Rat the size of a car

[qwerty guy]

The fossilised skull of a rat the size of a car has been unearthed. The creature lived about four million years ago, weighed about a tonne and ate mostly soft vegetation. It was so big that it probably spent much of its life semi-submerged in water, like a hippo, to reduce the stresses caused by its size.

Palaeontologists found the skull in rock deposits in Uruguay. It is believed to date back two to four million years to a time when giant wildlife was commonplace in South America.

The rodent, Josephoartigasia monesi, was uncovered by Andr

[Guest Guest]

It's funny how those fools take the evolutionary perspective by default; if it doesn't line up with their "theory," they just keep looking for a reason to make it fit.

[John81]

It's the same if you watch a nature or survival type program. Everything is automatically about evolution. :roll

This propaganda, with absolutely no basis in fact, is pumped into Americans via public schools, universities, TV programs, movies, the news media, magazines, advertisements, etc.

[Guest Guest]

What most people don't recognize is that the Evolution "theory" is inherently racist, in the fact that we are "higher" species, evolved from "lower" species, and the early ancestors of "modern" humans are always depicted as Black! Darwin thought that Africans were of lower intelligence and that we are more evolved and superior. Darwin also thought women were inferior! To think that this garbage can be taught in schools, but they fight tooth and nail when we try to get the Bible in is mind-boggling!

[Danny Carlton]

What they miss is the excitement that there are so many animals God created, that we've never even seen. Then again, some people have pointed out that what most evolutionists claim is the ancestor to the horse, eohippus, has a skeleten identical to modern rock badgers, so much so that they can't explain why what they are calling eohippus, should be properly labeled as the modern rock badger.

[John81]

Just like the skulls of "ape-men" that look just like the skull of some ape.

[Guest Guest]

Just like the skulls of "ape-men" that look just like the skull of some ape.

Or Australopithecus Afrensis, also known as Lucy. They've never found a skeleton more than 40% intact, and the skulls have always been badly shattered. Furthermore, the "leg bone" they attributed to her was found over 100 feet away in a lower layer! Like one man said, for that to be her leg or knee, she would have had to have been hit by a locomotive.

Evolution is a fairy tale propagated upon those who don't want to believe God's word.

[Alimantado]

It's funny how those fools take the evolutionary perspective by default...

Rightly or wrongly, evolutionary theory has been part of the scientific consensus/paradigm in the natural sciences for over 100 years, so why would you be surprised to read about palaeontologists writing up their findings from an evolutionary perspective? When they write it up in a paper, they will clearly cite the previous research that they are building on, and the theories that they will be using to draw their conclusions. Anyone is free to use the same findings and write a different paper using different theories, so what's the problem?

It's a bit like someone walking into a church and saying, "it's funny how that Pastor is taking the Biblical perspective by default." In a church, we would expect a Pastor to be bringing his belief in the Bible to the sermon, and in a modern paleontology research institute, we would expect the researchers to be building on the mainstream theory most of the time- which at the moment is evolutionary theory.

What most people don't recognize is that the Evolution "theory" is inherently racist' date=' in the fact that we are "higher" species, evolved from "lower" species, and the early ancestors of "modern" humans are always depicted as Black!..... To think that this garbage can be taught in schools, but they fight tooth and nail when we try to get the Bible in is mind-boggling! [/quote']

I'm guessing most people don't recognise it because it isn't taught anymore, at least where I come from. I went right through school and university and never saw a single textbook espouse that idea. In fact, I was taught that there are no lower or higher species, of humans or anything else, because evolution theory is "inherently" an undirected process. I thought those ideas by anthropologists, both Creationist and Evolutionist, went out the window about 100 years ago. It's awful if your schools are still teaching it- do you happen to know of any textbooks you can send me a link to that still say this?

On the other hand, I was indeed taught that humans came from Africa and that before they spread to colder climates they were all probably black. That might be wrong, of course, but I don't see what's racist about it.

[DaveW]

Of course people automatically fall into their predisposed background, and your illustration is a good one.

However it is "continually surprising" ( :roll ) that it seems perfectly acceptable to promote any theory you like about how things came about, even denying the obvious, just so long as you do not add the Bible into it.

The racism bit comes in because it was indeed used as a reason to tread down the blacks normally.
This is historically recorded, although I do not have references right now.
Basically white people said they look less like monkeys and so are more advanced, therefore the blacks are lower forms.

This is clearly nonesense. :wink

[Alimantado]

Indeed it was, both evolution and creation theories were used to suggest that Black people were inferior or even a different species. But those ideas are 150 years old, and were rejected years ago. What MC1171611 appears to be saying is that not only do those ideas form an integral part of evolution theory right now, but that they are even being taught in schools today. Scary! I'm glad I don't live where he lives.

Good point about the press slant toward non-Creation science. Not sure what the answer is to that one. I didn't think that was quite what MC1171611 was saying, as he seemed to be talking about those researchers in particular. Could be wrong about that, though.

