My Webpage

Good article Loge. have you read Michael Cremo? His books sure seem to have alot of science to prove humanities origins are alot older then what they have led us to believe. i think we have been on this planet for millions of years and we just keep going through cycles of populating the world. Some big disaster comes every few thousands of years and we have to start all over again. Until we are finally become evolved enough to master interstellar travel.

Good quote you have on your avatar too!

Loge, you've re-used a link I posted ages ago to Nexus magazine about the hypocrisy of Evolution. While it's good to bring it up again, that can't be your website, unless you run/have shares in Nexus.

Anyway, yes, I agree with that page, I made a post about it myself.

Sanchera, you obviously did NOT read the article. It's an article AGAINST Evolution, not for it. It's talking about Scientists (yes, even non-Creationist scientists who have TESTED the Evolution theory) AGAINST Evolution who get degraded for not accepting the dogma.

Ashley i did read the article. I know its against evolution in the sense that we didnt evolve from monkey's. its agaisnt darwinism. But all species evolve. Even if we were brought her by the Angels of Enoch we will still eventually evolve as a species.

Ok, must have misunderstood your post, sorry lol.

We weren't brought here by the angels of Enoch lol, influenced by them maybe.

Yes, I can accept micro-evolution in the fact that inter-species breeding and climate change can affect a species (like own own many varied races), but changing from one species into another out of nowhere I in no way accept. That is what I call imagination and wishful thinking.

If micro-evolution can create changes like varieties of human race over the course of, say 50,000 years. What do you think would happen over the course of, say, 50,000,000 years?

Your argument against evolution is like saying if you add a bucket of sand to a pile every day for a year, you can understand that a small sand dune will form. But you can't believe that in time it could become a huge sand mountain.....

Sand mountains don't turn into trees do they? So why the hell would a speck of dust from a meteorite (the latest Evolution attempt of explanation) turn into a fish (according to theory) then into mammal-reptiles (yes, animals SMALLER than dinosaurs half mammal half reptile existed BEFORE the dinosaurs, and yet mammals came into full force afterwards?) then turn into some ape-man, to the only intelligient life on the planet etc all on it's own?

There is only ONE, out of the millions of species on this planet that exist now and have existed before, intelligent species of life on this planet. And you're gonna tell me that intelligent life came from an ape??

Sand doesn't turn into trees, and dogs don't turn into cats unless you mix genes, and, if there ever actually was an 'ape-man' - which 'evidence' of skeletal remains in a zillion pieces patched together doesn't constitute as evidence - if IT ever actually existed, it existed, not because man came from it, but because man BRED with it. Try that out in a lab....mix a human's genes with an ape, and you'll find 'ape-man'. Beastality in times past was accepted in some tribes....keep that in mind.

I have posted this link before: WWW.SCIAM.COM

Does anyone know how long monkey's have been on the planet? i really dont see how we could have evolved from monkey's in such a short period of time. I think 100,000 years is what the average time frame the evolutionist say we came down from the trees and homo-sapiens first appeared on earth. i dont think 100,000 years is enough time for us to turn from a monkey until what we are now.

Easy....Humans, Monkeys, and Apes evolved from primates.

EARLY PRIMATE EVOLUTION


I think this will help.

Thanks for link Zandore but it really didnt do anything for me. I believe humans have been around for a lot longer then a few thousand years so it doesnt really convince me otherwise. Artifacts have been found that are millions of years old that only humans could of left behind or maybe another form of intelligent life. I really do think when evidence of us being here prior to 100,000 years is found it is quickly covered up. I could understand why they wouldnt want to challenge darwinism especially since most people take it as scientific fact. Our DNA is way to complicated for me to believe it was a sheer accident that created life in the universe.

i have said this so many times, but ....

micro and macr evo are the same bloody thing! it is the accumulation of effects of small changes that results in 'big' change. it is changes in the organism and changes in the environment that creates change.

"that is what i call imagination and wishful thinking" <- that is what i call creationism, 'god' beliefs, etc.

OH I was misunderstanding you....Sorry!

Like I've said befoe, micro and macro are NOT the same. Just because Evolutionists have 'claimed it' to back up their flawed theories does NOT make it under their sole owndership.

