How can anyone believe in 'The Theory of Evolution'?

Question

The theory of evolution's strongest supporting "evidence", does NOT exist. It is the "Common Ancestor". There is not a single shred of evidence of such a beast/man, out of the masses of them, that must have been for us to be here. Where is the evidence? What kind of creature was it, half man, half ape? What is it called? Everyone knows these questions can't be answered by 'intelligent', 'knowledgeable' people and, since this "Common Ancestor", so crucial in proving the theory of evolution, turns out to be a figment of evolutionist's imagination, how can the 'theory (scientific 'fact') of evolution' possibly stand up and be believed?

I am NOT a creationist, nor any other religionist, just a truth seeker.

Answer 1

There are hundreds of fossils of our ancestors, from early humans (homo sapiens idaltu) all the way back to the Australopithecines. In fact, as far as mammals go, the fossil evidence of human ancestors is extensive.

Evolution is a fact - the fossil record bears that out. Evolution is also a theory - the 'theory' of evolution is the means by which scientists believe that the fact of evolution occurred. In other words, there is no doubt among scientists that evolution does and is occuring, there is only controversy as to what mechanisms drive it and to what extent (sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.)

To be honest, unless you are religious, there is no reason to doubt evolution. Evolution, as theories go, is well-proven and is the backbone of all modern Biology. Might as well deny the holocaust, while you're at it.

I don't know which version of truth you seek - the one that actually occurred, or the one that best fits your ideas and preconceptions of the world around you. Given the available evidence, evolution is the only plausible answer to the diversity and adaptability of life on Earth. If that doesn't suit you, you can turn to whatever explanation you wish, but it won't fit the evidence.

edit: for some real proof of the common ancestry between man and apes, look up "Human Chromosome 2."

Answer 2

i totally agree with you not because iam a christian but common sense yes in history its true but in reality nothing like that happened if it was a true story then why are the apes of today growing and dying apes it was suppose to be a continous process i think and i also believe thay could have been finished and all be human beings today.

Answer 3

The "missing link" or "common ancestor" issue is a red herring. It doesn't address the basics of evolution.

The best site to learn about evolution is:

National Academy of Sciences: (Guidebook on Evolution)

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

To quote from this source:



"Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and earth have changed through time, and so has life on earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

"Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

A common comment is that man "descended from the apes." Consider:

"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we shared common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

There was recently a "common ancestor" Pierolapithecus catalaunicus was proposed for both humans and apes. In no way was it suggested to be "half man, half ape." See:

http://www.primates.com/pierolapithecus/...

As for evidence consider the deep sea cores. Here the sediment deposits contain the remains of shelled creatures. Through hundred of feet of cores, one can trace the gradual evolution of the species.

Answer 4

Yeah, right, you're the victim. You didn't launch in to insults from the very start at all (I'm being sarcastic).

Anyway that aside, what about these: Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Pierolapithecus, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin etc. They are clearly transitional, in time and morphology, between ancient monkeys and apes. The later two between apes and hominids. Then the 20 odd hominid fossil species clearly show incremental changes, through time and morphology, however exactly they all fit together. Even standing back, Ardipithecus then Australopithecus, then Homo.

These are all "beast/man". Hence they clearly answer your question. More importantly, however precisely they fit together, they show the overall pattern.

The common ancestor (of what exactly, please define your terms) may be one of the forms mentioned above. But science cannot assume it is. It is very far from likely that we have all species represented by fossils. And how exactly would you know it was?

And that is exactly the point isn't it. You are performing the Creationist trick of  ignoring all other evidence, and demanding "proof" from an impossible source.

Pay attention and think about it: It is totally false and illogical to say that human evolution rests on finding an exact common ancestor in fossils!!

Common ancestry between us and living species is evidenced by far far far more than just fossils. For example:

Vestiges, eg. our non-functional L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene (used for Vitamin C synthesis in non-primates). The huge number of non-functional odorant receptor genes, the non-functional RT6 protein gene, the non-functional galactosyl transferase gene, the non-functional TYRL pseudogene, our imperfect eye proteins compared to new world monkeys since our nocturnal ancestors etc. etc. Not to mention the common retrovirus insertions in us and living apes that I have given you before (but which you ignored in your fervour of demanding proof from an impossible source).

Then there are genetic clocks, based on mutation rates, which place the separation between us and our closest relatives roughly around 5 million years ago, consistent with the fossils. Our merged chromosome 2, present and past biogeography, developmental biology and embryology (creationist mud throwing aside), plain genetic similarity, and etc etc.

