottom of page

You copied this word for word.


You, like millions of others, were duped!!

Supporters of Biological Evolution have, interestingly enough, perpetrated some of the more famous scientific frauds, such as the Piltdown and Nebraska man and other fake (or wishful thinking) fossil hoaxes. One of the more enduring was devised by Ernst Haeckel who promoted his theory of embryonic recapitulation by faking photographs of embryos to make them look similar. Despite this fraud having been debunked many decades ago, the fake pictures are still being published by Biology texts.

This is the main point. Even though they know it is a fraud. It is still being published in the textbooks being given to children as fact.

One of the more spectacular recent frauds committed in China against National Geographic and published by them in November 1999. Dinosaur and bird fossils were assembled in juxtaposition and passed off as an important new evolutionary intermediate. National Geographic apologized a few months later for being taken in, but could have avoided the problem with more due diligence in the first place, less rush to publication, and less willingness to believe what they wanted to believe.
 
Warthaug,
A while back you suggested Neanderthal to be a complete separate species. It would seem that at least some evidence suggests you're wrong. The Lagar Velho 1 Skeleton

...and also talkorigins doesn't dismiss macro and micro evolution as one. They distinctly denote the two.
 
There you go again, plagarizing from an internet source without giving credit to the source, thus passing the words off as your own.
Stone the messenger!!!!
 
Hardly.
He has been called out several times in this thread for posting something copied and not citing a source. If he actually wrote that, I will appologize. I doubt I'll have to.

Stone the messenger!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom