A Few Questions For Evolutionists

I am new here but I have been researching evolution vs. creation a lot recently because I am doing a speach on it, and I came across some questions I'd like to ask some of you evolutionists. I am a 16 year old christian student, and I strongly support creationism, and I was looking over this book and it had some things that kind of question the idea of evolution.1) How can you believe that we evolved over millions of years from monkey like creatures (the Heidelberg Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, New Guinea Man, Cro-Magnon Man) when you don't exactly have the evidence? For example:Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l. Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave said that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
New Guinea Man - Dates away back to 1970... This species has been found in the region just north of Australia
And strangly enough the Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brian capacity to modern man... so what's the difference?These kind of confuse me because not one of them besides the New Guinea Man has any proof that it ever existed.Also, some evolutionists explain that the earth has to be atleast 80,000,000 years old because of the oil. They claim that it takes millions of years to produce oil. But it's pressure would have dissipated long before now days - the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 years old. Also, this is a fact -- scientists working in a lab, produced a barrel of oil from one ton of garbage in only twenty minutes... maybe the earth isn't as old as ya'll thought.Also one last question - What is the binding force of the atom? We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second. Also that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. The neutrons have no electrical charge, but it's the protons i'm asking about. The protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is that LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Being that all of the protons in the nucleus are positively charged - they should repel each other and scatter into space. What Holds Them Together?I really would like to hear from some of ya'll and hear ya'll's answers and see what ya'll have to say because I am very interested.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laboo:
Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

---

Homo heidelbergensisThe species was named after the location of the original find but it isn't the only find. Most researchers accept the validity of the species but not all do. Some people think it is a homo erectus variant. Homo Heidelbergensis - Modern Human OriginsThis is hardly a 'monkey-like' creature, by the way. Notice the genus of homo. That is the same as your genus.

quote:

---

Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

---

Was a mistake. It was found and named in 1922(?) and retracted in 1927. A little behind the times aren't you?

quote:

---

Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

---

Yes, it was a forgery. Why not present the evidence used today to make a case for human decent?

quote:

---

Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.

---

Otherwise known as homo erectus and we have loads of them. Homo Erectus - Modern Human OriginsWhat do you mean 'all evidence disappeared?'

quote:

---

Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l. Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave said that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

---

Still behind the times. Homo Neanderthalensis - Modern Human Origins

quote:

---

New Guinea Man - Dates away back to 1970... This species has been found in the region just north of Australia

---

What? I can't find a New Guinea Man, except for this reference. Jack Chick? Are you serious?added by edit:It seems that you are, as your list is exactly the list published in Chick's Big Daddy, though you left out Lucy.

quote:

---

And strangly enough the Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brian capacity to modern man... so what's the difference?

---

There isn't one. Cro-Magnon were modern humans.

quote:

---

These kind of confuse me because not one of them besides the New Guinea Man has any proof that it ever existed.

---

1)This confuses me because New Guinea Man has never even been a candidate as far as I can tell.2)There are mountains of fossils for all of the above except for Piltdown which is known to have been a fake. How is it that you can make the blanket statement that there is no evidence?

quote:

---

Also, some evolutionists explain that the earth has to be atleast 80,000,000 years old because of the oil.

---

I don't know of any scientist who would date the origin of the earth at 80mya.

quote:

---

They claim that it takes millions of years to produce oil. But it's pressure would have dissipated long before now days - the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 years old.

---

How do you know this? As far as I can tell, there is no reason why oil stores should leak pressure.

quote:

---

Also, this is a fact -- scientists working in a lab, produced a barrel of oil from one ton of garbage in only twenty minutes...

---

Really? Which scientists? Which lab? Using what equipment?

quote:

---

maybe the earth isn't as old as ya'll thought.

---

Maybe, but all of the evidence points to it being 4.5 billion years old or so, with the rest of the universe weighing in at three or four times that.

quote:

---

What is the binding force of the atom?

---

The weak and the strong nuclear forces.

quote:

---

We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second. Also that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons.

---

Careful there!!!! You are starting to use science.

quote:

---

Being that all of the protons in the nucleus are positively charged - they should repel each other and scatter into space. What Holds Them Together?