And this is just a sound bite of the huge, vast scientific evidence, that is all consistent with humans evolution. Scientists are not idiots. If you have a better theory that explains ALL the evidence, lets hear it and scrutinise it.

I've wasted enough time, you can respond with insults now.

Answer 5

Oh dear!..judging by the content of your post you would be struggling to believe in ..special and general relativity, quantum physics, cosmology or even Wiles proof of the Fermat theorem. What were neanderthals,homo erectus, the australopithecines? Look where I point ..do not bite my finger!

And these are only 'crucial' fossils in the theory of human evolution. The entire theory has fossils as evidence and the darwinian explanation of natural selection favouring random mutations as a possible scenario for the development of life on earth.If you can come up with a better alternative, then you'd better start publishing! So called intelligent design theory (or creationism by default) fails on purely logical bases.

To infer from the relationships between particulars a property of the whole is junk logic. The theory of evolution is work in progress and it will stand or fall by future discoveries and investigation..not by the dead hand of  outmoded and disreputable scripture.

Fcukssake! amulance, straitjaiket an meds 4 american boy

He's even weirder than the yanky fundies oan here! Wee r oan here to win! no listen tae bible bashin weirdo *******.. ma man on here said it all.. so gies the pints!

Answer 6

Do you have something against science? If not than you should realize that evolution is a THEORY. A theory is the most supported idea in science, beyond a law. That means that there is no evidence against it and a massive load of evidence for it. You and your fake and ignorant disproof is a joke. I don't go to your alcoholics anonymous meetings and try to prove that alcohol doesn't have detrimental effects to the body.

Answer 7

To h**l with it....or oblivion.

Answer 8

YES I basically AGREE - although I have no great problem with the proven theory of micro-evolution, just the muddled conjecture called macro-evolution.      

1. It doesn't account for the origin of life, which is presumed.

2. It doesn't account for creation of consciousness.

Life evolving from none life I am sure we would all agree is an impossibility !!!!  yet make an exception for the Big-Bang theory ?

All the living creatures in the fossil record appear intact and in their perfect forms. For instance, before crocodiles and squirrels, there exist no fossils belonging to any strange creature partly resembling a crocodile, and in other parts to a squirrel or other living creatures. Squirrels have always remained squirrels, and crocodiles have always remained crocodiles. All these facts reveal that the claim of the theory of evolution, that "Living beings have gradually evolved over millions of years of time" is simply a product of imagination.

Believing that pure chance can produce perfect designs goes well beyond the bounds of reason.

Believing in evolution on the 'grand' scale is like saying an explosion in a printing factory could put together a dictionary and that one day that dictionary would become an encyclopedia !!

I don't understand why people WANT to be able to say they came from a 'monkey' an ape or a gorilla ! Y'all have issues with esteem.

Answer 9

If a detailed reference work {say something comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica} arrived on Earth in coded form and was indisputably of extra terrestrial origin, it would surely be proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.

The information contained in human DNA is even more detailed, so how is it that it's explained away by so called 'natural causes', a product of a random sequence of events. I believe in Creation not Evolution because to me it's the only reasonable explanation for the complexities of life.

Sorry, that was a rather indirect way of saying that no, I don't believe we came from apes!

Answer 10

First off, the "Theory of Evolution" - is a pretty well proven theory.  True, in the HUMAN line, we may not have the proverbial "missing link" that has been found, or perhaps it has, but we just don't realize it yet.  Evolution applies to ALL living things, both plant and animal.  You can see the changes to plants throughout the eons thanks to plant fossils and impressions, and particularly in the aspect of microscopic organisms we have witnessed changes and evolution in our own lifetimes... bacteria grow resistant to antibacterial things, because we sterilize everything in our lives now, so when a bacteria does survive, it adapts, and poof, evolution in progress... so if that doesn't answer the question of how these knowledgable people, and reguardless of if you realize brains and common sense when you see them, it is about as much a "theory" as gravity is, so there you go.  If you really want to understand what evolution is, and start asking intelligent questions, actually read some books about it, best off to start at the begining, The Origen of Species" by Darwin.  another book to read is "The Naked Ape" - the Author escapes me now.

Answer 11

It makes the most sense to me out of all the other ideas, hypotheses, and half-baked theories that people come up with. It is based on evidence, and although that's not enough for some, it works for me.

