Actually, as the link you provided says, not every civiliation does have stories of a flood. Additionally, like your link says, it is MYTHOLOGY. In case you missed the meaning of the word:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
my·thol·o·gy /mɪˈθɒlədʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-thol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies. 1. a body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person: Greek mythology.
2. myths collectively.
3. the science or study of myths.
4. a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered: the Fascist mythology of the interwar years.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME mythologie < LL mȳthologia < Gk mȳthología. See mytho-, -logy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mythology

 

Science wouldnt believe you UNLESS you could show EVIDENCE that the bone is what you say it is. Science has changed opinions on subjects when new EVIDENCE shows that previous thinking to be wrong. That is the biggest difference between science and religion; science is willing to alter its opinion where religion clings to its long held MYTHS. Instead of changing its theories, it twists the bible around to fit new scientific discoveries.

I find it telling that you dont mention many other fossils that go aganist your theory:

OH 12 (H. erectus, 750 cc), Sangiran 2 (H. erectus, 815 cc), OH 7 (H. habilis, 680 cc), OH 13 (H. habilis, 650 cc)

Even more telling is Homo georgicus, at least 300,000 years old. This skull and two others discovered nearby form a near-perfect transition between H. habilis and ergaster.

 

I'd like to see unicorns. Damn the pollution that has killed them off!!!

 

Because all religion has is faith. It has no hard facts, never did and most likely never will.

 

And your proven fact is a THEORY. In case you missed the meaning of the word:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
[Origin: 1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3]

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]

 

You are confusing the scientific and nonscientific definiton of the word. In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

 

Krusty, do you think the theory of gravity to be conjecture?

 

I will start here.

The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. 40% of an eye has an advantage of 33% of an eye. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

 

Why do some animals, such as the hawk, have wings and is an exceptional flyer. Pigeons are simply OK flyers. Then you have a penguin, has wings, but absolutly no ability to fly.

Why did god make such a range of flying abilities.

 

Oh, it has no hard facts? Uh, except that it predicted the fall of world powers hundreds of years before it happened.

 

So there would be a variety of animals, that mankind can enjoy.

Answer this. WHY does evolution happen? Why would a monkey think, you know what, I should evolve. Maybe I'll lose the hair, stand on my hind legs, and climb down out of the tree.

 

Why are you the only one who thinks their question is important? Why dont you answer my question?

I will be more than happy to answer your as soon as you show me the respect of answering mine.

 

The one about the theory of gravity? If so, I apologize, but I overlooked that post. I didnt know that that was considered a theory. Gravity is undeniable. We see it everyday. Evolution is not.

If evolution is a fact, then why do they find one or two bones from a certain species like homo erectus. and not hundreds or thousands? Certainly even then humans had to of lived in groups right?

 

two things...
Krusty, I know for a fact that you keep doing this so i will single out you. You say that because evolution is not confirmed that are faith is just as blind as yours. For the 500th time though, I don't necessarily believe in evolution, what I do believe in is not making up an answer for every mystery of the universe. And you made I comment i can quote if you want... Something along the lines of "everything is perfect it had to be designed". Are you freaking serious!!!!??? Cancer? Aids? Nipples for Men? There is an infinite list of things that were someone to design this world they should have left out. So either the designer sucked or there was none.

 

As is the theory of gravity, evolution is a theory. A theory, like gravity, built on evidence, testing, retesting and confirmation. This is the basis of science. Of ocurse not everything has been discovered about the origins of man, but when time and time and time again, the sun rises, then it is safe to draw the conclusion that the sun will continue to rise every moring. This is not fact, since a catostropic event cound take place, such as the sun "burning out" but until that time, we know that the sun will continue to rise every morning.

Science tries to explain the unknown. Religion does not explain but simply says "god did it".


The reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found. Only two continents, Europe and North America, have been adequately surveyed for fossil-bearing strata. As the other continents are slowly surveyed, many formerly mysterious gaps are being filled (e.g., the long-missing rodent/lagomorph ancestors were recently found in Asia). Of course, even in known strata, the fossils may not be uncovered unless a roadcut or quarry is built (this is how we got most of our North American Devonian fish fossils), and may not be collected unless some truly dedicated researcher spends a long, nasty chunk of time out in the sun, and an even longer time in the lab sorting and analyzing the fossils.

Here's one description of the work involved in finding early mammal fossils: "To be a successful sorter demands a rare combination of attributes: acute observation allied with the anatomical knowledge to recognise the mammalian teeth, even if they are broken or abraded, has to be combined with the enthusiasm and intellectual drive to keep at the boring and soul-destroying task of examining tens of thousands of unwanted fish teeth to eventually pick out the rare mammalian tooth. On an average one mammalian tooth is found per 200 kg of bone-bed." (Kermack, 1984.)
Documenting a species-to-species transition is particularly grueling, as it requires collection and analysis of hundreds of specimens. Typically we must wait for some paleontologist to take it on the job of studying a certain taxon in a certain site in detail. Almost nobody did this sort of work before the mid-1970s, and even now only a small subset of researchers do it. For example, Phillip Gingerich was one of the first scientists to study species-species transitions, and it took him ten years to produce the first detailed studies of just two lineages (see part 2, primates and condylarths). In a (later) 1980 paper he said: "the detailed species level evolutionary patterns discussed here represent only six genera in an early Wasatchian fauna containing approximately 50 or more mammalian genera, most of which remain to be analyzed."



But what makes you think they died in groups?

The second part of your question makes creation less likely than evolution.

When death occurred, do you believe that survivors kept them around until they died? When an animal dies, it usual dies by itself and is found alone. There wer no graveyards billions of years ago. The corpse was left to the elements and other creatures. Hence the reason why we find one of something.

If a giant flood did occur, then one would expect "clumps" of fossils. But we do not find that.

