Anti-evolutionists: If you please, can you give me your input?

I have no opinion or an answer. Evolution is a theory. There is evidence, yes but to think evolution is real is against my beliefs as a Christian. I think that most people would say we are ignorant or putting our beliefs in fairy tales but believing evolution is also a faith of sorts. A faith that science is correct.

They will just come up with some lie they copied and pasted from some lying creationist web site.

In any case, though it doesn't show all of your examples, this visual is helpful.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.h...

And this one is also particularly nice.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html

Added

@Lature T, your comment is ridiculous. It is typical creationist claptrap that only someone grossly ignorant about evolution would come up with.

Modern Africans are just as evolved as modern non-Africans. Dogs came from wolves. So are wolves less evolved than dogs? Dogs and wolves are the same species. Dogs have been bred to have certain characteristics by a process of artificial selection.

The different races of humans are the result of natural selection to adapt to the different environments they live in. Blacks retain their dark skin because of their tropical environment. Whites lost their dark pigmentation to better absorb sunlight in northern regions in order to maximize the manufacture of vitamin D in their skin, something that Blacks do not need to do because of the stronger sun in the tropics.

Added

@Bella, your copy and paste from a creationist web site shows only the dishonesty of creationists.

The primary problem with all of the fossil evidence is that evolution is a branching process that produces many dead ends, and finding which ones are in the direct line to modern humans can be difficult. Particularly since some branches may retain ancestral characteristics that other branches have lost.

Nevertheless, the overall view of the fossil record shows an evolutionary transition of representative species over time from early forms to later forms. NO fossil remains of modern type humans have EVER been found in the same strata with the earlier forms such as australopithecus and homo habilis. But, according to your myth-based flood model fossils of all species--and not just humans--should be found together.

The fact is that evolutionary theory would be falsified if any of the 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including human, or the 10,000 present-day species of birds were found in the fossil strata where they should not be found (for example, in the same strata with dinosaur fossils). No such finds have been made. And the same could be said for any other appearance of a later species in geological strata that was formed before that species could have evolved. But, according to the creationist flood "model" all species should be found together in the same strata.

Creationists bend and ignore the facts in order to make them fit their myth-based flood model.

As for Homo erectus, take a look at this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html

question No. a million - provided that the final public of Christians believe evolution to be a way God used to type the universe and existence in the international, why are you no longer finding out along with your brothers and sisters in Christ why they settle for it? question No. 2 - provided that Genesis makes use of 'day' in quite some senses and that it ought to no longer probable advise a 24 hour Earth day until eventually eventually Day 4 of the creation account, why do not you concentrate on that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years previous? question No. 3 - do you recognize that the tremendous Bang theory does no longer rule out God because the author of that procedure? question No. 4 - do you recognize that your eternal salvation does no longer count number upon even if you go back down on the portion of youthful Earth Creationism or no longer? desire that's effective - from a effective Christian.

Homo Habilis - The demise of Homo habilis has been amazingly swift. Although controversy has always surrounded the taxon, it has nevertheless been almost universally regarded as the transition between the australopithecines (which everyone acknowledges were non-human) and Homo erectus (which virtually everyone acknowledges was fully human). Over 100 numerically designated fossils or fossil assemblages have been formally or informally allocated to Homo habilis or have been declared to have affinities with that hypodigm. Homo habilis thus represents an extensive fossil collection.

Reasons to doubt Homo Habilis :

1.The problem of the large range of cranial sizes in the taxon. Whereas some workers explained this in terms of sexual dimorphism, others felt that the size range exceeded that which could reasonably be explained by calling the larger ones males and the smaller ones females.

2.The problem of the large range of morphological variation in the post-cranial material, some of it being juvenile material which is difficult to diagnose. Louis Leakey had explained some of this range of morphology as evolutionary change over time. Others felt that this morphological variation exceeded that which would be expected within a single species.

3.The problem of reversals. Most workers who accepted Homo habilis as a legitimate taxon also accepted the Homo erectus fossils as human ancestors. Thus, to go from the thin-walled and high-domed cranium of Homo habilis to the thick-walled and low-domed cranium of Homo erectus and then back to the thin-walled and high-domed cranium of modern humans represented reversals in both cranium thickness and cranium morphology. Reversals are not supposed to happen in an evolutionary sequence.

These problems, and others, have caused a major shift in attitudes toward Homo habilis. It is safe to say that a large majority of palaeoanthropologists now feel that the Homo habilis hypodigm represents at least two, if not three, different species that have mistakenly been lumped together Confusion is now the rule

Homo Erectus : Homo erectus couldn't have evolved from Homo habilis in the 1.8 to 1.6 million years ago time-frame because Homo erectus was already on the scene, possibly as early as 2.0 million years ago. G. Philip Rightmire (State University of New York, Binghamton) states that skulls and postcranial fossils of Homo erectus have been found in several areas near Koobi Fora, Lake Turkana, Kenya, and that: 'The earliest of these fossils must be older than 1.6 million and perhaps as old as 2.0 million years…and as was mentioned earlier, to go from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo sapiens represents reversals in both cranial wall thickness and skull morphology. This would imply that if Homo erectus is in the mainstream of human evolution, Homo habilis cannot be; whereas if Homo habilis is in the mainstream, Homo erectus is excluded. In either case, it compromises the idea that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis.

G. Philip Rightmire reveals the naked truth:

"Just how Homo erectus first evolved is one of the major issues in Paleoanthropology. Here the fossils and the stratigraphic record are limited and many details may never be resolved."

Homo erectus is in fact a false category. Evolutionists have taken true human ancestors and tried to make them evolutionary ancestors. The somewhat different skull morphology of Homo erectus may be the result of the environment of the post-Flood Ice Age. Since Homo erectus did not evolve but was a true member of the human family created by God in His image, it is not surprising that evolutionists have great difficulty in finding an evolutionary ancestor for him.

Homo Sapiens are a type of Great Ape so technically we never stopped looking like apes...

Yeah, it's such a coincidence that the other species of hominids died out, but humans are still around, but there is no fossil record of humans in their current state going back more than 200,000 years or so.

It must be that Satan up to his trickery again...

Where is the evidence for design in the evidence of the evolution of

the wheel to the automobile?

the grass hut to the sky scrapper?

the Abacus to the computer?

the wood raft to the air-craft carrier?

There are many transitional forms in-between these. Do these transitions "naturally" occur?

Are you saying the Black man was the first man and that all other races came from the Black man? Hmmm. If you believe this and say no, you are a RACIST.

I beg you to answer the question yes or no? Was the first man a Black man and that all other races came from Black people? Trust me I am being as honest in my asking as you are. Answer me!

Consider that the Bible account was written about 4,000 years and the mindset of the audience was middle-eastern. How would you explain creation to them?

Yeh but a horse did not give birth to a frog which totally refutes teh evilushunsZ.

CHEKMAYT ATHEST!!12`21`33