Basically, I think (and I could be wrong) that it boils down to creationism or evolution. I've looked at all sorts of ideas about creationism, eveything from a single omnipotent being who got bored and decided to make people to a cow that for some reason existed and then proceeded to l**k giants into being from the ice.

I think its no more unlikely that we all evolved from a mass of random particles that formed by happy chance into something that could move and think than it is that some god/s thought "Hey, people would be a good idea!"

And there is evidence. Its not foolproof, granted, but its the best we've got.

Answer 12

well maybe you're right - tell you what lets all believe in some imaginary being who lives in the sky- he made our ancestors and he loves us all indefinitely and unconditionally shall we?

lets not .

science hasn't got all the answers - yet .

religion hasn't got any of them and never will have because they are all too busy fighting .

the theory of evolution is exactly what it says on the tin - a theory - but it makes sense on so many levels.DNA etc seem to back it up but i would never hold with the theory that we all came from 'one pair' so to speak.

interestingly the native Australians have stories which they have passed down for thousands of years ( they now put them into paintings) .they call them dreams. one of the stories is how we all came from the water as different creatures long before we were people ( sounds like evolution to me)

I'm not calling this proof - but it adds to the theory.

sooner or later the truth will out - it's definitely worth the search but i really don't think it's worth fighting over.

have a good day

Answer 13

some people just want to believe in anything. Does the words gullible apply to this?  I hear all to often of Darwin and what not... Most people fail to remember Darwin wrote his theory in a time that was struggling with religions. People were looking for an excuse to say God does not exist.  There for they could do what they wanted and not feel the weight of the church upon them. His timing in writing the theory of evolution catapulted that time era into chaos because of it. Thus it has continued on until this day.  So? where is the missing link? I would hate for people to think they are ancestors to a chimpanzee.... Well if they believe it then maybe they deserve to be a relative of monkeys.

Answer 14

It's is worth having a look at Darwin's opening to the Origin of the th Species...  He 'does' allude to the theory almost as a blueprint of ( and I hope my memory serves me well) "a great architect"... (sorry that I cannot be clearer: cannot immediately lay my hands on my copy).  So Darwin does not with this theories writeoff a Creator...

As to evidence: from that go to the Voyages of HMS Beagle. Observations of various subspecies (mutations of 'parent' species) threw up the suggestion that if this process so in a given species... that it may be so in others..... This idea is a theory.... evidence is still coming in.

I am mainly a (Very maturing - in years) Student of  Philosophy - I see honest science and honest religion as like the two arms of a pincer - if both arms could shake free of their pre-conceptions and be a little humble - they should see that they are approaching truth from two different angles... an help humanity to gain an uplifting grip on the truth.

Answer 15

Of course the common ancestor does not exist today. Not even your great great great grandmother exists, and she's only five generations back. You possibly don't even have any photos of her. That doesn't mean she was never there.

Our closest *living* species relatives are the chimpanzees and bonobos. We broke away from each other 6 million years ago before chimpanzees split into chimps and bonobos. We know this because of genetic similarities, as well as clear morphological ones (anatomy). We can also observe an increasing similarity to other apes going backwards through fossils relating to proto-humans.

What is important to understand is we are NOT descended from chimps. Chimps and humans are descended from the same animal.

Is there a fossil of the common ancestor? Not (yet discovered) for the human-chimp one (or not properly identified), but there are actually very few chimp fossils in general. Forest floors don't encourage fossilisation. But chimps certainly exist today! The lack of fossil evidence for that particular moment is not crucial - there is DNA evidence and fossils from earlier and later periods that is not only consistent with this view, but compelling towards it. There are not fossils for every animal that ever lived; fossilisation is actually rare and needs certain conditions. It's the best theory given the information we know. (Certainly a better one than we suddenly came into being six million years ago looking an awful lot like other apes and *then* evolved into modern humans. The evidence for continuing human evolution after the split is overwhelming, and for ape evolution before the split, too.)

This animal does exist today, insofar as we and chimps still exist, but not in the form it had when the split happened. Most biologists think it probably looked more like a chimp than a human, although a few suggest that it was at least biped and that chimps actually "went back" to walking on all fours, because it suited their environment. The truth is - we don't exactly know. But we don't exactly know it in the same way we don't exactly how many people died in the Black Death. Our lack of precise knowledge doesn't mean that nobody died!