I believe the Earth has been around for anywhere between 26,000-15,000 years. Carbon Dating is absolutely hopeless. Tests on the SAME material gives different results and Evolutionists just pick one that suits them. Add to that that CD supposedly (and quite convieniently) *can't* date anything under 50,000 years, AND that Radio-metric dating, a form of CD dated a T-Rex done to be 15,.000 yeas old, and the dating itself has a problem. Add that both red blood cells/Hemoglobin and soft tissue have been found in a T-Rex bone TWICE and that all museums have been called to crack dinosaur bones to heck if any others contain it, and timing seems to be quite a problem. Soft tissue and Hemoglobin does NOT last millions upon millions of years.

Add on top of that that NO 'missing links', i.e. transitional fossils have been found, and Evo's got so desperate they had to Hoax and embarress themselves with a Archeorapter that never existed by adding modern birds feathers to a normal Raptor fossil, and Evolution is shown to be what it really is. A theory, an UNPROVEN THEORY, that gets soved down people's throats as 'fact' without ANY real hard evidence.

ashley, you keep CONvincing yourself of that! there is nothing like a little bit of ignorance to go a long way!

you are one funny pickle.... but to each his/her own. just don't expect to be taken seriously when you spout blatent errors about evolution. (if you actually have a solid criticism offer it, please do. may i also suggest you apply the same vigor to analyzing ancient books of myths which are the 'swiss cheese' - full of holes - explanation of anything)

Asheley, if I didn't know for a fact that you would 1) refuse, and 2) be incapable of, formally debating evolution vs...whatever it is you support, I would challenge you to just that, simply to see how far you could get doing absolutely nothing but repeating the same denials over and over and over again.

Aquatus, been there, done that..remember? 'Proof of Creationism'. Oh there ARE a few things that came up in support of Creationism AFTER that thread...like that T-Rex blood, but no matter but format (and you tried to sugar-coat your thread as proof that Craetionism is false because it can't follow a 'format', even when it was laid out in the format you described) you view it in, you'll never accept it. Indeed it is each to his/her own, as there as many fanaticist evolutionists as there are those of belief in God.

What if unrefutable evidence that the Evolutionist theory (and there already is enough holes as it is) was wrong came out tomorrow, and Creationism was right? Would you accept it? No. You'd become what you call Judeo-Christians, a devout believer in a myth.

The majority of this generation (mostly younger than mine) is absolutely convined Evolution is the only explanation for the origins of man, and the entire universe becuase they have been TAUGHT that. What they aren't being told is that wat they believe in is an UNPROVEN theory with no real evidence.

telling people what to believe when not only is there no evidence for it, but evidence against it. sounds like the perfect description of christianity (as well as a few other heavy handed religions out there)

Well, there IS eveidnce of the Enoch account, the FIRST account of creation. Genesis was a second account.

Now, what real evidence is there of Evolution, besides theories upon theories? Why is there a lack of 'missing links', why does it IGNORE findings that would blow th entire theory out? Sounds no different to what you just described. Evolution leaves no place for the open-minded, it dictates what is and what isn't and ignores what it doesn't like based on a theory. An unproven theory.

Just because we havent found fossils of some species dosent mean they didnt exist. There is more proof of eveolution than creationisim. Most of the generally accepted scientific theories are largely untested. However creationisim will not and cannot bring up any hard evidence, or proof.

There ARE no missing links, and without missing links as hold hard proof there is NO evolution.

There is however evidence of Creationism, ESPECIALLY the one found in Enoch. Enoch talks about dinosaurs, what was taught is all throughout Egyptyian culture, and Egyptians even have a carving of two Apatosaurus/Brontonsaurus' being captured by their very long reptillian necks.

Someone once said, if dinosaurs and man ever co-existed, different cultures would consider them 'gods'. And they did. These animals had a specific name, and were consdier to be a sort of untamable animal 'god'.

In fact it even states that dinosaurs where a hybrid creation of themselves, the REASON for this asteroid/tsunami/flood/ice age, described in that order. 200 of every animal created through the mixing of Nehpilim and animals, creating animals reaching 45ft, drinking blood, eating everything in it's path from mammals, reptiles, birds, humans, and eventually themselves almost to extinction before their final doom, turning the Earth into a bloodbath. They weren't co-existed with man, they were DOMINATING, and destroying man, and they had to go for the survival of man. And did they go? Yes they did. Who dominates the Earth now?

the dinosaurs had to go because they were eating humans.....

ever consider a career in comedy?

