Questions For Evolutionists And Atheists

Davidylan,

I can speculate that homo sapiens sapiens evolved very slowly because they live in the wild, so their number would be checked by extreme weather fluctuations, availability of seasonal crops and game, deceases, predator, etc. An outbreak of decease alone can wipe out whole populations.

I must confess that i am not so learned in the area of Genetics, so do not think i can argue with you there. But I do know that the human Genome was only decoded about 10 yrs ago, so when did they get and decode the genome of homo erectus and homo Neanderthal.

Where is the evidence we evolved from homo erectus when our genomic DNA or mtDNA bears no resemblance whatsoever to our closest relatives the nearnderthals?

This your statement is senseless, how can you find evidence from homo erectus to compare Neanderthal and you now relate it to us. I just do not understand. There is currently a debate whether we descend from Neanderthal or not and available evidence is pointing in the negative.

About your growth rate of 0.005% with 2 homo sapiens, let me help you.

The equation is N=No *e^(r*t)
                            =2*2.71828^{(0.005/100*125,000)}

The answer would be 1036 homo sapiens. I hope that helps

Davidylan,

I know that you are young but that does not excuse your lack of decorum. You spew insults once you feel cornered  in an argument, is that what you are taught as  a born again?. You are another bad example of someone that claims he has Christ-like attributes (Christian). Now if you continue to churn out insults then i will have to stop arguing with you, because i was of the opinion we came here to share our different view points.

If you say i have limited knowledge about genetics, i would not argue with you, just as you have limited knowledge of Mathematics. But as an evolutionist, my  paleontology is extremely strong. Now I will do what i usually do not do (google terms for the sake of arguing on forums, i usually rely on my memory) to find our if the debate on whether we descended from neanderthalensis had been settled once and for all.

Now here is what i came up with .

H. neanderthalensis lived from about 250,000 to as recent as 30,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: there is ongoing debate over whether the 'Neanderthal Man' was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens. While the debate remains unsettled, evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicates that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago. In 1997, Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors." Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA supported these findings.[25] However, supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point to recent studies indicating non-African nuclear DNA heritage dating to one mya, although the reliability of these studies has been questioned. 
Source : [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution[/url]


The Neanderthals, believed to be a different species from Homo sapiens, evolved in Ice Age Europe, while the latter evolved in Africa before spreading out to the rest of the world around 50-40,000 years ago. Neanderthals are thought to have died out around 28,000 years ago, suggesting at least 10,000 years of overlap and possible interaction between the two species in Europe.
 Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825203924.htm

Neanderthals lived mostly in Europe and the Middle East from at least 200,000 to 28,000 years ago, before disappearing mysteriously from the fossil record just as modern-looking humans moved into those regions. Whether people today owe any ancestry to these earlier folks has roiled paleoanthropology for decades. The goal of the meeting, said NYU anthropologist Terry Harrison, one of the co-organizers, was to look for common ground between scholars on both sides of the debate.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-02-08-skeletons_x.htm

So where did you get this statement from
"Secondly there is NO debate about whether we descended from neanderthals - current hypothesis is that they are our cousins more like it. "

I also like want you to post the source of all your propositions.

Once more another dude with an over-inflated opinion of his own intellect


Cornered? how? I have spent the last few posts basically educating you and you claim i feel cornered? Exactly by whom? You? Pls dont make me split my sides with laughter. You dont know anything.


You didnt come here to "share different view points", you simply came here to show that only those who are areligious have a brain and the rest of us are simply ignorant morons who shld be pitied. If you think Christ didnt exist and the bible is a fraud why are you harping on me having "Christ-like" attributes? Does that make sense at all to you?

Your own idea of "Christ-like" attributes seems to be that i bow down and kiss your feet. Pls go back to the bible and read how Christ addressed the hypocritical pharisees who thought they knew all the law and the prophets . . .


Which is why i wonder why you are yet to provide me with fossils of intermediate species. Why is it taking you too long?