 

I only believe in things that me and you can both see, observe and show evidence to each other for. I don't go and add in some fantasy elements because I am at a loss for explaning how things work. I am not asking for all the answers to the universe, as we both should know, neither me nor you nor any one of us will meet will have them. But that doesn't mean we have to have the answer right his second, or ever, and if we can't come up with something that explains it all right this second, why not make up something up, or copy someone else's made up story.

our sense of taste probably comes from our need to taste whether something is poisnous. because of natural sleection, the people with the more evolved tongues died less because they were not poisoning themselves as much. the person with the best eyes, sees a predator, or their prey to eat, before someone with weaker eyes does, and they survive to pass on better eyes. now do that 1000+ generations. see how much better it would get?

our bodies are so far from perfect things like diabetes, which are on a huge rise in the last 100 years, because we have turned off natural selection for it via medicine. in another 100 years diabetes will be in a much larger % of the population. God didn't make us "near" perfect, weaker people dying before they can breed and pass off their inferior genes is what did it.

the planet does not have a perfect spin, or angle. life has adapted to it, so it seems perfect. that's like saying our atmosphere is perfect, no we adapted to it, and would actually benefit from less nitrogen in the air. our planet is slowing down. and when it gets slower, it will lose it's inertia and eventually be sucked in closer to the sun because of sun's gravity.

I believe in natural selection and evolution. Now "evolution" is not a step by step guide to all knowledge. No it's whole bunch of small little timelines of going from 1 type of animal to another 1 in about 3-5 alterations. There is evidence of this, there are facts of this that no one could logically deny. But you seemingly don't even want to look at it, because if it's not every answer, then you're going to find a belief system that does claim to have all the answers to your questions, regardless of whether they have evidence.

and everything in life is not perfect or i might agree with you. vestigal legs in whales is a huge reason, humans develop gills and tails in the womb for no reason, many animals are not as adept as other animals like ostriches or emus. they have their wings that provide balance, but wouldn't arms be better? Couldn't we all make some minor improvements to certain animals to make them 150% more effecient? and there are lots of prehistoric animals that just have such funky skeletons, big necks with tiny brains, it's no wonder some of them went extinct.

Guys gravity is a fact and it's a theory. just because something is a theory, doesn't mean there's not evidence. Here's how gravity works. You have the vaccuum of open space. Now if you add a very large spinning mass in a vaccuum, that mass makes electromagnetic waves from the movement alone, and those occur undisturbed because it's in a vaccuum. that's a natural occurance. (those magnetic waves get stronger and more concentrated as you reach the axis.) the amount of density and mass an object has, controls how strong those electromagnetic waves are. those magnetic waves draw everything closer to the center of whatever is making those waves. that is gravity.

 

sir, may i ask if you are ignorant or just un-educated. it IS a serious question and i wish an answer. evolution is adaptation. animals adapt and evolve according to their enviorments. I will not go in depth of humans evolution because i am at school and only have a few minutes. ALL animals evolve, which is a proveable fact. if it is cold, an animal grows hair. if it is warm it will lose its hair. if it lives underground it has poor eyesight for it does nt require it! FYI, humans are animals. please, ignorance is NOT bliss. i learned these facts from middle school. check it out sometime.

 

I could be mistaken, but dosen't stuff like that dissolve in saltwater? Wouldnt scavenger fish eat bones and flesh? Could that explain why we haven't found many fossils clumped together?

Besides, the ocean floor has not really been explorer. 70% of the earths surface is covered in water, and scientists are constantly finding new species. Maybe scientist just havent found them yet. Maybe they are covered in sand and sediment, like dinosaur bones and "pre-humanid" fossils are.

And as to why do men have nipples, disease....

I can't understand why men have nipples. The bible dosen't explain that. Neither does Evolution. From a biblical standpoint, when Adam and Eve sinned, that opened the door for imperfection (disease, sickness, and death). Viruses change, develop into new viruses that can explain different diseases. From wikipedia (God, I love wikipedia)

Most experts believe that HIV probably transferred to humans as a result of direct contact with primates, for instance during hunting or butchery.[131] A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski's research into a polio vaccine.Some have even speculated that the AIDS virus entered the human population through Dr. Serge Voronoff's grafting of monkey ******** tissue on to the ********* of men while working in France in the 1920s and 1930s.[137]

These are THEORIES. Obivously, some are more radical ideas than others.

 

if you bring up "why do men have nipples" the bible doesn't explain it. Don't for one second start talking about "god made everything perfect" as you're excuse for why you believe. You're admitting it isn't perfect now? Nipples in men are near vestigal, even though men can and do lactate. Maybe they could lactate for young if needed a 100,000 years ago, but through random evolution(because if you're not using it, then that doesn't help you one way or another) it went away, who knows? I'm pretty sure lions can heavily lactate still.

lol, the polio vaccine is the most likely, yes, but it's actually because in south africa when they were making polio vaccines, they were using monkey blood, instead of human blood and then taking that vaccine(which uses hiv blood which the monkey's almost naturally carry) and curing polio and infecting them with hiv. I've read the first batch of monkey's used were totally ok, but then after they near wiped out that area of this one kind of monkey, that had to use a similar one, that did have hiv tainted blood.

 

Resorting to name calling eh? You're mature.

Ever see a monkey? They are pretty hairy. Africa and South America don't get to cold. Just one example. Shouldn't mankind be adapting to holes in the ozone layer? Why do we still get skin cancer? Why havent we evolved our skin into a uv repellant suit?

I learned facts in Middle school too, and a lot of questions that still have not been answered.

I cant explain some of the questions that have been asked. You guys can't explain some stuff about evolution. Yet, you make it seem like me believing in something that I cant fully understand is crazy. You are doing the same thing. Why? Why is it so different?