How come no bones of humans were found even remotly close in time to the dinosaurs, and vice versa. Your ignorance is mind boggling.

What if...we evolved from the dinosaurs
If we evolved from primates, how come we don't see primates, currently changing into humans I know, I know some things just don't make sense to me
IMO, evolution and creation compliment each other, you can't have one without the other...makes sense to me...

True, there is not any "hard evidence" of creationism. But, at least for me, the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming. Maybe not good enough for a court of law, but good enough for me

Actually , Loge was just feeling too lazy at the moment to change the default title .

final flight,I guess you haven`t heard about the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave.

The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:

Make no mistake about it, ...They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.

Whatch out for your ignorance

ref:Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.

Ahh, all I have to say is.....in these beauuuuuuuutiful pictures....

Fancy one of these in your backyard?



or....maybe one of those....



Or, perhaps you'd like to be this THEIR position...looks like fun eh?



There IS proof of Creationism, you just damn well aren't looking, or ignoring what comes up. You know of all the world dominating animals to have existed, DINOSAURS were it. And....the ape-man?

Oh wait, I forgot....Raptors turned into cute wittle bluebirds ad sparrows. How clumsy of me!

Oh and, humaans were found ion the same sedimentry rock - supposedly MILLIONS of years old - as dinosaur bones were found. Not only that but the were ARTICULATD fossils covered in limestone and turquoise. They apparent cause of death was flooding. Hmm, why does that sound familiar...

I've poted the article here MANY times before, go look at my post in the Proof of Creationism thread.

Yes, I do, and I recall that you were utterly unable to come up with a definition of Creationism, a theory concerning that definition, and evidence to support that theory.

But heck, don't take my word for it:Proof of Creationism

For anyone who wishes to make the attempt, the thread remains open. All I am asking for is for a brief definition of the creationism story you are talking about, a theory concerning how that creation story could be shown to have occured, and evidence to back up that theory. Questions concerning proper scientific methodology are not only welcome, they are encouraged.



Yes, we are all familiar with the article you posted about the T-Rex blood, right next to the article about Hawkins's new exo-suit and his intention to form a cybernetic crime-fighting superteam (no joke). You never failed to complain against the format, but, ultimately, it is the exact same format that every single theory in existance, including evolutionary theory, has had to follow. There is absolutely no reason to make you an exception. You want to play the game, you have to follow the rules, or give a darn good reason not to.



Yes, I would indeed accept it. I probably wouldn't believe, not right away, but if it met all the pre-requisites for scientific methodology, if it followed the protocols of peer review, publication, logical arguments, I would really have no choice but to accept it as valid, my personal views on the matter be damned (so to speak). I admit that i would harbor the secret hope that it someday be proven to be a hoax, but until that time, I would have no choice but to accept it as scientifically valid.



Everyone is taught what they know. The difference is that now, as an adult, I can explain exactly what the evidence and support is for the theories that I follow, including the objective and logical evidence supporting it, whereas all you can do is repeat the same source from which you originally heard it. I stand ready to defend evolutionary theory in any formal debate, where hiding behind rhetoric and denial will serve only to emphasize how little there is to the opposing argument. But, I know you do not.

You know everytime evo vs. creation comes up, it starts to look like the two sides are sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALALALALALALALLALALALLA. I'm not listening!

I'm staying out of it, just had to make that observation.

Answer this then. If Evolution DOES follow this format, and one of it's prerequisites is to predict furture trends, why hasn't any furture trends (i.e. the transformation of one species into another WITHOUT the use of inter-species breeding, and minus climatic changes that affect a species which DOESN;'T change the species altogether) actually materialized? Looking for missing links which have yet to even be found is one thing, Evolution is supposed to be an on-going theory, a body of work which SHOULD be, if it were true, seen in evidence even today. Where is it?

Because evolution doesn't happen that fast. It happens very, very, very slowly......

It's like dropping one grain of sand a year into a hole in the top of an aircraft hanger. Within your lifetime no-one would even notice that sand was appearing on the floor. Even over many generations the amount of sand accumulating on the hanger floor would be so negligable that no-one would notice. Yet, nonetheless, eventually that hanger would fill up completely with sand......