What you have posted has been largely speculation WITHOUT CONCRETE PROOF! What happened to nearnderthals? why did they die off? If indeed both homo sapiens and nearnderthals come from the same ancestor why do they not share a single similarity in both mtDNA and genomic DNA? That is the simple question that doesnt require all the nonsense above . . . quoting from wikipedia and USAtoday is your own idea of scientifically peer-reviewed sources? you folks must assume we have no brains.

Mr OLAADEGBU,

Your ignorance is beyond belief. Your deceit is even worse. You bring one argument and when that has been defeated you  google and come up with conflicting argument.

Please read, digest and attempt to understand  the sites before you cut and paste.

Read my above posts and you will see that your voodoo mathematics and eternally increasing population theory had been defeated.

Now let me debunk your arguments again.

The formula for calculating population increase  is N=No *e^(r*t)

So using your growth rate of 0.456%, and starting with Noah's family  4400 years ago , we have the follow figures for each of your dates.

3 BC  (2403 yrs after the flood)   -       Population = 459,145  people.
1800AD (4191yrs after the flood)  -     Population = 1,595,417,894 people
1985 AD ( 4376yrs after  the flood)  -  Population = 3,708,901,365 people
2000 AD (4391 yrs after the flood)  -   Population = 3,971,467,623 people
2009 AD (4400 yrs after the flood)  -   population = 4,137,847,416 People
2109 AD (4500 yrs after the flood)  -   population = 6,528,490,187 people

So your figures do not add up. you have to tweak your rates and year of the flood better in order to arrive at todays population.

Another fallacy of your argument is that the Romans only carried out a census of the Roman Empire and not the whole world. The population of Rome cannot be the population of the world. Also in the 1800 there was no world census, so there was no way the world population was accurately known.

I have told you that the mathematical equation is just a guide, other factors always reduce the population far below that of the equation. or are you saying that there is no need for actual population census anymore? so we should always rely on the mathematical projection.





 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/33vCvxYOzYU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/33vCvxYOzYU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;</a>

This videoclip is shows how the Bible's account in Genesis disproves the theory of evolution, crunching the  numbers and hitting the bull's eye.  Make sure you watch the three parts of this programme.

Earth's population refutes evolution.

This is what Grant R. Jeffery had to say in his book, The Signature of God:

"The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem.  Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations.  We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family. . . The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet.  To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe.  If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletions of those who had died in past generations.  However, despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists."

Crunch The Numbers Part 2 (Continued)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/yve4wI4oGdY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/yve4wI4oGdY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;</a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/PI_FGtNxd6s&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/PI_FGtNxd6s&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;</a>

Researchers suggest that virtually all modern men 99% of them, says one scientist are closely related genetically and share genes with one male ancestor, dubbed Y-chromosome Adam.

"We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor.  That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe, and then it spread out from there." -- U.S. News & World Report, December 4, 1995

Olaagbedu, are 4 real? u can't really be this clueless. I'm starting to get worried

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." -- 1 Corinthians 15:39

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God nothing evolved.  Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1.  Dogs do not produce cats.  Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry.  Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs.  They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat and part dog) throughout God's creation.  Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits.  God made monkeys as monkeys and man as man.  Each creature "brings forth after its own kind."  That's no theory; its a fact.

Why should we believe that man comes from another species?  If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false.  However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

Can you please inform us how evolutionary theory, which is man's belief, is not mutually exclusive to the creation account.  The book of Genesis states the historical account of creation as a fact and not as allegories as some people like to think.  This is what happens when Christians build their thinking in a secular worldview that they have been indoctrinated with in schools and the media, and this distorts their interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis.

Godless Religion

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:5)

Included in Paul's graphic description of the "perilous" characteristics of the "last days" (not the church age, since the prophesied last days were still future when he wrote of them in his last epistle, 2 Timothy 3:1-3) is this warning concerning the religious leaders of the last days.  They would observe the outward form (church buildings, sacraments, religious services, etc.) of "godliness" (that is, "religion"), but would reject its supernatural aspects.  They would desire the trappings of religious professionalism since they would be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" (v. 4).