What are the reasons why its descendants changed and split into three remaining and several extinct species? Natural selection under environmental pressure. Chimpanzees are now much better suited to forest-dwelling, we are now much better suited to plain-dwelling, which is where most subsequent proto-human fossils are found. In each generation, and over many generations, those born with a better ability to deal with their environment would survive.

How does variation happen? Animals never look exactly like their parents. Even asexually produced offspring can occasionally contain faults in the DNA copying process, and sexual reproduction obviously allows for new traits. Most strange differences will not matter, or will actually kill the organism (genetic diseases). But some will give a slight advantage. Even a slight advantage reproduced over many, many generations will eventually have a big impact. (Within our own species: look at the typical noses of northern Europeans and of sub-saharan Africans - Northern European noses are better for dealing with very cold air going into the body. And that's less than 50,000 years evolutionary time.)

One of the keys to understanding evolution is understanding just how long it takes (3,000,000,000 years since the oldest surviving bacterial fossils - so even longer than that). This is an unbelievably, incomprehensibly long time. For example, the movement onto land: It starts off with some fish going a little bit onto the land in search of food (there are fish that do this now), or to evade predators. But 99% of their time is spent in water. Over many, many generations (many=thousands or even millions) of these slightly amphibious fish interbreeding and reinforcing any genetic traits that enhance their ability to use land,  there may be a slow change in the balance of time spent in or out of the water (it depends what helps them best survive and breed). There may also be a local catastrophe (e.g. a drought) that accelerates the selection process (if it doesn't kill absolutely all the fish). What are localised oddities to the original mass of that species slowly or suddenly become better fit for the environment they inhabit and they survive to breed and flourish. We can see simple elements in the changing plumage of birds in accordance with the level of long-term pollution in one place, or the distinct development of the isolated London Underground mosquito.

We and chimps parted company about 6 million years ago. That's a very, very long time for our differences to form. Certainly long enough.

Truth-seeker, the modern "controversy" over the theory of evolution is purely the invention of fundamentalist Protestant church leaders, mainly in the United States. They do it because they have been preaching for the last 300 years that the Christian bible is a 100% accurate historical account untouched by human editing or error. This, incidentally, shows that they don't even know the history of their own good book.  Not even the Catholic church - which officially recognises evolution as fact - believes any more that the bible is a book about science. Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism and most of Islam is happily reconciled with evolution. The bald truth: there is no controversy to evolution, just a lot of suspiciously rich fundamentalists telling people there is.

Answer 16

If you can understand this you can understand evolution. This is not how any animal evolved but possibly same situations in a very brief form. Natural Selection is basically survival of most adapted. Genes able to be passed on because they survived life become more common genes unable become less till they vanish.

Say a large group of an animal called [1234] has 1,2,3,4 types in gene of an animal which can walk & climb on 4 hand/legs migrated to a land on forest with patches of flat land. Ones born with more type:

1 was good at finding food on ground [walking].

2 was good at finding food in heights [climbing].

3 was bigger [strength] .

4 could move faster [speed].

In a forest at a time when food could be found only up in trees or had to travel long on ground to find. Only ones born with more or just 1 & 2 type gene will find food easiest. This is where Natural selection comes in. 3 types would die out quickly as every one wont survive to pass on the gene because strength is not helping in this condition. 4 would have to chase its food rarely passing on its gene. 1 type would venture the ground for food carrying its type through generations. 2 type would venture up the trees for food carrying its type through generations. Both 1 & 2 types will be popular in the population .

[124]

1-40%

2-40%

4-20%

With large numbers groups can split to migrate different parts of the forest because having these diverse types in gene some groups will venture into the flat land while others will venture into the thick forest some will stay in between. Thes isolations will start the Natural selections & create variations.

The groups of [124] which migrated to the flat lands will gradually eliminate any 2 types because every 2 types born will have a harder survival  meaning harder to pass on type. Gradually type 2 will vanish from this group (Natrual Selection). This new group will in time master the grounds and become [141].

The group of [124] which migrated the deep forest  will eliminate 1 types in the genes through natural selection this will in time create a [242] develop 4 hands all for climbing. The long time seperation & new veriations between the two groups which went two ways [141] & [242] they can not breed together.