I would like to read your reference sources for this.

Sure it has (assuming I understood that convoluted sentence). Heck, it has even been observed. I can actually give you an example of a species being created WITHOUT inter-species breeding (which, is, by definition, impossible). Want to know more? Ask here: Proof of Evolution

Although, I'll admit I'm not sure what you are talking about with "minus climatic changes that affect a species which DOESN;'T change the species altogether"

Incidentally, Ashely, the "Missing Link" is not a specific animal anyone is looking for. Want to learn what a "missing link is? Ask on the above link (actually, it's already been asked and answered, but I won't ask you to read the entire thing).

Genome theory predicts that, over time, genetic changes within the genome will increase to the point that one genome will no longer be compatible with an ancestral genome. You already acknowledge (micro-evolution) that genome mutations happen, so my question to you would be this: What would the process be that allows genetic mutations to accumulate before speciation, however prevents them prior to speciation occuring? What is it that prevents micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution?

I think we know that Aquatus: Blind Faith

(And no, I don't mean the rock group...... )

If you do a 10 mile walk you do not make it in one step or even 100 steps. You keep making those little steps (Micro Evolution) till you do those 10 miles (Macro Evolution).

Oh darn I thought maybe this was your proof of man walking with dinosaurs



Why do you keep posting this? hasn't it already been debunked enough?

No no change has occured. Race changes are the result of climatic conditions and inter-racial connections.

Variations within brreds of dogs and cats are also the same as above.

This is ALL MICRO-evolution, and there IS evidence for that. There is NO evidence (and, yes you DO need a 'missing link fossil' to prove it) for any species changing into another. Inter-species breeding happens all the time. It was even posted on this board recently, horse/zebra, dolphin/whale. Yes, they are similar animals to begin with and their offspring may end up infertile, but that is not the case all the time. The modern dog, for example, came from several DIFFERENT species of canis, wolf, jackal, fox, etc. Can you now breed any dog with another of a different breed and have fertile offspring? YES.

There is a major leap between micro and macro evolution. A leap only some people will blindly take. And saying it happens slowly just isn't good enough. Human beings haven't transform into aliens or talking dolphins, or God knows what else. Humans are, as they have been for a very long time, still human beings, or homo sapiens.

And, no Shaftsbury it wasn't ever 'debunked' the site it came from is valid. Everything on that site is taken from REAL digs, REAL locations, and REAL fossils.

Zanodore, go to the 'Proof of Creationism' thread. It's there, and for anyone else who questions the validity of that site, I suggest you go there yourself.

there is no 'leap' from micro to macro, except in your head.

Well, you see there's a problem there - because every generation is the missing link between those before and after it. And there may be 1,000,000 generations between one species and another.

So, I guess, we need 1,000,000 missing link fossils to prove evolution.........

Let's re-emphasis for the last time: macro evolution is simply the consequence of micro evolution over vast periods of time

And the proof for these missing links between generations is WHERE?

You'd need those millions of species 'evolving' from one species into another to prove it ever occured, but it sure as hell ain't occuring in ANY sphere of the natural world today or in any part of recorded history.

it is occuring (macro) constantly... it just is that you can not see it because it takes time, and the 'division point' in forming a new species is blurred for quite some time while it is established.

unlike the bible line of thought, things just don't magically 'poof' into existance!

Where is it occuring? Where is the evidence it ever occured on a mass scale before?

Micro-evolution happens every day. Macro doesn't.

macro is the result of micro!

ever watch a morphing video? same basic idea. it is a gradual change over time that when the change is great enough it is classified as a new species. it takes quite a bit of time for a new species to become established though.

Interesting thought: in a million years time a future archaeologist might dig up Ashley's bones and announce the discovery of the missing link between Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis and Homo Sapiens Superior (as we might one day become)

I have no doubt that the website is real, however there have been many such claims made in the past:

Oldoway Man
Castenedolo Man
Guadeloupe Man
Galley Hill Man
Malachite Man
Moab Man

And all these claims have errors in their interpretation of either the sedimentry layer that they were found in, or the identification of the skeletons themselves.

Could you please post a source for this site so I can have a look for myself?

Edited to correct my ever present spelling errors