Conquer Club

Carebian Knight wrote:That is a drawing, the dimensions of the head were guessed(approximated). That is not proof. Show me serious proof.

Quit saying it isn't proof. Proof that it isn't proof.

I did, you can't say approximations are proof. If I say 3 is approximantly 4, it's technically true, but 3 does not equal 4.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Carebian Knight wrote:The first part of the "human evolution chain" lucy, have you seen a picture of that skeleton, like half of it is missing, how can you prove anything from half a skeleton. Maybe it was a human with some monkey like characteristics, we've all seen them.

Ofcourse half of it's is missing! It would be awesome if we discovered a complete and intact skeleton, but sadly the earth is against us. This is why we use scientific methods and analysis of the bonestructure and stuff like that to see what it looked like and if it might be humanlike enough...


Besides, we don't think it is actually part of the human evolution chain anymore.

I know that the earth will decay the bone, however you can't make approximations and say they are proof. The only way that the theory of evolution can ever be truly proved is to go back in time and watch it happen. Science itself says so, you have to have observations. Not guesses from half observations.

What no reply?

Reading your arguments is like listening to someone comparing apples to oranges and explaining why you can't use them in math classes.

Obviously I have to explain such simple things to these two.

Carebian Knight wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Carebian Knight wrote:The first part of the "human evolution chain" lucy, have you seen a picture of that skeleton, like half of it is missing, how can you prove anything from half a skeleton. Maybe it was a human with some monkey like characteristics, we've all seen them.

Ofcourse half of it's is missing! It would be awesome if we discovered a complete and intact skeleton, but sadly the earth is against us. This is why we use scientific methods and analysis of the bonestructure and stuff like that to see what it looked like and if it might be humanlike enough...


Besides, we don't think it is actually part of the human evolution chain anymore.

I know that the earth will decay the bone, however you can't make approximations and say they are proof. The only way that the theory of evolution can ever be truly proved is to go back in time and watch it happen. Science itself says so, you have to have observations. Not guesses from half observations.

What else do we have to go on? Science isn't a matter of simply choosing the theory that has the most proof. You go with theories that seem the most logical. Ofcourse we can also assume that little angels are actually pushing everything downwards, but gravity is at the moment the only theory that has something to back it up.

We actually witness evolution. Sure we can't witness the past, but by deducting what happened from archeological findings and things we know we can make a good guess at the truth. This doesn't mean this is certainly and without a doubt the truth, but it's the best guess at it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Carebian Knight wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Carebian Knight wrote:The first part of the "human evolution chain" lucy, have you seen a picture of that skeleton, like half of it is missing, how can you prove anything from half a skeleton. Maybe it was a human with some monkey like characteristics, we've all seen them.

Ofcourse half of it's is missing! It would be awesome if we discovered a complete and intact skeleton, but sadly the earth is against us. This is why we use scientific methods and analysis of the bonestructure and stuff like that to see what it looked like and if it might be humanlike enough...


Besides, we don't think it is actually part of the human evolution chain anymore.

I know that the earth will decay the bone, however you can't make approximations and say they are proof. The only way that the theory of evolution can ever be truly proved is to go back in time and watch it happen. Science itself says so, you have to have observations. Not guesses from half observations.

What else do we have to go on? Science isn't a matter of simply choosing the theory that has the most proof. You go with theories that seem the most logical. Ofcourse we can also assume that little angels are actually pushing everything downwards, but gravity is at the moment the only theory that has something to back it up.

We actually witness evolution. Sure we can't witness the past, but by deducting what happened from archeological findings and things we know we can make a good guess at the truth. This doesn't mean this is certainly and without a doubt the truth, but it's the best guess at it.

That's the point I'm making, everything is a guess, we don't know whether either is true, we have faith that we are the ones that are correct, for me that is enough. The only reason I argue my point is because I have faith that I am right, I know that I can never truly win this arguement, but because I truly believe that I am right, I try to convert as many people as possible to my side.

So you're basically arguing for creationism from an agnostic point of view? Because I must admit I could be wrong regarding evolution, but I don't actually think I'm wrong. Not because I have faith that I'm right, but because the evidence speaks quite clearly against any other interpretation.

I guess you could say that, everything that comes from God I believe, everything else I only believe 100% if it is through experience. Some things I will agree with, but I don't believe 100%, if that makes sense.

Human Skull


Tumai


Chimp Skull


As you can see the skull of Tumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 7mya), although having a small brain, has a much flatter face than the chimpanzee, much less prominent canine teeth, a larger nose, among other things. Essentially a transition fossil.

Is anyone else mildly concerned that the instigator of this thread appears to have an official position under his name? Shopkeeper, no less.

So after all these posts we have this conclusion

1) There is no Scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism

2) There is a good scientific case for evolution in the minds of 99% of scientists worldwide.

3) There are flaws in the theory of evolution but the only argument for rejecting it completely is that it contradicts a literal interpretation of part of the Old Testament.

As far as the size of the features of the skull, like the nose, you could easily zoom in more on one picture, which appears to have been done with the middle one.

Carebian Knight wrote:As far as the size of the features of the skull, like the nose, you could easily zoom in more on one picture, which appears to have been done with the middle one.

I just needed to find pictures from the same angle. Nothing to do with how zoomed in it is.

It does have stuff to do with it, if you zoom in on a picture things will appear larger.

Carebian Knight wrote:It does have stuff to do with it, if you zoom in on a picture things will appear larger.

Not really. The point is that the fossil shows a more protruding nose, not so much as the human skull but more so than the chimpanzee.

You said bigger, not more protruding

Carebian Knight wrote:You said bigger, not more protruding

I did say bigger but its bigger because it is more protruding. It is essentially nonexistant on monkeys, and the only reason we really see it is because of our noses.

We think we came from apes, because some of them had slightly more protruding noses.

Doesn't interspecies evolution mean that the old species evolves into the new one?

Stopper wrote:4) CC's Shopkeeper likes using irritating font settings

Carebian Knight wrote:We think we came from apes, because some of them had slightly more protruding noses.

Doesn't interspecies evolution mean that the old species evolves into the new one?

Anyone?

Carebian Knight wrote:We think we came from apes, because some of them had slightly more protruding noses.

Doesn't interspecies evolution mean that the old species evolves into the new one?

Part of the old species evolves into the new species. If the entire old species evolved into the new species, there would be no old species.

joecoolfrog wrote:So after all these posts we have this conclusion

1) There is no Scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism

2) There is a good scientific case for evolution in the minds of 99% of scientists worldwide.

3) There are flaws in the theory of evolution but the only argument for rejecting it completely is that it contradicts a literal interpretation of part of the Old Testament.

That is because Creationism isn't scientific. It is the belief that Intelligent Design created the world, no science needed.