The [124] which stayed in the same place able to survive & grow in population will then again have groups migrate to different places due to competiton. Some would stay put some go . The ones who stay put in the part forest part flat land would time to time have to move across from both types of habitat two sub groups could form one which chases its prey on land favouring the 4 type this would create [1244] they will have 2 legs for walking & 2 hand/legs for gripping & walking but extra speed giving ability to chase prey these later leave the forest for good. And ones which can get food in trees & on land favouring the 1 & 2 type genes will create [112]. Soon [124] will be one small group which stays in the deep forest to become [242] later making [124] extinct due to competition of new species which are more adapted to the place. [112] with its sucess will have a large population which groups again migrate due to competition. The ones who stay put will only evolve better to the place and become [1122]. The [112] to migrate on land will be able to fully walk on two feet & become [1121] they would have two hands for gripping and two feet for walking.

Examples

[1244] four legs fully developed predator (Cheeta)

[141] four legs fully developed land (Horse)

[242] four hands fully developed climbing (Monkey)

[1122] two hands/feet two feet fully developed climbing partial walk  (Chimp)

[1121] two hands two feet fully developed walking partial climb (Human)

Common Ancestors extinct through competition & natural selection

[1234] extinct. (Common Ancestor for all)

[124]   extinct

[112]   extinct

This shows how our & other apes ancestors don't exists no more nor are we descendants of any animals living beside us today i.e other apes. Humans have a unique variation due to natural selection possibly of similar situations above it is very unlikley a species like us can happen again. Mainly because the apes ancestor does not exist to create a human like species. And that ape species now have their foundations in their habitats eliminating competition and future migration. Only if an large group of chimps were to live isolated for thousands of years through conditions which made us humans that group of chimp will look nothing like us. Apes are not under developed humans they are evolved forest apes while humans are evolved forest/land/sea side almost anywhere apes thats why we could progress and later populate the whole world with are ability to walk and communicate today we live almost anywhere not isolated so natural selection is almost impossible to happen again.

Answer 17

I have the same thoughts, when I was young I read that "fish came out of the sea and became amphibians" how the h**l did that happen, has anyone ever seen a fish come out of the sea? no, they would die its ludicrous, and "man evolved from apes" ok so why are there still apes, why didnt they all evolve into men, why are chimps not using mobiles, why didnt crocodiles evolve into some other form, they have been the same for millions of years, or sharks, there are huge holes in this so called "theory" that seem to be just glossed over, I dont know where we came from, or what happened, but I cant accept a half assed theory like "evolution" it just dosnt make any sense.

Answer 18

I can suggest a simple homework. Study a little about genetics, the molecular basis of DNA.

That is the closest you will get to the basis of evolution.

The human hemoglobin has an almost identical chemical composition of the chipanzee hemoglobin

Our DNA has very few differences from the monkey's DNA

These are some proven facts, confirmed by investigators all over the world, especially in criminal investigations.

These investigations are the accepted basis for conviction of criminals and establishment of paternity, diagnosis of diseases, etc

I don't believe these facts can be ignored by a rational person. Especially if someone rejects these proven facts and adopts other theories which have no possible evidence, such as creationism.

If you are a truth seeker, face the truth and the facts as a starting point. You have to open up your mind to different possibilities. You appear to be very dogmatic .

After I have said all that I realize that there is no possible way to convince you or anyone else whose mind is locked on an idea. I know that it will never change, no matter how strong the evidence is.

As they say, some people ignore the truth even when she slaps them on the face.

I

Answer 19

Since man has learned to splice genes, man has learned that his genes have been spliced. 'Evolution Jim but NOT as we know it.'

Darwin's theory is as valid as the Bibles, it's an entertaining read and an interesting viewpoint but it is very flawed. His own assistant made discoveries that made a mockery of Darwins work.  Clearly the microbiologies of this world are the dominant, and it is little more than Christian egotism that allows Darwin his indulgance. There is a Pre-Inca stone tablet that shows the seven beasts that we were engineered from. We did not evolve, we were created.

Answer 20

We shouldn't believe in the theory of evolution. It is just a theory. Theory means- it is just a statement but not proven.

Answer 21

You haven't done much truth seeking have you?

What's your intelligent, knowledgable alternative theory? I just can't wait to hear this.

The missing link is the important one. It is a monkey which has a cranium structure with an internal node which indictaes the potential capacity to speak. It was found years ago and If you're so interested I'm amazed you haven't found out about it.

Answer 22

It is truly a shame that you come across as so bitter.

If this topic really affects your life this much, you should consider leaving it unresolved and move on.

Answer 23

I totally concur with you.  Both conjectures (Creationism, which needs tweaking, and the Evolution/Uniformitarian Model, which is severe misinterpretation of the data) need to be set aside for a third more comprehensive model.

