quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID


My point is this, the theory of evolution as far as human beings are concerned is a little different. I do believe that species change after hundreds of millions of years and adapt to CERTAIN living conditions to survive. I don't think that the fossil record at the present time reflects the advancement of hominid into human beings according to the theory thus far. A hundred thousand years or so ago, Human beings just started popping up, literaly evolving from the homo species that was there habilis/ erectus into humans, when it was suppossed to take millions of years for this to happen. The incline of civilization and technology in the last 6000 years according to this theory of slow gradual evolution, is just not possible. I really stress that you really sit back and think about this.

---

quote:

---

1. The Out-of-Africa Hypothesis proposes that some H. erectus remained in Africa and continued to evolve into H. sapiens, and left Africa about 100,000-200,000 years ago. From a single source, H. sapiens replaced all populations of H. erectus. Human populations today are thus all descended from a single speciation event in Africa and should display a high degree of genetic similarity. Support for this hypothesis comes from DNA studies of mitochondria: since African populations display the greatest diversity of mitochondrial DNA, modern humans have been in Africa longer than they have been elsewhere. Calculations suggest all modern humans are descended from a population of African H. sapiens numbering as few as 10,000.

2. The Regional Continuity Hypothesis suggests that regional populations of H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens through interbreeding between the various populations. Evidence from the fossil record and genetic studies supports this idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulos23

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID


My point is this, the theory of evolution as far as human beings are concerned is a little different. I do believe that species change after hundreds of millions of years and adapt to CERTAIN living conditions to survive. I don't think that the fossil record at the present time reflects the advancement of hominid into human beings according to the theory thus far. A hundred thousand years or so ago, Human beings just started popping up, literaly evolving from the homo species that was there habilis/ erectus into humans, when it was suppossed to take millions of years for this to happen. The incline of civilization and technology in the last 6000 years according to this theory of slow gradual evolution, is just not possible. I really stress that you really sit back and think about this.

---

Well, I only have time to comment on your two points you make in the above pharagraph. The two points as I understand them are:

1) Homo sapiens just apeard on the earth in to short of a time span.

2) The incline of civilization and technology was to fast acording to the theory of evolution.

The fist one took some research, but I think I can refute it. Homo erectus apeared 1.8 to 2 million years ago. They disapered between 100,000 to 500,000 years ago and we find Homo sapiens. 400,000 years is a long time, and there is evedence that speices do change in such a short time span due to outside envormental presures. Scientists are of two schools of thought on how and where Homo sapiens originated.


No there is nothing to suggest that humans had any environmental pressures, this is yet another guess of the theory. Like saying "something" cause apelike man to come out of the trees(no one knows exactly, another guess). I think something forced boo-boo out of my ass, i think it was the chinese food from last night!

From http://www.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookHumEvol.html

quote:

---

1. The Out-of-Africa Hypothesis proposes that some H. erectus remained in Africa and continued to evolve into H. sapiens, and left Africa about 100,000-200,000 years ago. From a single source, H. sapiens replaced all populations of H. erectus. Human populations today are thus all descended from a single speciation event in Africa and should display a high degree of genetic similarity. Support for this hypothesis comes from DNA studies of mitochondria: since African populations display the greatest diversity of mitochondrial DNA, modern humans have been in Africa longer than they have been elsewhere. Calculations suggest all modern humans are descended from a population of African H. sapiens numbering as few as 10,000.

The "hypothesis", another guess. We have not dug up the entire earth, and some of the evidence of other things can never be found due to changes in the earth's surface.

2. The Regional Continuity Hypothesis suggests that regional populations of H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens through interbreeding between the various populations. Evidence from the fossil record and genetic studies supports this idea.

---

There is no one to prove this is the reason for the transition, yet another guess.

So scientists are still puzzeling this one out, but the evidence doesn't yet point to something outside of a natural evolutionary process.

For you second point I think your confusing natural biological evolution with civilization and technological advancement. The two have different engines driving them. Biological evolution requires a change in the DNA, a slow and error prone process. Technological advancement just requires a brain to imagin a tool and means to make the tool. We as a species just happen to have both. For civilization advancement, it is the way individuals interact with each other. Both have come for us quickly as a species, but both can go away quicker. It is all dependent on the individuals of the species, not the whole of the species like it is with biological evolution.

