• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

Overcomeproblems.com - Theory of Evolution Disproved

Piltdown Man- The “Piltdown “ skull was first “ discovered” in England in1912 by Charles Dawson. For Forty –one years it was leading evidence for evolution until in 1953 it was discovered to be a forgery . It was actually found to be a recent human skull combined with a female orangutan jaw, and was dyed and slightly modified to give it the appearance of age. It’s interesting to note how all textbooks before 1953 showed Piltdown man in every human’s family tree, then one day it was no longer “true”. The British Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as forgeries as well.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed modern human.

Yes, Piltdown Man was exposed in 1953 as a forgery. That does not disprove evolutionary theory. There are plenty of other perfectly legitimate hominid fossils that go back as far as 6-7 million years ago. Your pathetically dishonest creationist website is dismissed.
 
No the serpent did but it according to science had legs at the time. Then God cursed the SNAKE and things changed.

A snake with legs is a lizard.

There ARE legless lizards, though.
 
Overcomeproblems.com - Theory of Evolution Disproved

Piltdown Man- The “Piltdown “ skull was first “ discovered” in England in1912 by Charles Dawson. For Forty –one years it was leading evidence for evolution until in 1953 it was discovered to be a forgery . It was actually found to be a recent human skull combined with a female orangutan jaw, and was dyed and slightly modified to give it the appearance of age. It’s interesting to note how all textbooks before 1953 showed Piltdown man in every human’s family tree, then one day it was no longer “true”. The British Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as forgeries as well.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed modern human.


Oh lord, bringing up Piltdown Man? It was disproved, using SCIENCE! Scientists do that. You had to go back 60 years? Lame...

But, you think every animal somehow made it across the world to live in a boat and went back and repopulated the world...sure, whatever..
 
NO. NO IT DID NOT. Serpents *never* had legs. Serpents' ancestors did.

Snakes' ancestors are not snakes.

:lamo

You really believe this evolution BS dont you?


Got any proof of this?
 
Yes, Piltdown Man was exposed in 1953 as a forgery. That does not disprove evolutionary theory. There are plenty of other perfectly legitimate hominid fossils that go back as far as 6-7 million years ago. Your pathetically dishonest creationist website is dismissed.



Right my website is dishonest for showing a skull to be a hoax. got it.
 
Right my website is dishonest for showing a skull to be a hoax. got it.

No, your website is dishonest for claiming one hoax debunks 150 years of evolutionary science.
 
No, your website is dishonest for claiming one hoax debunks 150 years of evolutionary science.

What The Fossil Records Show

Throughout the 1900’s Scientists continually studied the fossil records to try and determine if the theory of evolution was really the “fact of evolution”. If the theory of evolution were fact, then the fossil records would clearly show the gradual transformation over long periods of time that Darwin spoke of. But despite intense research for over 150 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no instances of a transitional form have been found in the fossil records. What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what we went before it. Why evolutionists look the other way and call this a lie is incredible .These few quotes on the subject speak for themselves !

As an example , if the theory of evolution were true , then the fossil records would ALWAYS show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. Though this is NOT always the case. Instead , fully formed life forms have been discovered to suddenly jump into fossil record seemingly from nowhere , with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Many evolutionist do not dispute this fact , while other look the other way.
 
What The Fossil Records Show

Throughout the 1900’s Scientists continually studied the fossil records to try and determine if the theory of evolution was really the “fact of evolution”. If the theory of evolution were fact, then the fossil records would clearly show the gradual transformation over long periods of time that Darwin spoke of. But despite intense research for over 150 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no instances of a transitional form have been found in the fossil records. What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what we went before it. Why evolutionists look the other way and call this a lie is incredible .These few quotes on the subject speak for themselves !

As an example , if the theory of evolution were true , then the fossil records would ALWAYS show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. Though this is NOT always the case. Instead , fully formed life forms have been discovered to suddenly jump into fossil record seemingly from nowhere , with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Many evolutionist do not dispute this fact , while other look the other way.

1. Generally speaking, it's considered good form to link to the source we're copy and pasting from. I know damn well YOU didn't come up with that.

2. The entire premise is false. For starters, every fossil is a transitional fossil of some kind. Secondly, the fossil record is not 100% complete, due to a number of reasons -- fossils only are created under certain conditions; many fossils are still undiscovered; the fossil record is heavily slanted toward creatures with hard parts (sorry, soft-bodied organisms!).