This third candidate will entirely support the Holy Scriptures once Christians realize that their dating of 6,000 years for the age of the Earth is wrong and that the 6 days of Creation are actually 6 (day) “epochs” to the chronological history of our Solar System, which spans between 11 million to 24 million years.  Additionally, the geological “marker” of 6,000 years that they cite as proof of a 6,000-year Earth really is the result of periodic and cyclic cosmocataclysms that have annihilated the Earth, thus stopping and restarting the “geological clock” in 6,000-year increments.  Simultaneously, the highly over exaggerated age of the Earth at 5 billion years is also erroneous as claimed by the Evolutionary/Uniformitarian Model, and Evolutionists will understand this once they realize that our paternal star is NOT our current Sun, but the star Sirius B, for the Sirius Binary is the missing half of our Solar System which was formerly a tertiary system with 3 stars and 11 planets as documented in the ancient record.  

Sirius B was originally a Blue Supergiant B-1 class hydrogen-burning star that was about 5 solar masses larger than our current Sun, and thus, as is the case with all Blue Supergiants, had only a 10 million year life expectancy, because hydrogen stars are fast burning stars.  In the first “epoch” we had only 2 members to our system, the Earth and Sirius B (Sirius A, our Sun [technically being Sirius C], and 10 other planets were still in the belly of Sirius B, and would be ejected later in a mass stellar ejection due to a cometary impact [Comet Metis: “Prudence” or “Knowledge”] that impacted into Sirius B’s equatorial region).  

This cometary impact event had to occur “before” Sirius B reached its 9th million year when it would have normally completely depleted its hydrogen and hyperdilated 100 times it’s mass into a helium-burning Red Supergiant.  Sirius B NEVER reached this stellar phase due to the cometary impact, which caused a 70% depletion of its mass as it expelled a stellar ejection that formed Sirius A, 10 new planets and our Sun, called by the Ancients the “Osirian Trinary Stellar System”.  Hence, the "Sacred Triad" in pagan religion and the pantheon of gods is merely the "personification" of the "Sirian Trichotmy"; thus Sirius B was the "Great Father Begetter God" (Or, Ouranos, Uranus, Orion, Osiris, Apsu, Orpheus, Orcus, Apollo, Balder, Cronos, etc); Sirius A (the "Goddess Star") was the "Great Mother Goddess of the Gods" (Rhea [which literally means "discharge", for she discharged from the side of her brother/husband, Sirius B], Hera, Aphrodite, Venus, Isis ["the woman": Eve born out of the side of Adam (Sirius B)], Cybele, Tiamat, etc.); and Sirius C (our Sun), which established a binary relationship with Sirius B at the core of the system, for it was the last material to eject out but did not have enough velocity to escape Sirius B, was the "Great Child God/Hero" (Heracles, Hercules, Marduk, Zeus, Horus, etc.)  

Sirius A was the outer star in the tertiary system, orbiting the body of the system, and was perceived as the "head".  This "head" would later be mythologies as the decapitated head of Medusa when the tertiary system split in two; and catapulted so close was the Earth in this calamity (the nebula discontinuity of Sirius B) that earthbound witnesses recorded the solar flares of Sirius A as her venomous serpentine hair.

So what this means is that “before” the Earth was a mere 9 million years in age, this cometary event and subsequent stellar discharge took place… it was witnessed by earthbound intelligent humans who recorded the event into the mythological record… which clearly indicates that modern Homo sapiens had already come into existence within the first 9 million years of the Earth’s age. Hence, Evolution with its gargantuan ages and “species evolving” mechanism is completely erroneous.

The cometary impact was the causative agent of the Flood on Earth, for the impact into Sirius B sprayed outwardly stellar debris that pulverized the Earth with mass celestial bombardment which collapse the “vapor canopy” that originally encapsulated the Earth, which I call the “Prima Altohydrosphere”… just as Creationists have successfully conjectured being a bubble of frozen H2O, carbon, nitrogen and other trace elements that compressed the atmospheric pressure to produce a 30% greater oxygen concentrate and a 300% greater geomagnetic amplitude resulting in “Gigantism” in which EVERYTHING grew to be enormous in stature, and had great longevity in life expectancy.  Hence, Noah and the populous of the Earth had to be giants, which appear to be substantiated by St. Augustine who wrote in his book, “The City of God”, about the bones of giant 36-feet tall humans often found on the shores of North Africa in his day, including his personal eye witness account of the unearthing from the African seashore of a giant human molar the size of a man’s fist.