No, I am not.It is very relevant. I think YOu need to think about it.
One further comment: Hybrid, we provide links and references to speed up other peoples understanding of our posission and to help them get on the same page as we are on. If your looking for us to draw the same concultions as you have, we need to know what evedence you where looking at. Else, we will end up looking at something different then you and we will be comparing apples to rocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID
You want me to take you every step of the way don't you?I have presented evidence.If it is not good enough for you I suggest you look a little bit harder. I have posted alot of shit. And I am NOT GOING TO POST A HUNDRED WEBSITES, AND SITE ALL OF MY BOOKS. I have given you a great headstart.

"Guessing" in any sense is still not a fact, period. And yes it is a work in progress. Knowlegde or what we call it is a work in progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Since we are not allowed to use evidence as evidence, what do we use?

Is anything other than skeletons allowed? If not, please just go away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulos23

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID
You want me to take you every step of the way don't you?I have presented evidence.If it is not good enough for you I suggest you look a little bit harder. I have posted alot of shit. And I am NOT GOING TO POST A HUNDRED WEBSITES, AND SITE ALL OF MY BOOKS. I have given you a great headstart.

"Guessing" in any sense is still not a fact, period. And yes it is a work in progress. Knowlegde or what we call it is a work in progress.

---

Yes, we want to understand where you are coming from. If your going to hide all the evidence and resorces you have been using, your not giving us a head start on your claim. Your making us having to guess at your position and how you got there. What 'evidence' you have posted has been hard to find, or would take to long for you to wait for an answer. Please post your evidence and your concutions you base off of it so we can have a ratonal discution.

Otherwise this is just a waste of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID
You want me to take you every step of the way don't you?I have presented evidence.If it is not good enough for you I suggest you look a little bit harder. I have posted alot of shit. And I am NOT GOING TO POST A HUNDRED WEBSITES, AND SITE ALL OF MY BOOKS. I have given you a great headstart.

"Guessing" in any sense is still not a fact, period. And yes it is a work in progress. Knowlegde or what we call it is a work in progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
You want me to take you every step of the way don't you?I have presented evidence.If it is not good enough for you I suggest you look a little bit harder. I have posted alot of shit. And I am NOT GOING TO POST A HUNDRED WEBSITES, AND SITE ALL OF MY BOOKS. I have given you a great headstart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID
You want me to take you every step of the way don't you?I have presented evidence.If it is not good enough for you I suggest you look a little bit harder. I have posted alot of shit. And I am NOT GOING TO POST A HUNDRED WEBSITES, AND SITE ALL OF MY BOOKS. I have given you a great headstart.

"Guessing" in any sense is still not a fact, period. And yes it is a work in progress. Knowlegde or what we call it is a work in progress.

---

Vomitting out dozens of assertions with little evidence in support of your claims is exactly what we said would not fly. Pick a single claim and stick to it. Write up the evidence in support of your position. Simply saying there are books and scientists "out there" is not sufficient. I have no doubt there are, and I have no doubt you found them convincing, but we need you to tell us what they actually said. Supply quotations or a summary of the arguments provided by the authors.

Dude is trying to focus on one or two of your points, yet you dismiss this starting point as old stuff you've already seen. So what? This is how debate works. The evidence must first be presented before it can be countered. You would rather we not bring up anything since you apparently have heard it all before and want to dismiss it all before we begin. That isn't how debate works.

This thread was created to give you a platform for you to politely lay out what you feel is strong evidence against human evolution. You haven't laid out any evidence at all yet, you are still just making claims. (Your claim: Human evolution is impossible). But why is it impossible? Who says? What is the evidence for this claim? You need to start being to be specific.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID
I too can find a website where someone has a point of view, still does not make them wrong, and definitely not right, okay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeeMack

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID...
You want me to take you every step of the way don't you?I have presented evidence.If it is not good enough for you I suggest you look a little bit harder. I have posted alot of shit. And I am NOT GOING TO POST A HUNDRED WEBSITES, AND SITE ALL OF MY BOOKS. I have given you a great headstart.

---

You haven't answered most of the questions put to you in this thread. You did post links to five web pages in order to support your notion that there were at one time giant human-like creatures. You alluded to the idea that they fell so far outside the boundaries of current evolution theory as to make the current theory invalid, or at least very weak science. Yet when following the links you provided we get this...

================================================

Nevada State Museum:

"The conflicting views on the tracks' origins persisted for decades, but the majority of the scientists clearly supported the ground sloth origins for the tracks. In 1917, Chester Stock published a paper specifically addressing the ground sloth's foot structure and origin of the Prison footprints."