Again, this does nothing to disprove evolutionary theory; rather, your poorly cribbed screed simply displays a lack of knowledge about how fossils work.

F. See me after class.
 
Java Man- When this was “discovered” in 1891 by Dr. Eugene Dubois , two other skulls were found in the same formation and of the same age which were no different from skulls of modern Australian aborigines. Dubois formed java man from a chimp-like skullcap, human thigh bone, and teeth, all found within 50 feet of each other and he simply put them together , assuming they were from the same man. Java man was later discredited by the finder himself, Dr Eugene Dubois, as actually being a gibbon in 1938. Yet despite Dubois recanting java man was left in many text books. As we can see many scientist who claimed “scientific evidence” may simply be making guesses. True science has no place for guessing.

Nebraska Man- In 1922 a tooth was discovered in Nebraska By Dr Henry Fairfield Osborn who examined the tooth and claimed it had characteristic of a man, chimp and Java Man. Years later it was determined the tooth was actually from an extinct pig.

In summary, when bones are found ,there is no way for even the best of scientists to state with certainty that they all came from same being, or what that being looked like, or what type of life that being lived . Yes, educated guesses can always be made , but they will be always guesses.

Sounds like to me scientist wanting to get recognized will pull anything to get "funding".
 
Um, no, just as early hominids (ancestors of humans) were not humans.

"Snake" is not a species. Snakes are of the class reptilia, order squamata, suborder serpentes, and different types of snakes are species within that suborder. Lizards are also of the order squamata. The reptilia class also consists of turtles and crocodilians.
if you have to repeat yourself and it still doesn't sink in it never will.
 
1. Generally speaking, it's considered good form to link to the source we're copy and pasting from. I know damn well YOU didn't come up with that.

2. The entire premise is false. For starters, every fossil is a transitional fossil of some kind. Secondly, the fossil record is not 100% complete, due to a number of reasons -- fossils only are created under certain conditions; many fossils are still undiscovered; the fossil record is heavily slanted toward creatures with hard parts (sorry, soft-bodied organisms!).

Again, this does nothing to disprove evolutionary theory; rather, your poorly cribbed screed simply displays a lack of knowledge about how fossils work.

F. See me after class.


Overcomeproblems.com - Theory of Evolution Disproved

I already posted the website obvious you did no read it.

But you would think they would find some Fossils that would help to prove it but they have not.

Proven fact that even carbon dating has been inaccurate. But hey whatever to
 
Overcomeproblems.com - Theory of Evolution Disproved

I already posted the website obvious you did no read it.

But you would think they would find some Fossils that would help to prove it but they have not.

Proven fact that even carbon dating has been inaccurate. But hey whatever to

That website is hilarious! Great parody! My favorite:

Throughout the 1900’s Scientists continually studied the fossil records to try and determine if the theory of evolution was really the “fact of evolution”. If the theory of evolution were fact, then the fossil records would clearly show the gradual transformation over long periods of time that Darwin spoke of. But despite intense research for over 150 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no instances of a transitional form have been found in the fossil records. What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what we went before it. Why evolutionists look the other way and call this a lie is incredible .These few quotes on the subject speak for themselves !

I did not even have to highlite the funniest passage, the author did it for me. Oh, and here is one my my favorite(but apparently nonexistent) transitional fossil: Triadobatrachus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Triadobatrachus_BW.jpg
 
What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what we went before it.

:lamo
 
Last edited:
Yup I agree.

Which just goes to show that you have no intellectual curiosity or desire to learn anything about evolution. You just want to continue to post ludicrously wrong claims from your fact-free website and live in denial. Suit yourself.
 
snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.


Which would explain why God said to the snake.

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
BS ...Snake do not eat dust.
 
Great a skeleton of an extinct frog proves what exactly? that animals have become extinct!

It is something your source claims does not exist, a fossil of a transitional species.
 
BS ...Snake do not eat dust.


They dont are you sure? I already addressed this earlier you did not read it did you?

Ever seen a snake constantly sticking its tongue out while they are crawling along? think dust ever gets on that tongue?

can you tell me of another species that is always sticking its tongue out?
 
They dont are you sure? I already addressed this earlier you did not read it did you?

Ever seen a snake constantly sticking its tongue out while they are crawling along? think dust ever gets on that tongue?

can you tell me of another species that is always sticking its tongue out?

Anteaters.

You think the snake sticking his tongue out (which it does not do to eat, but for sensory purposes) somehow validates the biblical story and thus disproves evolution?
 
Back
Top Bottom