Such specifications aptly describe the modern world of scientism and liberal theology, which pervades practically all religious denominations and overlaps with all kinds of liberal social movements (women's liberation, gay rights, "New Age" pantheism, and others).  Although these are widely diverse in structure and purpose, they all share one vital feature in common: they reject supernatural Christianity, especially literal creationism. Many liberal preachers give nominal allegiance to the teachings of Christ and the Bible, but they invariably deny the mighty power of God in special creation, as well as the great worldwide miracles of the Bible--the Flood, the dispersion, etc.

This prophecy is not given in Scripture simply as a matter of information.  It contains a warning urgently needed by Bible-believing Christians who are under pressure today to compromise with humanistic liberals on this great doctrine of God's creative power.  Many have accepted the evolutionary system of "ages geology," and this is tragic and dangerous.  Instead of compromising with evolutionary naturalists and religious liberals, as many evangelicals today are inclined to do, Paul warns: "From such turn away!" HMM

William Provine's quote sums up all the modern evolutionary biology: 

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear . . .  There are no gods, no purpose, no goal-directed forces of any kind."  William Provine(Professor, Cornell University), Origins Research, Vol.16:1/2(1994),p.9, quoted in Technical Journal, vol.10:1(1996),p.22.

There you see what the proponents of the modern evolutionary biology says about God.  Except you say that you are now wiser than God because of your secular thinking that you now want to reinterpreted the Word of God to conform to what you have been taught in schools or the media.

"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

In spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence against evolution, "Christian evolutionists" still argue (or, at least, allow) that evolution could be God's method of creation.

Such a fence-straddling position is logically untenable, however, and gravely dangerous spiritually.  There are numerous biblical and theological reasons why evolution, under any guise, must be unequivocally repudiated by Bible-believing Christians, and one of the most obvious is the unique biblical account of the formation of the body of the first woman.  By no stretch of the imagination or device of spiritualizing exposition can this account be harmonized with the assumed evolution of human beings from some earlier group of hominids.

God "formed man of the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7).  Many theistic evolutionists have asserted that this phrase could be applied to the long process of evolution, as imagined by modern paleoanthropologists.  This, of course, is fantasy, not exegesis.  But whatever argument might be made for this strange interpretation, there is simply no way at all for the record of Eve's subsequent formation out of Adam's side (Genesis 2:21-22) to be so interpreted.  All they can do with this passage is ignore it, trying to pass it by with some comment about woman being close to man's heart or something.  It is not only clearly spelt out in Genesis, but is confirmed by the apostle Paul, both here and in 1 Timothy 2:13.  The Lord Jesus Christ Himself quoted from the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman (Matthew 19:4-6) as literal history.  Both man and woman are special creations of God, with no evolutionary connection whatsoever to any kind of animal ancestry.  HMM

 

Again the pathetic and impolite response. People like you make me ask God, from the bottom of my heart how on earth you and I are both christians.  Dude, what does it cost you to make simple and polite conversation? "Mumbo Jumbo". Who even uses such language in 2009 anyway?

I'm not going to answer those lengthy questions in page one - it'll be quite silly of me to try and equal someone else's (definitely not yours of course) well thought out argument in one casual post.

Give me YOUR own questions. Questions from your head, not from a book. Not from a novel that someone took years of research to prepare, and I'll answer.

And while you're thinking this up, see if you can answer the question I asked earlier - If there is absolutely no evolution, where did the black man, the white man, the yellow man and the red man come from? Is there perhaps a verse in the bible that tells you "God made man. Then he saw that man was not diverse enough, and so he called his angels and said "verily, we needeth some colour. Let us now make black men, pink men, yellow men with slanted eyes, and a few others. Since we don't work through evolution, let us go down, and add a gene to the black man's body that will enable him to fight malaria better than others. "

I re-iterate my earlier argument - MAN has evolved and changed over the last few hundred years, our bodies have adapted to an ever-changing environment. If all creation was ended, where did the diseases come from? The new mutation of cells and microorganisms? (Read about the flu - you can only get a variety of flu (or common cold) once. If you get another cold, it's a different strain. The cold virus is KNOWN to change (or should I say evolve?) constantly.)

Here are the facts:
Creation exists. But to say that creation is independent of evolution is folly.
Evolution exists. But to say that evolution is independent of creation is folly.


PS: I actually thought Krayola was lauging WITH me AT you, but obviously I was mistaken.