Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Human evolution

2009-06-05T19:55:09Z

BrandonB: fixing the indent.

I'm not sure evolution of man has been "thoroughly disproven". I'm not saying it is true, I'm saying the page is inacurate. Perhaps a re-write? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008
:"Thoroughly disproven" is perfectly accurate. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] for a ''very'' brief list. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 20:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)

That is a good list. Okay. [[User:AddisonDM]] 29 December 2008

This page is useless and looks silly, at two sentences long. Do any real (not Rod Weathers) editors here want it?? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:46, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
::I'll take a stab at it. I have seen both sides of the aguments, and took an evolutionary biology course in college, but the evidence isn't there. So I will try and write this page from the evolutionary stand point, but fixing what needs to be fixed to keep in in line with [[The Bible|the truth.]] --[[User:BrandonB|BrandonB]] 14:17, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Or not, as my factual edits have been reverted and the page locked. I'll find some other articles that I can edit, or maybe create some from the wanted pages list. --[[User:BrandonB|BrandonB]] 14:19, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
::::I was working on it as well, but from the standpoint of creation. If evolution is to be put in, it must be reduced to a theory; arguments countering this theory, as well as contradictions made by the [[Scientific method]] will be placed. Is that what you wanted to do, because if so, I will unlock it immediately. The neanderthals (as well as the australopithicines which will be added later) have to stay in do to their own placement in evo-books. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:23, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are in evo books, but in the books they say that they are not really part of human evolution. If we want to show the problems with the theory, we should at least get it right so the Darwinists will accept the arguments, and not just give them a straw man to take down easily. The best way to debate someone is to learn as much as possible about their position in order to knock down what the believe, and not what we think they believe. For instance, while listening to lectures by fairly high ranking people in the field of [[Creation Science]], many of them have mentioned the Piltdown and Nebraska men, the Archaeoraptor, Haeckel's Embryos, and many other well known frauds. When those people bring those examples up, most evolutionists (including me, in the past) would just shut off and not listen, as even they had accepted those long ago as frauds that are not part of the modern theory. We, as creationists, must stop using straw men and start using valid arguments against the true beliefs of the [[Darwinists]] if we want to crush their theory.
:::::--[[User:BrandonB|BrandonB]] 15:44, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Human evolution

2009-06-05T19:44:57Z

BrandonB:

I'm not sure evolution of man has been "thoroughly disproven". I'm not saying it is true, I'm saying the page is inacurate. Perhaps a re-write? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008
:"Thoroughly disproven" is perfectly accurate. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] for a ''very'' brief list. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 20:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)

That is a good list. Okay. [[User:AddisonDM]] 29 December 2008

This page is useless and looks silly, at two sentences long. Do any real (not Rod Weathers) editors here want it?? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:46, 30 May 2009 (EDT)
::I'll take a stab at it. I have seen both sides of the aguments, and took an evolutionary biology course in college, but the evidence isn't there. So I will try and write this page from the evolutionary stand point, but fixing what needs to be fixed to keep in in line with [[The Bible|the truth.]] --[[User:BrandonB|BrandonB]] 14:17, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Or not, as my factual edits have been reverted and the page locked. I'll find some other articles that I can edit, or maybe create some from the wanted pages list. --[[User:BrandonB|BrandonB]] 14:19, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
::::I was working on it as well, but from the standpoint of creation. If evolution is to be put in, it must be reduced to a theory; arguments countering this theory, as well as contradictions made by the [[Scientific method]] will be placed. Is that what you wanted to do, because if so, I will unlock it immediately. The neanderthals (as well as the australopithicines which will be added later) have to stay in do to their own placement in evo-books. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:23, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are in evo books, but in the books they say that they are not really part of human evolution. If we want to show the problems with the theory, we should at least get it right so the Darwinists will accept the arguments, and not just give them a straw man to take down easily. The best way to debate someone is to learn as much as possible about their position in order to knock down what the believe, and not what we think they believe. For instance, while listening to lectures by fairly high ranking people in the field of [[Creation Science]], many of them have mentioned the Piltdown and Nebraska men, the Archaeoraptor, Haeckel's Embryos, and many other well known frauds. When those people bring those examples up, most evolutionists (including me, in the past) would just shut off and not listen, as even they had accepted those long ago as frauds that are not part of the modern theory. We, as creationists, must stop using straw men and start using valid arguments against the true beliefs of the [[Darwinists]] if we want to crush their theory.
--[[User:BrandonB|BrandonB]] 15:44, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Human evolution

2009-06-05T18:19:13Z

BrandonB:

Talk:Human evolution

2009-06-05T18:17:43Z

BrandonB:

Human evolution

2009-06-05T18:13:32Z

BrandonB: Neanderthals were a separate branch of human evolution, if it happened, which it most likely didn't. Also, fixing the names of the last 2 steps in the evolution. We are double wise now.

'''Human evolution''' or '''paleoanthropology''' is a theory within [[evolution]] which posits that mankind evolved from more primitive species over the course of 40 million years, with the most dramatic changes occuring during the last 2 million years. An absence of intermediary fossils, no plausible pathway for the development of the brain, and countless other disproofs to the theory has rendered human evolution more of a philosophy of a belief system rather than a valid scientific concept.

{| border="1" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="1000" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="3"|
|-
!colspan="4" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Claimed chain of early humans/hominids according to evolutionary science
|-
! width="150" | Image
! width="200" | Species
! width="400" | Details
! width="120" | Claimed Dates
|-
| [[File:Ardipithecus ramidus.png|125px|center]]
| ''[[Ardipithecus ramidus]]''
| Earliest claimed fossil hominid.
| 4.4 mya
|-
| [[File:Australopithecus anamensis.png|125px|center]]
| ''[[Australopithecus anamensis]]''
| Found in Allia Bay in Kenya, and named in 1995.
| 4.2 - 3.9 mya
|-
| [[File:Australopithecus afarensis.png|125px|center]]
| ''[[Australopithecus afarensis]]''
| -
| 3.5 - 2.9 mya
|-
| [[File:Homo habilis.png|125px|center]]
| ''[[Homo habilis]]''
| Called ''handy man'' due to tools found near his remains
| 2.4 - 1.5 mya
|-
| [[File:Homo erectus.png|125px|center]]
| ''[[Homo erectus]]''
| -
| 1.8 mya - 300,000 years ago
|-
| [[File:Archaic Homo sapiens.png|125px|center]]
| ''[[Homo sapiens]]''
| -
| 500,000 - 200,000 years ago
|-
| [[File:Homo sapiens skull.png|125px|center]]
| ''[[Homo sapiens sapiens]]''
| -
| 120,000 years ago - present
|-
|}

== See Also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

[[category:Discredited Evolutionary Theories]]