Also, in the Bible there is talk of Giants who helped construct a city.
And Giants exist outside of just that religious information as well, such as Titans in the Greeks, the Ice Giants of Norse and the red haired Giants who encountered Native Americans.

What happened to them? And why don't we see any fossils or remains of them?

Press "Edit"
Check "Disable smilies in text"

Press "Submit"

Quite simple: Land creatures developed warmblooded metabolises out of need and ability: The absence of water meant less warmth was lost. The need to stay warm at night meant that they could be active longer and therefor more successful. The warmbloodedness of a shark means it needs not depend on water temperature for the amount of activity it can do.

Why do primitive reptiles give live birth? Those species either never developed the egg-forming organs or lost them lateron, as that means of procreation became obsolete.

In short, I can offer possibilities for many of those questions. However, I'll now turn the question around: Why, if these things are inconsistant or illogical, would your god create these beings as they are? It, after all, does not make sense to you...

This is because we do not know the entire evolutionary path of all species. Quite simply: Each fossil find widens our understanding of it.
Inferior? I don't know where you got that notion... But to me they are at the same rank as all nonsentient species. Calling something inferior... in evolution it would be uncalled for. Inferior species become extinct.
Apparantly, they found a way to survive. Be it in a seperated enviorment, be it by having evolved to such a degree that no predator has yet been able to defeat them, nor another species been able to compete with them. No superior/more evolved species has been able to wipe them out... so they are a succesful species.
See above. Isolated enviorments can be quite unchanging.
Man versus dino would have been the end of man. Especially the smaller, pack predators such as the raptor would have made short work of mankind.
Not really. Some species, like the dino's, would have layed such a heavy strain on the ecosystem that other species would not have stood a chance. The modern grazers like cows, bison, gazelles, horses... They all would not have stood a chance against the much larger and faster dino's. Furthermore, the vegitation would have had conflicts of it's own. Competition among grasses would have meant some grasses would not have any place to seed out to, those would perish pretty quick.
Another example: Ants. Some species of ants will raid and enslave other ant species. If they did coexist, the latter would perish.
If such a change occurs in a timespan of what... a few thousand years... is it so odd to think that mankind:
- First decended from being a tree-dwelling ape to find food on the ground
- Learned to walk upright to free two limbs for food searching and processing (and maintain a similar position on the ground as one would when climbing, easier on the balance organs)
- Learned to create tools to further his gathering/hunting skills
- Grew a more sophisticated brain to become more adapt at toolmaking (which was the prime source of the success as a species of primitive man).
- Developed better tools and grew better brain... Repeat until present time.

All this in the timespan of several hundred thousand years. Quite possible I would say.

Dogs and wolves are both canines. Dogs are basically domesticated wolf species. I'm not exactly sure about their genetic makeup, but I'm assuming that unlike the horse/donkey hybrid (the sterile mule) they have no genetic incompatibilities preventing an infertile offspring. Would a human try and mate with a wolf or dog however, I have my doubts if even conception would occur (and be worried, it has been tried often).
One cannot. But one CAN carbon-date the samples to get a reading from what age they are.
Creation poses me with one fundamental question. If a perfect god created it all, then why is it still changing? Why does microevolution occur? Why did the dino's die out in the first place? Evolution does answer those questions. It does however not answer the most basic question: Where did it begin?
So now evolution as a defined scientific process is a tool of the devil? Making a demon out of science... How christian of you to do so. I believe I pointed that out in my earlier reply as one of the problems I have with both christianity and christians. Science needs to be defeated with evidence, not with dogma's. Theories (for however plausible, 'till proven evolution remains one) should not be dismissed simply because they conflict with what someone else believes.
Furthermore, evolution is a process, not a miracle. Miracles is what people call it when something they don't understand or comprehend is considered an act of a higher power. Science sees it as something worth investigating... To make man understand it. After that, it is no longer a "miracle"... And after that it is also understood that it was never divine in the first place. And THAT is the big problem I think you christians have with science. It takes the "magic" out of your religion with every miracle it dispells.

Oh, and in this game of deception... Try this one: What if it was Satan who (re)wrote everything you believe in...? A hierarchical religious structure like christianity needs but be corrupted at it's root to be wholly corrupted. None would know, then none question dogma's, nor what is written. It is the ideal place for one like your Satan to infiltrate.
But no matter, I already know you will dismiss it like a good fundamentalist.