---

Every wonder why so much energy is released when you detonate a nuclear bomb? It is because under the right conditions they do something like what you suggest, but under most conditions the nuclear forces hold them together. This was worked out in theory a hundred years ago and the Manhattan Project in the forties proved it true in a big way.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 01-11-2003][This message has been edited by John, 01-11-2003]

You've been reading stuff over at ICR or some such place, right? Most of those "creation science" sites put out misinformation of the sort you have been hoodwinked by....

quote:

---

(the Heidelberg Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, New Guinea Man, Cro-Magnon Man)

---

"Nebraska Man" was a misidentification of a tooth, blown up into something big by a French tabloid newspaper (think Weekly World News) and properly identified by practicing scientists before 1930.
"Piltdown Man" - a clever fraud, exposed by working scientists with new technology
Peking Man - genuine fossils - the actual fossils were fully described before being lost in World War II. Plaster casts made from the fossils are still around.
Neanderthal Man - at least a few dozen fossils are known, including small children with no sign of arthritis
Cro-Magnon Man - identically the same as you and me - modern humans, in other words. These are only 30,000 years old or so - a geological eye-blink.

quote:

---

They claim that it takes millions of years to produce oil. But it's pressure would have dissipated long before now days - the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 years old.

---

What data indicates this? I've worked in the oil industry for 24 years now, and all that Permian oil out in my neighborhood is still 250,000,000 years old or so.

quote:

---

What is the binding force of the atom?

---

It's called the Strong Nuclear Force. You may learn about it in physics if you take that course in the next year or two. The repulsion of like charges is the electrostatic force - it's one of the five fundamental forces known so far. The SNF comes into play at very short distances, like those in an atom's nucleus. It's been pretty well described mathematically for fifty years or so - your sources should know that by now. Jesus does NOT personally hold each nucleus together, in other words.

I probably have been reading over older information or misguided in these. Although i have been taught physics doesn't mean i believe everything that is thrown at my face. i've also been taught evolution and although i wish i was smart enough to just through out what would help support my beliefs i can't. By the way, how can you prove that the oil you work with is 250,000,000 years old? when in fact the person before you stated that he doesn't know a single scientist or person (can't remember which) that would say that the earth was even 80,000,000 years old. As i've read through all these forums, all you evolutionists seem to have different stories, or different "proven!" theories, and ya'll all just basically prove eachother wrong by going on about what you think you know. atleast all us creationists have our facts down right and know what we believe and don't help prove our beliefs wrong.

quote:

---

By the way, how can you prove that the oil you work with is 250,000,000 years old? when in fact the person before you stated that he doesn't know a single scientist or person (can't remember which) that would say that the earth was even 80,000,000 years old.

---

I can't prove that the oil itself is that old, but the rocks that contain it, and the rocks that generated it, have been shown to be that old or more, by several lines of reasoning and data. And oil floats on water, in the rocks themselves, to get to its final place of entrapment.So it must be as old as the rock its in.And John wasn't saying "even" 80 million years, he was saying "only." Elsewhere in his post he referred to the generally accepted age of 4,500 million years for the Earth. See if your library has The Age of the Earth by G Brent Dalrymple - it gives a very clear explanation of where these ages come from.

Try reading some of what scientists say about Biology, evolution, and human origins, and also try looking at the evidence. Reading a bunch of creationist sites is guranteed to give you a distorted, incomplete picture of what scientists have actually found. Remember, the Creationists have a religious agenda to persue, often at the expense of the truth. (I can provide many examples if you like)Perhaps you might also learn the difference between religion, which is where Creationism comes from, and science, which is how we figure out how the universe works. The former is not based upon evidence, but upon unbending, unchanging dogmatic adherence to a particular interpretation of a particular religious text. Any natural evidence must be made to fit into this interpretation or twisted or ignored.The latter is based, first and always, upon the evidence found in nature, and theories are built upon this evidence. When new reliable evidence is found, theories may be confirmed or contradicted. IOW, theories of science are not dogmatically adhered to, but will change in the light of new evidence. (Think Einstein/Newton)Of course, you are free to believe what young earth Creationists believe. You should, however, be aware that by doing so you are rejecting most of the last several hundred years of scientific discovery in every field.It's a bit of reading, but if you read these you will go a long way towards educating yourself about science, Biology, and Creationism.The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs
science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laboo:
I probably have been reading over older information or misguided in these.

---

Yes, indeed. There is nothing wrong with reading older scientific works. It is probably a good idea anyway, but you have to remember that it is history and that new information comes up all the time.

quote:

---

Although i have been taught physics doesn't mean i believe everything that is thrown at my face.

---

There is no reason you should believe everything you hear, but you should understand what is being taught.

quote:

---

i've also been taught evolution and although i wish i was smart enough to just through out what would help support my beliefs i can't.

---

What? You wish you could make a case for your beliefs? Try. Think about this. You, and only you, are responsible for your beliefs. If you can't make a case, it seems that you are not taking responsibility for those beliefs.

quote:

---

By the way, how can you prove that the oil you work with is 250,000,000 years old?

---

I think coragyps addressed this.

quote:

---

when in fact the person before you stated that he doesn't know a single scientist or person (can't remember which) that would say that the earth was even 80,000,000 years old.

