Evolution.

Assuming you aren't an evolutionist posing as a misinformed creationist, I will answer a few of your questions.

quote:

---

ok, the neanderthal man turned out to be an old guy wit arthritis

---

Nope, no known case of arthritis has ever caused the differences we seen in neanderthal morphology. Secondly, we have recovered mitochondrial DNA from neanderthal bones and their sequence is very different from human mitochondrial DNA. Neanderthals were our evolutionary cousins, we shared a common ancestor with them but they are not our direct ancestors.

quote:

---

the homo erectus, wich one would that be? the peking man? the piltdown man? the nebraska man? the hieldelberg man? all proven to be fakes,

---

All proven fakes yes, but not examples of Homo eructus that are used by scientists. There are legitmate fossils of Homo eructus and denying this only makes you look like a fool. You might as well claim that the moon landings were faked.

quote:

---

. . . [where] did i get that we came from monkeys? evolution!

---

And how did scientists arrive at that conclusion? Through evidence, not mythology.

quote:

---

and as far as those footprints go they went on for a very long ways, and the stride was too big because the human was too big, u say they r deformed dinosaur footprints? y arent the dinosaur footprints right beside them deformed?

---

Only slightly deformed at all, and mistaken for human footprints. They are consistent with dinosaur stride length and foot morphology.

quote:

---

evolution, one thing to another is a fair definition, evolution is when an error occurs in the gene pool, no error could ever occur to cahnge it from one thing to another,

---

Evidence please. From what we know, genes control what our body looks like and changes to those genes would result in a different body plan. Where is the logical flaw in this?

quote:

---

mutations are found all over, 2 headed snakes, three legged horses, even in humans, there heads could be joined together, but no matter the error, it will never become anything other than what it allready is,

---

You also seem to have a perverted view of what mutations are. Mutations do not always result in the above malformations, and some of those malformations are due to problems of embryonic development, not mutations. I am now wondering which of those numbers in your username is your age. Is it the 15 or the 6? Also, we have found numerous beneficial mutations within quite a few species.Also, this picture hasn't been put up lately, and its always a crowd pleaser. The following picture contains several homonid fossils. The fossil in the top right hand corner is a chimpanzee, which is included for comparisons between the ape lineage and the homonid lineage. Could you please tell us when this line stops from being ape and becomes human? Also note how the size of the brain case increases over time. Strange how evolutionists have evidence while creationists just have a knack for distortion and whining.

quote:

---

take the new rat they found, can they prove it wasnt there all along? and just what is it that stops it from mating wit other rats? just because it looks diferent, acts diferent, is bigger, is stronger, does not make it a new specie, are blacks a diferent specie from us? they look diferent, they act diferent, because of circumstances, the chinese, were they a new specie when we discovered them? or were we a new specie when they discovered us? no.

---

The island was devoid of rats until large number of ships started coming to the island. The rats that have been on the island are different in shape and size from the rats they descended from. As far as I know, they are unable to mate with the rats they descended from because of the chromosomal differences. That is, the two species are incapable of producing a viable embryo even when egg and sperm are mixed. This new species is only a new species of rat because we call it a rat. If we called it a ratatillia, would you then agree that it is a larger change?Heck, lets carry this argument even further, and show how easy it is to cop out of the "no new species" argument.A fish turns into an amphibian. New species. Nope, still a vertebrate, nothing has changed. See how easy it is to handwave away evidence when using creationist logic.

If you are here to learn, you might try asking questions instead of taking an accusatory posture. You don't learn anything by retelling lies and distortions. Perhaps you should search out the evidence, methodologies, and terminology that scientists actuall use instead of the tripe you get from creationist sources. Anyway, I'll try and condense your distortion filled posts into one response.

quote:

---

the neandertal man was studied by Dr.A.J Cave and was an old guy who suffered from arthritis, even your site admits that they r just humans.

---

Homo sapien neaderthalis is the neaderthal and modern humans are Homo sapien sapien. We are considered different subspecies that could have been able to interbreed. However, evidence from mitochondrial DNA argues against this. If there were substantial interbreeding then mitochodrial lines should have melded as well. The FACT that neanderthals and modern humans differ in mitochondrial DNA it would seem that we were separate species, as seen in this graph. You will notice that there are greater differences between neanderthals and humans than there are between humans. The chip-human comparison is included for a reference point. I have physical evidence that shows neanderthals as a separate species, what do you have?

quote:

---

that was one very big mistake, after all, from a single pigs tooth they created an entire missing link and then made him a wife!

---

and

quote:

---

to my understanding, a man found this tooth, and sent it in to scientist, they studied it and built and entire..... whatever u want to call it, fossile? and then they built him a wife from that tooth, and later the tooth was studied and found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

---

This was the Nebraska man mistake. A man found one tooth in North America that appeared to be similar to that of hominids. The POPULAR press picked up on this and blew the story way out of proportion, even to the point constructing a picture of a totally made up hominid. However, evolutionary scientists were far slower pulling the trigger, and never released any opinion that claimed that the tooth was from a hominid. In fact, the only opinion that was released in peer review journals was that it WAS NOT a hominid tooth. This claim still rests with ONE over exuberant scientist, and the subsequent press releases were due to an overactive imagination among the popular press. Not one shred of human ancestory or evolution theory was based on the Nebraska man. How foolish do you feel now.

quote:

---

and heres another interesting fact, your scientist found a fossilized human skull and then they dated it to be 212 million years old,

---

Reference please. Creationists are known for lying, so I would like a reference to their methodology and results.

quote:

---

and do u know how scientist know how old a fossile is? by the layer of dirt its found in, and they know how old the dirt is because of the fossiles found in it.