I cannot believe another argument about Evolution. It is a waste of time to argue specific fact aginst faith. Faith will win every time because the facts will be denied by the insistence of absolute faith. The facts will be twisted, taken out of context, and used against themselves. The fallacy is using science to disprove science when one does not evince that science is truth. You must understand its edicts before using it. If you had told a Chirstian that rocks fell from the sky back in the 15th century you would have been branded a heretic and strung up and burned.
Yet science was finally able to convince the greater population of the world that yes indeed rocks do fall from the sky in the form of meteorites. The world is no longer flat. When a man falls sick it is because of bacteria and viruses rather than evil demons and devils. We question our existence and the world around us every day and without that questioning we would not have the extreme luxuries that we have today.
Chirstianity tends to destroy the act of questioning because of the smug feeling that everything is answered with faith. Stagnation is all that can be bred with that attitude.

Duke E. you have taken the stance that you are better than those who do not evince faith within Christianity many times within this forum and than reversed your stance by stating that you do not think this is so. Remember this is a message forum and what you post does not magically disappear. It all remains.

I no longer argue that Evolution is Fact. Because it is. This is true. It is not faith to believe in a fact of scientific knowledge.

It is however faith to say that it is not.

As I have stated countless times I have nothing against individual Christians. I judge everyone as the person they are not what faith they are. I do not look down my nose in smug recognition of my superiority because of the color of my faith. I ask simply that other religions do not do that as well.

I've just given you a few examples of transitional fossils. Where one organism has traits of group A and group B, we can see how it has evolved. For instance, we have reptiles who developed feathers which led to birds, like the Sinornithosaurus and Sinosauropteryx which were clearly reptiles. Some of the best examples are actually fossil hominids, which i'll note later.

The above example shows the evolution towards a feathered covering for some reptiles that would evolve into birds. You get similar examples with animals like whales, who have land ancestors with legs like the Basilosaurus and who then developed flippers.

I'm sure any Creationists will get good use out of this list.

I think everyone is aware that the scientific establishment makes mistakes and often people want to protect their reputations. Having said that, hoaxes are always exposed and to use a small number of cases to invalidate the wealth of real evidence would be unfair in the extreme. It's actually remarkable how many fossil hominids we have access to, thanks to the devoted work of these scientists. So by all means, heap criticism on flimsy investigations and lazy science, but you can't apply these arguments to the majority.

What nine? What were they called? I agree that many fossils found have been identified as belonging to monkeys, chimps and apes of the past. However, many fossil hominids have been found that display human characteristics without being human. All the way from Sahelanthropus, through the Australopithecus, to Homo habilis and Homo erectus, then finally Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (us). The sheer weight of evidence is beyond doubt, as far as i am concerned. Still, doubting is your choice.

Evolutionists identified this, certainly. The fact that it was more closely related to the orang-utan went with new evidence that the last common ancestor between apes and hominids, was between five and ten million years ago. Ramapithecus was too far back for this.

Probably an ancestor of later apes and hominids, so still useful

Again, a likely ancestor of the great apes and we humans.

Another old world monkey, which is still relevant. Where are we going here?

That is simply incorrect. The face, jaw and teeth of an infant were found, as well as an adult cranium. Casts of the skull show that the Australopithecus was most likely bipedal and far more human in gait than monkeys or apes. It also had human-like teeth and is obviously a hominid.

The skull of robustus is probably the most complete hominid skull found to date, but has been found to have suffered distortion from bi-lateral pressure. Even so, it is an excellent find. The crest reflects the diet it lived upon, because it needed support for a heavy set of jaws. It isn't an argument against it being a hominid.

Similar idea to robustus, but if anything the jaws are larger here. It remains a hominid, but nobody is arguing it is our direct ancestor.

That's not true either. Evolutionists don't stick fossils together as they see fit, there is no attempt to be a fossil frankenstein. Even a mostly intact skull was found with other fossils of numerous individuals...hardly fragments.

Their brain size is actually between us and Homo habilis, which is exactly where it should be from an evolutionary standpoint. Likewise, their skeletons differ from modern humans in numerous ways. It is not human, but it is one of our ancestors.

Absolute nonsense. Neanderthals are a subspecies of humans. They are not the same as us, displaying numerous differences in their morphology. The idea that arthritis could cause these differences was abandoned a good while ago now by all but Creationists. In fact, these claims are entirely unsupported and outdated.

[quote=Axantha]12. CRO MAGNON MAN: #12 is indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.

Cro-Magnons are modern humans. They lived in Europe some 10,000 - 35,000 years ago.

It is to the advantage of the species that an ordered society should exist. But let's not forget that we are animals capable of abstract thought and we can think to a higher and greater degree than our primate cousins. That is why our culture is so similar, yet so much more complicated compared to theirs. We are constantly pushing our knowledge forward and reshaping our cultures and societies, as we should. You have to remember that natural selection is something that happens in nature for the continuation of life. We are doing the same, with our laws and our morals.

