Quote Originally Posted by DDT
Well it is like this:

...

They are not willing to accept that their theory does not hold water because the alternative is what?........Intelligent Design. So they keep searching for facts that are not there.

The fossil record shows an abundance of life that appeared suddenly. There is nothing.....then there are heaps of fossilized life forms. Whets more the life forms that they find first are quite similar to plants and small life forms that we see today and are organically complex..
There is no indication of life starting slowly from single cell life forms.
Mathematicians have computed the odds of life being able to start on its own and grow into even a simple life form as a figure with an infinite number of zeros behind it and admit the odds make it "impossible".

There are fossilized trees still standing upright through supposedly millions and millions of years of strata. There are fossilized footsteps of what looks like human footprints in the strata that contains the evidence of dinosaurs.

Part of the problem is that the biologists date the age of the life form by the date the geologists give the rocks and the geologists date the age of the rocks by the date the biologists give the life forms.

AS far as the fossilized remains of Neanderthal or Australopithecus or Java Man and the likes. Some have been found to be nothing more than an extinct ape (Australopithecus) . Or in one case an elephants knee cap. Yes that’s right. A whole "early man" constructed out of an elephants knee cap. Another, Java , I think was a scull cap, a few teeth and a thigh bone found about 50 feet away. The thigh bone is from a woman so they put them all together and called it Pithecanthropus Erectus.

An entire family of “cavemen” was produced from what turned to be One Pigs Tooth and called Nebraska Man.

...

There are plenty of good reasons to keep your options open on this issue.
I think you have been reading too much of this "revolution against evolution" Whose references are all creationist research centres.

Let us take the "Nebraska Man" as an example. Sounds like a terriffic story doesn't it? A whole entire family of cavemen from one pig's tooth!

The counter argument I can find from this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

"Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. As creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs."

"The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett 1985; Gould 1991). Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii."

"The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."

"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)"

You can read more on the above mentioned website.

DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism, so I am assuming that you just want to show the inefficiencies with the Darwin evolution. but please, use real arguments and facts, and not half-truths and twisted information. I can go to my local political office for that. And stop generalizing!!!!

I am a open minded person, but unless you can give me some clear unbiased sources, I am afraid your time will be wasted, because I do not have the time to do research on these half-facts. If you had done the research yourself, you wouldn't even have mentioned "Nebraska Man" in the first place!