The mass celestial bombardment of Earth from the “Metisian Impact Event” on Sirius B for the first time ruptured the Earth’s weakest and thinnest surface, the oceanic floors, with great rift faults and adjacent perpendicular fracture zones.  One gigantic megabollide projectile impacted into the Southeast Pacific off the coast of Chile.  The “antipodal force” shot straight through the middle of the Earth and ruptured out the opposite side.  This immense force uplifted an entire vast river valley region dotted with large lakes, rivers and an inland saltwater sea and instantly shot it straight up into the air approximately 3 miles… this today is the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau.

Another massive megabollide land in the midst of a continental plateau that today no longer exists, it carved out a massive hole, being the largest visible crater impact site in the Solar System, its superstructure exceeding the Helles Crater on Mars (1,300 miles in diameter) by an additional 500 miles.  This was mythologized as the fire-breathing monster Aegides recorded in the Mythocorpus (body of myth).  The titanic pressure from the impact created an area rich in rare elements, cobalt, diamonds, radium, etc.  It has not yet been identified by geologists because they cannot see the forest from the trees. I have identified it as the “Congo Gigacrater” of central Africa.  It is no wonder that the African Blacks do not have a “flood myth” as do all the other worldwide and diverse cultures, for Africa was ground zero for the “Aegides Impact Event”, which following ensued the Great Flood as the Greek myth of Aegides indicates.  Additionally, it cracked the African Continent with the African Great Rift Fault Valley that extends up the Red Sea into the Dead Sea, and its antipodal force shot through the Earth and lifted from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean the islands of the Fiji, Salomon, and New Zealand Complex just as the myths of those cultures say.  

The Aegides Impact Event subsequently caused the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to SUDDENLY burst as the highly pressurized subterranean seas encapsulated within the asthenosphere of the Earth ruptured and jettisoned 20 miles into the sky.  The original sea level of the Earth was actually 2,800 feet below the current sea level.  The high precipitous mountains of today were nonexistent before the Flood, for these “uplifts” are “post-percussion features”, the direct result of “antipodal force” due to mass celestial bombardments.  In combination with the water in the collapsed frozen upper hydrospheric shield and the released subterranean seas, the sea level of the Flood must have rose 13,000 feet, and then reduced 10,200 feet to their current levels as 30% of the water resettled back into the subterranean cavities of the asthenosphere.  In the 1970’s, the U.S. Navy’s submersible geological research on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge reached these same conclusions.      

Rather than Evolution it appears that life emerged on Earth via a “polybiological explosion” of life, all in unison, where the Prima Altohydrosphere created a womb-like pressure cooker out of the Edenic Earth that can be termed the “Geocrucible Effect”, and requiring the irradiation not from a small G-2 class star like our Sun, but from a Blue Supergiants as quantum equations in 2002 determined that the heavier rare element on the Earth and in the human body could not have been created by our tiny star, but are the by-product of a Blue Supergiant.  So in reality life emerged via the process of “Spontaneous Polybiological Mass Profusionism” (SPMP) where the entire genetic species “Pool of Life” emerged to be “contemporaneous”.  The Egyptian Book of the Dead clearly infers to this process.  This ancient collection of “wisdom” appears to be fragments of scientific data from a former global technoculture (predating the ancient history to our current Earth Age) that had already figured out the quantum physics of our origins, but was completely wiped off the face of the Earth by one of the periodic cosmocataclysms.

Evolutionists have misinterpreted the Geological Column.  The stratification was not formed through long geological time.  It was formed SUDDENLY in periodic waves from the onslaught of cyclic cosmocataclysms.  We live on a “hydraulic planet”, and when it is catapulted through space from these titanic events that knock it off its axial of rotation, then the ocean displace out of their basins and overrun the continents due to “inertia”.  This in turns entombs life into alluvium soil (mud), being the primary agent for “fossilization”.  As the seas drain off the continents back into the basins the hydraulic viscosity suspends material in the medium according to its weight, thus forming STRATIFICATON of the Geological Column, and in the midst of it are the dead.  Thus, it is these periodic extinction level sidereal events that whittled away at the original “Pool of Life” incrementally entombing percentages of it into the Fossil Record.

Answer 24

As stupid as it sounds we were made by Aliens or what people would call God and that is why in the bible has god seen as living in the sky. In caves there are paintings that go back 1000s of years of Alien like creatures that came from the sky!