---

How many lies and distortions do you have left in your grab bag? Fossils are dated by measuring the ratios of radioisotopes within igneous rocks that are below and above the fossil found. Only rarely are fossils used to date sediments, and when fossils are used to date sediments, the dates of the fossils are already known from previous radioisotope dating. Radiometric dating is a very solid and accurate methodology that is used in numerous other fields, including astronomy and geology. Creationists have yet to poke a hole in the dating methodologies.

quote:

---

my point is your house cat did not turn into a tiger and a tiger did not change into your house cat.

---

No, your cat did not change into a tiger, or vise versa. However, they do share a common ancestor. Humans also share a common ancestor with cats, and with reptiles, and with amphibians, and with fish, and with every other living thing on this earth.

quote:

---

u ppl all think that we came from some bacteria that mutated into something else everything just keeps mutating and making new things wether they r better or worse but u have no proof,

---

You are getting close, but you still don't understand our position. The "making new things" are new species that are better adapted to their environment, not worse. And yes, we do have proof. Take a trip to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy sometime and check it out for yourself. Saying we have no proof means ignoring 95% of the posts dealing with biology on this site. Did you take a look at those skulls I posted for you? Do you see the graph up above? I could probably post graphs and my own descriptions of separate pieces of evidence every minute till I die and still not cover it all. Your insistent claim that there is no evidence is a lie, and the sooner you realize this the better.

quote:

---

no foundation that the earth is so old,

---

Sorry, but you are deluding yourself. Check out Greenland Ice Cores and Age Correlations and an Old Earth for just a small taste of the volumes of data supporting an old earth. If you continue to ignore the evidence, you can no longer claim you came here to learn.

quote:

---

of earth that r million of years old but have trees going thru several layers meaning the tree stood there and died and for some reason it didnt rot away?

---

No one has ever found a tree that goes through millions of years of sediment. However, they have found trees that go through several hundred years of sediment. You have been told lies.

quote:

---

humans have been here for a couple thousand years and yet there are human skullz 212 million years old?

---

I still want a reference for this. You would think that such a damning piece of evidence would be talked about within scientific circles. The silence should tell you something.

quote:

---

that stuff is not possible, period. if anyone if refusing to see the truth its u, common sense tells u these things. and i ask u, have i insulted u ppl in any way yet? then dont insult me.

---

If you are unwilling to realize that you have a distorted view of science and evolution, and that you have been fed a bunch of lies by creationists who think its OK to lie for Jesus, then you will never uderstand what truth is. We do feel insulted because some of us have spent years of our lives working towards a better understanding of the natural world, and yet some people feel that none of that matters, that their views are right because a book on theology says so. You might as well be arguing for a flat earth and a sun that orbits the earth if you want to take the bible this literally. My suggestion to you is this: Review the evidence that has led to the conclusions within evolutionary theories, review what those theories state (read up on random mutation and natural selection), and then compare what you learn with what is posted on creationist sites. If being christians means that you have to swallow the lies that you have posted here, I can't think of many people that would want to call themselves christian.

quote:

---

OK, lets keep this friendly. And factual, because that isnt a fact. There are probably just as many lying evolutionists as creationists.

---

Maybe I shouldn't have worded it as strongly as I did, but I still stand by it. Such things as "the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution" is one such lie. It is simply not true, yet it is spread from creationist site to creationist site. I could name numerous other topics that are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to repeatable observations. Creationists insistence of using this falsified data is lying, and there is no other way to cut it. And, by creationist, I mean those that are educated in the field and should know better. The fact that young people are drawn into repeating these lies is more a testament to the poor quality of our educational system than anything else. If you think evolutionists lie as much as creationists, could you please show something within the current evolutionary theories that is falsified by repeatable observations? I can't think of any.Just to keep things on topic, if you disagree with anything in this post feel free to open a separate thread and I promise I will respond to your opening post. The admins get a little aggravated when discussions wander too much.

quote:

---

note the word CURRENT in your speech there. Teen was using OUTDATED information that all uptodate creationists agree is outdated and false.

---

They were outdated and wrong when they were first brought forward. All of Mr. Hovinds stuff was falsified before he even opened his website for the first time. Calling it outdated is missing the point. And if this information is outdated and no longer used, why is teen using it? Is it because creationist sites are still posting it? Probably. I will agree that there are many "uptodate creationists", however they still find no problem constructing strawman versions of the theory of evolution. If any creationist states that evolution is a purely random process, they are not uptodate, not even a high school level "uptodate". Sorry if I sound a little frustrated, but it would be nice if some people understood what they were arguing against before they started arguing. I am not judging your knowledge, at least not yet .

quote:

---

And about your mitocondria graphs, the results from those tests didnt prove anything. Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4218tj_v12n1.asp
and read the whole thing. THE WHOLE THING. I would post it all, but thats alot to post.

---

This would be a nice thread all to itself. I'll try and get a new thread up and running here soon. Since the first neandertal sequence comparisons were done, there have been three more mtDNA extractions from three separate fossils. This additional data should shine a light on the few drawbacks that AIG had.