[Guest Guest]

I agree that there are holes in the evolutionary theory and I am not neccesarily a proponent of it. However, I think it would be taking things a little far to teach "creationism" as a science, when that in fact is not what it is. "Creationism" is a matter of our faith. We can't prove it, just like we can't prove that God even exist. That is why I don't believe it has any place in a public school science class. If and when I have children, I want them to learn science in science class and "creationism" in Sunday school and at home. It is vainful to try and turn an aspect of ones religion in to a science just because you perceive another using science to discredit your religion. And I don't believe that the scientific community's rejection of "creationism" has anything to do with it being a christian belief. It's not accepted because its not science, plain and simple. God is a mystery. His creation is a mystery. His Son's earthly birth is a mystery. We will never understand God's mysteries to a point of science because we ourselves are not God. The theory of evolution has value whether you believe its end result or not. It is an excellent application of the scientific method and can be used as an example/teaching tool of such. It is well documentd and substantiated on several levels (I am of course not speaking to the evolution of humans, but the evolution of some animals). And just like all scientifc theories, it reflects what people thought at the time of its proposal. As the study progressed those thoughts changed, which is why evolution is no longer used to prove that blacks are inferior to whites. People keep bringing up Darwin as if he is the only person that ever espoused an evolutionary theory. While he may be the father of the theory, what he actually believed about it is no longer relevant. Mordern evolutionary theorist base their conclusions on research and sceintific studies, not what Darwin said.

[bzmomo7]

I agree that there are holes in the evolutionary theory and I am not neccesarily a proponent of it. However' date=' I think it would be taking things a little far to teach "creationism" as a science, when that in fact is not what it is. "Creationism" is a matter of our faith. We can't prove it, just like we can't prove that God even exist. That is why I don't believe it has any place in a public school science class. If and when I have children, I want them to learn science in science class and "creationism" in Sunday school and at home. It is vainful to try and turn an aspect of ones religion in to a science just because you perceive another using science to discredit your religion. And I don't believe that the scientific community's rejection of "creationism" has anything to do with it being a christian belief. It's not accepted because its not science, plain and simple. God is a mystery. His creation is a mystery. His Son's earthly birth is a mystery. We will never understand God's mysteries to a point of science because we ourselves are not God. The theory of evolution has value whether you believe its end result or not. It is an excellent application of the scientific method and can be used as an example/teaching tool of such. It is well documentd and substantiated on several levels (I am of course not speaking to the evolution of humans, but the evolution of some animals). And just like all scientifc theories, it reflects what people thought at the time of its proposal. As the study progressed those thoughts changed, which is why evolution is no longer used to prove that blacks are inferior to whites. People keep bringing up Darwin as if he is the only person that ever espoused an evolutionary theory. While he may be the father of the theory, what he actually believed about it is no longer relevant. Mordern evolutionary theorist base their conclusions on research and sceintific studies, not what Darwin said.

The above statement in red just simply isn't true. There is no value in the theory of evolution being taught our children other than to show it is wrong. It is based on false assumptions (namely that God didn't actually create everything). The only thing that it teaches is that when you leave God out of the equation, you will always end up with the wrong answer. And btw, "Creationism" is not about faith--it is a fact, when you believe in the God of the Bible and His perfect Word.

[Alimantado]

This is a bit off topic, but...the theory isn't just about origins. If your children want to get a job in any field that's concerned with population genetics then they'll need to know about evolutionary theory; ecology, virology, that sort of thing. It yields practical results in those kind of fields. Even many young-earth-Creationists are proponents of what some call 'micro' evolution.

[Guest Guest]

"Micro" evolution is a demonstrable fact, though it's better known as "speciation" or "adaptation." God created a lot of genetic information in each organism for it to produce offspring more suited to the climate it found itself in. However, proponents of the evolution "theory" take this "micro" evolution and say it proves their pipe dream "macro evolution," which they say is the way dinosaurs evolved into mammals and the like. That's what they do: they take ONE demonstrable, scientifically observable fact and twist it to make it look like their entire garbage heap is true.

Here are some other evolution systems that Evolutionists push:

Cosmic evolution, the birth and growth of the universe
Atomic evolution, supposedly the means of helium and proto-hydrogen evolving into more complex elements
Molecular evolution, also known as "abiogenesis" or life arising from nothing

There are more, but these are a few off the top of my head. Evolution is the most unscientific slop ever conceived by man, and only a fool could think that Evolution and the Bible are reconcilable. God made everything that is in this earth and the heaven in 6 literal 24-hour days. No evolution other than simple diversity of species; dogs don't turn into pigs, even with that magical "millions and millions of years" nonsense.

[Guest Guest]

And btw' date=' "Creationism" is not about faith--it is a fact, when you believe in the God of the Bible and His perfect Word.[/quote']

You can have faith that "creationism" is a fact, but you can't prove that it is a fact. That's why it shouldn't be taught along side any (whether it be evolution or something else) scienctific theory. I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught (although it should not be taught in public schools), but that it should be taught for what it is, which is a part of the christian/muslim/jewish/buddist/hindu/agnostic faiths. You see, its not just a christian thing. Every religion believes that the earth and all the creatures that inhabit it were created by some supernatural being. That is why you have got to realize that the proponents of science are not being ant-christian. They are just being pro-science.

And not all of the modern theory of evolution is wrong. It's just the human line of evolution that is unsubstantiated. There is more than enough proof regarding other aspects of it, which is why so many people lend credit to the human aspect. I have a feeling that most people's understanding of evolution does not come from a reputable biologist, but from some preacher that as no background in the subject other than what he has read on a few propoganda websites.

I also don't understand why someone would even want a public school attempting to teach their children "creationism." I'll admit that I am a little biased against the public school system, but what makes you think that public schools can educate your children regarding religion when they can't even teach them basic reading and math (or at least not on an efficient enough level)? It's not the public school system's responsibility to teach your children about God. That is not why it was formed an not why it is funded. If it is that big of a deal, I would suggest sending one's children to a private school or home schooling.