No giant humanoid here, just a sloth. They apparently knew this almost 100 years ago.

================================================

Giants Were Among Us:

The only reference on that page to anything having to do with evolution is in a single paragraph.

"Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus are names given to giant hominids found by paleontologists, but since they don't fit too well in the imaginary evolutionary chain, they don't get much attention. Meganthropus is the giant Java man who inhabited Southeast Asia over a million years ago. He stood12 feet tall and weighed several hundred pounds."

This is a red flag to the evolutionary theory, and not dealing with adds to the fact that MOST OF THIS SHIT IS MADE UP!in the minds of the masses and those who support and devised the theroy, we create our own reality, first in our minds.

Gigantopithecus was built something like a gorilla, nothing like a human, and Meganthropus is considered a subspecies of Homo erectus, but is apparently known only from a few fossil remains of teeth and jaw. Nearly all references on the web to Meganthropus are using the "species" as a means of debunking the evolution theory for the specific purpose of providing greater support for Creationism.

================================================

The World of Steve Quayle - Genesis 6 Giants:

Nothing relating to evolution can be found on this page.

"Where did these giants come from and what was their connection with ordinary humans? Just who were they? What happened to these extraordinary creatures? Is it possible they could ever return? The last question I will answer right now - YES, they most definitely could return! And they have something much worse in mind for mankind."

It is another attempt to use the existence of giants in the past to support the idea that Creationism is the truth. You can see by the above quote from that web site that they believe giants will someday return to earth and wreak some sort of misery on mankind. Hardly anything scientific in any of that.

You miss the point, because you only see black or white. You need to step over to the gray nuetral area.

================================================

Druid Planet: Giants:

This site also tries to prove that Creationism is the truth by finding flaws in the theory of evolution. They support their claims about giants with a list of other unsupported claims. They discuss giants from mythology in the exact same context as those from biology. No discussion of evolution is found here.

"There is enough proof in the United states to say that YES, giants did indeed roam the earth and unlike neandrathals and cro magnum, they were highly intelligent. This proof includes finds in the mid east as well. Bones, tools, and even modern burial structures have been found, of giants. The giants ranged anywear from 7 ft up to 15 feet. Twice the size of modern man. These giants are not a single bone, or skeleton, but one ancient burial retained several giants. They have been found all across North America and some in the mid east."

================================================

Photo of an Antediluvian Giant:

More unsubstantiated claims about giants. No discussion of how they fit into, or refute the commonly accepted theories of evolution. More pro-Creationism.

Exactly, so why has science denied its existence, or dealt with how they don't. They don't, they just push it away.[

i]"Despite of the fact that they never offer any trustworthy and convincing evidence to validate their own case, Darwinian evolutionists "as well as any other enemy of the Faith" are always demanding from Christians scientific evidences that would corroborate the claims of the Bible concerning everything it says in general, and the giants of Genesis chapter 6 in particular."[/i]

That is irrelevant if they take the bible literal or not, I don't. The point is the evidence exists, and you cannot make it go away. But you can, in your own mind, we create our own reality!
================================================

So, you haven't presented a single speck of evidence for anything. You have made an unsupported claim that there are holes in the contemporary theory of evolution. You haven't specified in any way what those holes are. You haven't provided any information to substantiate your assertion. You haven't offered any alternative theories or suggestions. You have continued to demonstrate that you hold some imaginary picture about how things "really" are, yet you apparently aren't able to articulate exactly what that fantasy is or what it is based on.

Oh yes I have. No more or less than your evidence.

So far everyone on this thread except you has tried to abide by the guidelines as outlined in the original post by Dude. You haven't made more than shallow veiled claims that the theory of evolution doesn't hold up, you've made no effort to define your claims, and you've made little effort to back them up.

I have done it already, what are you talking about?

We have three pages of nothing but you making noise about something you clearly admit is literally made up in your own mind, and nothing in the way of an actual discussion or exchange of ideas. I'm with Paulos23 on this... you have made the claims, now define them and stop expecting the rest of us to guess what you mean. "Otherwise this is just a waste of time."

---

quote:

---

the confusion comes in when you try to discover my motives, my position, so you can throw me into a certain category, and say he's one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:

---

Originally posted by HYBRID
I too can find a website where someone has a point of view, still does not make them wrong, and definitely not right, okay?

---

How do you decide who is telling the truth?

---