No I'm not going to provide you with any bagged evidence.

What do I need to do YOUR work? If you want to know something , provide yourself with evidence, why would I have to provide it for you?
Just because I said it first?

Uh, it appears you are making a claim about the similarities of angles and aliens to people. If you are expressing that as your personal opinion thats fine, though I am inclined to think its just as loony as some of the others on here, unless you provide evidence or support your claim.

If I say a pink elephant comes into my room at night and tells me how the world was created, you are under no obligation to believe me. You would probably think I am pretty crazy, unless I was able to provide evidence and proof of this. If you are going to make claims the burden of proof falls upon you.

So at this point we can part ways, you happily believing in aliens and angles and thinking you scored some kind of point by stating so and me thinking your as crazy as the next.

Ok so where are all the YEC's and anti-evolutionists? I see you guys trolling the post but not one of you has anything to add? No defense to mount on Neph's part? Where is all your evolution toppling evidence?

Its frustrating trying to have a debate with guys, you jump from thread to thread making slanders at evolution and "evolutionists" then run away when people come to post and debate.

I must have said a dozen times on here Creationism is not a theory ,it is a belief out of an old book .Creationists always try to pass it off as a theory in an attempt to make it sound more authentic ,just like they try to ridicule evolution with remarks about us coming from monkeys and in the process showing that they no nothing about the subject


fullywired

Hovind is the epitome of fanatical faith and blatant ignorance. The man is a myopic-minded midget.

Debating Dr. Dino?
March 19, 2005
Ingrid H. Shafer

I agree with Karen Bartelt’s conclusions in her “Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis”:

There is NO EVIDENCE that Kent Hovind has more than a college sophomore level of course work in ANY science. There is NO EVIDENCE from his thesis that he is widely-read in the areas of evolution, astronomy, geology, paleontology or even the history of science beyond what is written in a few young-Earth creationist books. There is ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that the requirements for a Ph.D. degree from Patriot University fall far below those of typical secular or religious institutions. Ask yourself whether you would visit a medical doctor, an auto mechanic, a plumber, or an investment counsellor with similar dubious credentials. If so, then Hovind is your science guy! Or see him for what he is, the snake-oil salesman, peddling salvation and pseudo science in the late 20th century and even unto the 21st century. (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm)

SOURCE
http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/hovind.htm

Sean

If I cared what your beliefs were, I'd probably think about evidence, but really, this i a forum, not a courtroom, we are just talking for fun.

If you consider the 7-day story creationism then no.

but if you consider creationism to be a broader range of ideas, from simulated reality, to genetic engineering, then it is a theory and has nothing to do with Bible

The whole "it's just a theory" debate. UGH! Facts support a theory. A theory stands until disproven.

Evolution has been tested many thousands of times ... and still stands. That should say it all.

Creation & Intelligent Design Watch
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/

An Introduction to Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

Oh, and what about the theory of gravity creationists? It's just a theory too!

Sean

If you mean theory as in, official definition of theory, then yes, it's only a hypothesis

But for example, how has it been "tested" that man has evolved out of lesser primates?


It's no wonder evolution has passed every test when all the evidence of the contrary
has been dismissed as anomalies of archeology.
Every time some finds human signs that don't fit the profile, nobody even wants to look at it

As he said evolution has been tested many times. The idea the we evolved from a common primate ancestor is supported by facts, such as the fossil record. There is currently no test for man evolving from primates, but evolutionary theory is useful for its correct predictions and as it stands is one of the most accurate and correct predicting theories to date.

You seem uninformed on science as many are here on these boards. Science updates itself, things and ideas change in science. No evidence to the contrary is being dismissed, in fact, any evidence to the contrary has update the theory and only added to its accuracy. If think there is all kinds of evidence floating around that no one wants to look at post it here, I'll gladly look at it. I am going to venture to guess, like Neph, there will be some reason though, you do not post said evidence.

Edit: Man evolving from a common primate ancestor is more than a hypothesis at this point....

Please read the link I provided above which explain everything in great detail. Also PBS has one of the best sites on evolution.

PBS: Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

Live Science
http://www.livescience.com/health/050922_ID_main.html

Evolution Resources
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

The Leaky Foundation
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/

Sean

that must be it, thanks, you have changed my life, I am now a mortal, and an atheist

thanks

and look what I've also found:
http://www.aaastudy.com/mul39_x3.htm

I don't have to add the same number over and over, I can now MULTIPLY

Northwest, that was not meant as an insult. Science is not something everyone has knowledge of, from some of your comments it appears you lack this knowledge. My intent is not to make you into an atheist, you are entitled to believe whatever you want. I wish though, you would have an understanding of something before you make a post on it like "angles and aliens are similar to humans and it cant be chance we look like this". Clearly in that statement, to any with a scientific understanding, it is obvious you lack the knowledge to even have this discussion.

There is no shame in admitting you lack knowledge of something, the shame comes when you are unwilling to learn new things because of preconceived beliefs.

It's funny, people dismiss fossil records and thus evolutionary theory. Because it's theory, it's nothing more than an "opinion".

When... They're using a computer that is based around a theory. Yet, they see electricity as fact - even though it's just a theory.