Aleins made us for some reason thats why there is no missing link

Answer 25

All you questions can be answered.  If you are really a truth seeker you should read a few books.

Answer 26

Very quick question Truthseeker:

Why do you not look like an exact replica of your dad and mom?

Why do you look more like your dad and mom then your neighbor's dad and mom?

This is called genetic heritage and also diversity. If you'd give up a whole slew of evidence because you cant find one that you persistently look for then so be it. But if you'd rather believe in a book written by nomads of a desert who had their turban wound too tightly, thats your prerogative too.

Answer 27

Truth seeker - I haven't looked at other answers yet and I know that there will be a lot of flak - agree with you 100% - the died in the wool evolutionists are todays flat earthers.  Evolution works perfectly on some levels but it is on a micro rather than macro level - it does not offer any explanation as to how we got here.  There is only one truth and that is we don't know.  I suspect that we are not even close to the real story!  Nice to know that there is someone else who realises it is not either creationism or evolution but most likely neither.

Answer 28

Dude, are you in college? If you're so interested in this take a evolution course at your local college or university. These courses are widely popular and all science students are required to take them. In the course, they explain from the molecular level, the genetic level, and the physiology level, all the reasons why the "scientific theory" of evolution is the best explanation available. Your judgement of what the theory is at a very basic, crude level understood by the "common person". This understanding is largely incorrect, the theory is not about we came from apes. Nobody knows what exactly we came from, OKay?

The concept of science is not that our theory is absolutely correct, there is no "definite" answer, it's that we have so much evidence on a topic that we are very close to being sure that the theory is correct.

Take an example, the theory of gravity. We do not know that there is definitely gravity, but we can feel it, the evidence behind it is too much for the theory to be completely wrong. Thus, it represents the best explanation to explain what is happening around the world.

If you're in high school or what not, then be patient and wait till university to take a evolution course. It is is science though, and I don't figure you are exactly the type of person that enjoys science?

Answer 29

I am curious why anyone cannot accept the theory of Evolution.  Of course evidence exists that supports this theory.  Paleontologists have and continue to find evidence of creatures who lived in the Paleozoic period, Mesozoic era, Precambrian Eon, and I suggest you go to the wikipedia site, and just choose  one of the resources that will give you a better understanding of the time it took for this planet to create an environment that would support the beginning of life, a one celled entity.   You have not looked very hard if you can find no evidence of the development of our first ancestor as it evolved from a common ancestor.  I am intelligent, knowledgeable, and a seeker of information.  If you really want to find specimens that were the ancestors of the animals that now exist on this continent, and others, go to the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, and enjoy their museum.  Good luck, and good looking.

Answer 30

no proof of evolution, likewise, there is no "proof" of creation!  

Yet life was created at some point........

So, since there is little proof on either side of the arguments....how about........life was created in such a way that it was able to morph, adjust or EVOLVE in order to survive into the future of the environment........Natural selection allows for the strong or wise to survive........

Is it possible?  Both arguments have credibility as if you look at the human body, could that have happened by accident?........but yet there are several color of people on earth, each from a specific region.......if we were ONLY created, we would all be the same, wouldn't we?........dark skin prevents sunburn while the paler skin allow for more sun absorption (the northern areas)......Polar and grizzly bears are similar in size and in behavior.......the brown fur is found in the wooded areas while the white fur is found in predominantly snow covered areas........The brown fur wouldn't survive in the snowy regions because of lack of camouflage, likewise for the white fur in the wooded areas........... could this have been an evolutionary fork for the two animals?

Answer 31

I think that evolution is a true possibility. I have studied it, and it does seem to me like it is an explanation as to how this earth started without a Godly intervention.

As a non church going Christian ( i like to practice my religion my own way ) I think that it is very important to have more than one explanation as to how this world was created.  Two possibilities ( God vs Evolutuon) give rise to Free Will, which is what God intended for everyone.  People need to make up their own minds, people need to decide if they have faith or not.  

If there was no other explanations as to how this world could have started, people would need to believe in God, even if it was not their choice.

I am a truth seeker too, I happily change my opinions as I learn more, I think that this is how to achieve enlightenment - to keep an open mind, and admit when you are wrong

You cant discount evolution, as we are all continually evolving spritually, and progressively.  We may have come to the peak of our physical existance, but our mental attitudes need some work. This will come in time !

:o)