In a) you assume that the introduction of light senstive cells is harmful, that all depends on the environment the organism is in. Obviously, many animals now enjoy an advantage from the eye. Hhmm, b) is assuming that the organism has reached a certain level of evolution by which it requires both those functions in a specific way. Primitive organisms can survive in such strange environments that it boggles the mind. Even today, organisms are being found that live in places no life could be expected. The barrier between non-life and life is still mysterious, but once life began it was already capable of surviving in the initial environment. It was from then on, a matter of adapting to new environments. As for c), you can't claim that evolution is disorder. It is not intelligent, but it does have an order and system to it. That is why it works.

Well, a) is really your personal opinion, which is fine as far as it goes. Again, b) is a personal opinion. You see a designer, i see evolution. Evolution is supported by hard evidence, such as the fossils i have named. Your designer is only supported through your faith. Once more, you are entitled to that. What kind of observation is c)? All life on this planet is related, but a Cow is not a Human. We do share a common ancestor way back though. I don't see how your example in d) works. You had to get to the point where human birth was possible, or where there existed a seed. Your point in e) is an emotional argument and doesn't apply. People make intelligent choices about their lives, but the biological drive to have children and to survive remains in us all. As for f), that is a possible argument. The evidence merely suggests otherwise.

A global flood would leave a world absolutely bursting with fossils. Actually, as evolutionists have found, fossils are relatively rare. That's one big flaw that the flood can't get round. Another example of why there couldn't have been a global flood is the ocean floor. It doesn't display the vast amounts of detritus that should be there after such an event. Nor do the ice cores dating back 40,000 years show any change in oygen isotope ratios, which would be found if the flood happened. Even the trees say you are wrong. Nowhere in the archive of tree rings, going back 10,000 years, is a global flood evidenced. Your argument still goes against fluid mechanics, because the smaller organisms should be found at the top. Even aquatic organisms of roughly the same size, shape and weight were found sorted in an evolutionary timeline, going against the argument of a flood dispersing the animals.

This universal flood argument is not valid. A dramatic local flood most certainly did happen, which many civilizations speak about. It was not, however, global. You must face the fact that Evolution explains the fossil record and Creationism does not. The global flood did not happen and arguing that it did is not scientific. It is like arguing that a tree that is through a number of strata disproves the earth is billions of years old. You'll find the tree was deposited upright along a riverbank, where sediment can be washed away and accumulated at a great rate. Not a challenge to the age of the Earth at all.

Just to sum up. Evolution is a fact. It is a fact that the global flood did not happen, though a local flood that destroyed a high civilization is certainly supportable. It is also a fact that the Earth is billions of years old.

Yes it does. Though I do not blame Christianity for the ideal; rather its Step-Father Judaism. In Judaism if you are not born a Jew you are destined to never set foot in Heaven. In Christianity if you do not have "faith" you are destined for Hell regardless of how you have lived your life.

This is placing oneself upon a pedastal and stating that those who believe and have "faith" are better than those who do not. You cannot tell me that you do not feel that you are better than I because I do not beleive in your god nor in your religion. I know that you do. Remember it is a Sin in your religion to lie. It is what I expect from you as well so there is no reason to lie.

I however believe that all men are born in equality and it is only what they do from that moment onward which differentiates them. We are born with souls of "lead" which with careful guidance may become souls of "gold". This is what I call Spiritual Alchemy. If it takes blind faith to help your soul become better I would insist that you have blind faith. Yet do not manipulate that faith to judge me within my life. For if you do expect fully to be judged by me in return.

your hopeless man, you won't admit that the official title is 'theory of evolution' and you keep saying it's a fact. the reason your so hopeless is that your saying it's a fact. you don't know, nobody knows. It's not just evolution vs, creationisim it's the fact that nobody knows either way. so just admit it's your personal belief, admit that everybody else has a right to thiers and if your an athiest get off a christian thread-nuff' said

I guess you don't know how to read.

Oh? You mean to tell me we've had tons of cameras recording everything that happened throughout the entire world? Nobody knows if it happened or not, and nobody will ever be able to prove one way or another.

1. I like how you say "we didn't have a great flood", but we could have had "a flood that took out a highly civilized society". Why can we have one and not the other? Oh..because one supports your beliefs and the other doesn't?

2. It is NOT fact that the Earth is billions of years old. It's a GUESS. A wild guess, because we can not be certain our means of telling the age are accurate. Until we've actually used material found near the very center of the planet to test the age we'll never know for even close to certainity.

In fact, a certain means of investigating the age of something can easily be thrown off by the usage of fire or other carbon-exuding events/thingys.. carbon dating is it's name, and being inaccurate is it's game.

It is a fact. There is also the theory concerning the mechanisms involved. It is simple really and not a personal belief.

Read this. Evolution is a fact.

We have what it is called a planet and on this planet is proof that there was no global flood. End of story.

Because a global flood didn't happen, but local floods did happen and will no doubt happen again.

Well, actually, it is a fact. So wrong again.

Thankfully, we don't just use one method for dating.