---

I did not say this. I said that I do not know of a scientist who would date the world at 80 mya. The best date right now is 4.5 billion or so. 'At' means 'at.' It does not mean 'less than' nor, for that matter, does it mean 'greater than.'

quote:

---

As i've read through all these forums, all you evolutionists seem to have different stories, or different "proven!" theories, and ya'll all just basically prove eachother wrong by going on about what you think you know.

---

I dare you to prove this. Evolutionary biology is pretty consistent. There are some minor disputes but science is like that.

quote:

---

atleast all us creationists have our facts down right and know what we believe and don't help prove our beliefs wrong.

---

Really? Every creationist on this forum will give you a different story-- radically different. Try it. Ask.Things creationists cannot agree upon:1) The age of the Earth.
2) The date for the Flood.
3) The triggers for the Flood. IE. Volcanoes? Asteroids?
4) The dynamics of the Flood.
5) The definition of baramin/kind.
6) The role/existence of evolution.
7) The role of God in creation.
8) ....... anyone want to add something?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

To quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"There are a large number of evolutionists here who, based upon their posts, seem to pretty much understand evolution, and they're all pretty much in agreement, which makes sense since they all accept the same theory of evolution, of which there is only one. If you think you've found a significant difference in evolutionary views amongst evolutionists here then please let us know what it is.Creationists, on the other hand, believe the earth is 10,000 years old and 4.5 billion years old. That evolution is guided by God, and that God only breathed life into the first organisms. That intelligent design is self-evident proof that God is guiding evolution, and that it is self-evident proof that God created organisms just as we seem them today. That the large number of species we see today is because of evolution within kinds since Noah's flood, and that Noah took on board every single species we see today. That Noah's flood was caused by comets melting glaciers, and that it was caused by release of waters from the deep. That Noah's flood affected only the Middle East, and that it flooded the entire earth. That it covered every mountain, or that the high mountains were covered not by flood water but by snow. That the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood, and that it wasn't. That thermodynamics rules out a natural origin for life and that it doesn't. That information theory says evolution is impossible and that it does not. I could go on and on.What you've done is taken the charge usually leveled at Creationists, namely that they have no consistent viewpoint among them, and turned it back on evolutionists without regard as to whether there's any truth to it or even any glimmer of support. Scientific theories are built through consensus, something the theory of evolution possesses in spades and that Creationism thoroughly lacks.--Percy

I'm a creationist, but I'm not to sure if I believe that the flood actually happened. However there are many stories about the flood from different parts of the world that were written at about the same time.You evolutionists here make good points on your subjuct, but this is one example why I can't agree with evolution. Bacteria has been studied in the labs for over a hundred years. Since Bacteria has a life span of a few minutes the change should be seen clearly over a hundred years. However there has been no change, the bacteria has been the same ever since, from being in Nature to a Lab (an extreme enough environment for it to evolve, and for something so small) it has not changed a single bit.

quote:

---

However there has been no change, the bacteria has been the same ever since, from being in Nature to a Lab (an extreme enough environment for it to evolve, and for something so small) it has not changed a single bit.

---

You're mistaken. We have tuberculosis bacteria that are now resistant to multiple antibiotics that would have killed them 30 years ago. We have bacteria that can metabolize nylon, and developed that ability only after nylon was invented. We have streptococci that are called "flesh-eaters", that also are nearly immune to antibiotics. We have Legionaire's disease. And always remember: the bacteria in your body outnumber your own cells.

to bad I'm not talking about tuberculosis, do some reading (Im not talking about websites) on the subject and you'll understand that becoming immune isn't evolution. Sort of how we become immune to the chicken pox after getting it, or gaining the same immunity from your mother after you are born.

Except that adaptive immunity, as it is called, involves immune-system evolution by natural selection. Certain immune-system cells try out different antibody configurations until they find one that attaches to some foreign object. When they are successful, they multiply, producing a big quantity of the useful antibodies.And in the case of bacteria, it is, in fact, evolution, since their genes get modified to induce antibiotic resistance.

quote:

---

Sort of how we become immune to the chicken pox after getting it, or gaining the same immunity from your mother after you are born.

---

There's rather a large gulf between a single organism developing an immune reaction to a pathogen and a heritable mutation that gives offspring a new metabolic pathway. You might also want to do some reading.

I know this is may be off topic but Read this book and you'll understand on what I was trying to say on this bacteria deal.

Okay, I won't even make you buy a book (although you might find a good evo biology text interesting). Here's some of what the others have been talking about (all free on-line, peer-reviewed publications): Bacteria are different: Observations, interpretations, speculations, and opinions about the mechanisms of adaptive evolution in prokaryotesMutators and sex in bacteria: Conflict between adaptive strategiesMutation, recombination, and incipient speciation of bacteria in the laboratory