I would just like to know, how do you connect that statement, with lack of knowledge?

I'm glad you brought this up Camlax, because this is my biggest issue with religion. There is no doubt that it halts scientific growth and understanding. There is an invisible wall that separates the scientific data and preconceived notions.

I don't dismiss fossil records or anything solid and physical. What is buried is buried, there is no way of denying it

Because anyone who doesn't acknowledge evolution doesn't understand it.

And what about the other way? You think it is impossible for someone to understand evolution, yet reject some of what it is saying?

I'm sorry but I don't know what your trying to say? Rephrase perhaps?

Is it possible to fully understand the theory of evolution, and reject the idea that man had evolved out of other animals?

As it is? No. You'd simply be playing "Special Exceptions" for no real scientific reason.

No, because you would simply be accepting microevolution and throwing out macroevolution, on the basis that micro is observable today and macro is not.

So then its a case of closed circle: "Either you believe what I believe, or you are stupid"

nice

Your original post


Firstly, there is no evidence angels or aliens exist, outside of our own imagination (coincidently it is probably why they are so human like). Next you state humans can't have come to look like we do by chance, which I asked you to clarify to see where you are lost, we (like all other organisms on this planet) look the way we do because that is the form that was best adapted at survival.

Lastly you say we can't have two planets with the exact same evolutionary history, now I am not saying this is possible, but can you provide any reasons it is impossible? In the millions or billions of planets out there, it could be possible one is so similar to earth (the abiotic conditions) that many life forms appear very similar. This is all speculation though and there has been no life on other worlds, hence we cannot possibly make statements regarding the evolutionary history of other planets.

As I said, you are lacking some very clear scientific knowledge here, or if you have some insightful source to your statments about angels and daemons and aliens then by all means post your scientific sources.

see, you read me wrong, and concluded based on wrong understanding of my words, you can reread what you just quoted and see for yourself

I didn't say humans can't look like this as a product of evolution

I said: I you believe that so called "blondes" and "elders" are real, and they also claim to have made us, what are the chances
of them being just random life looking exactly like us, meeting us right now, right here in this time frame.
Meeting ANY life would be a huge coincidence, meeting identical life approaches impossibility

If you don't what to believe what people have said to witness, that's another story,
I'm just saying with that in mind (if you do consider it true) , it is unlikely both us and them (two alien races both looking like humans)
both came by chance.

Hardly, the only one playing circular games here is you. Both Cimber and Guardsman have explained it very well to you. There is no logical reason to believe man did not evolve from a common primate ancestor and "accept" evolution.

Cimber brings up a good point about micro vs macro evolution.
I really hate the terms micro and macro evolution as most people don't understand them and creationists take them out of context to make their anti-evolution arguments.

Here I'll put this in bold for any would be splitter.

Macro and micro evolution are the same thing, in that they are governed by and the product of the EXACT SAME PROCESSES, the only difference we are talking about here is time scale. Saying one exists and the other does not is about as lame as saying the first quarter in a football game is real, but the 4th quarter is not. Or maybe the 1 hour airplane flight to (insert destination) is real but the 6 hour car drive to (insert a destination) is not. We are only talking about difference in time scales, and those huge time scales are what allows for small examples of speciation (like the mosquitoes, Culex pipiens and Culex molestus) to become large changes, as in higher order taxonomic differences (reptiles to mammals etc)

Alright, it is easier for me to say that I am illiterate in science then to try and explain my views, so let it be, you win

Here we go, another endless "Evolution vs Christianity" Debate. And all you newbies who come to this board and bash me because for the 1 millionth time I do not feel like arguing this pointless topic I could really care less. Resort to calling me names, I really don't care I've been called worse and none of it has been called to my face believe you me. I have posted post after post refuting evolution and it's just getting old now. If you know me, you've been on this board for a while you know that is true, if not, know your roll.

Neph can't leave without something right?

Evolution generally states that we started off small and got bigger right?

http://www.geocities.com/saqatchr/page46.html

The bible says we started off big and got smaller

So where are these giant human bones coming from? And why are they exhaustively trying to be covered up? Oh I think I know why, because that would prove genesis as fact, satan can't have that, he's got to have his grip on the non believers feeding them spoonfulls of evolution. Food for thought.

And my personal favorite

http://groups.msn.com/UFOLOGY/general.msnw...;ID_Message=717

your proofs don't work here my friend, you need a different soil to plant them

We all BLINDLY believe what we are taught as youngsters, some of us go on to question everything, and hopefully find the truth, one of the problems you encounter is scientists of all persuasions keep moving the goal posts,
Do we need to believe something is true, why can't we just accept it for now and wait and see what happens,
it seems more interesting that way, and your mind is still open,

What I've noticed about the spirituality vs skepticism forum (and some others too) is that people will come on here, make some claims, but when asked for proof, start to accuse everyone of just debating and not listening. It just seems silly to come on a debate site, say something like "the earth is made of cotton candy" and when someone asks you to back up your claim, you say "why should I have to, it'll only turn into a never ending debate. I'll show my proof and you won't believe it and it will go on forever and ever so there's no point...I don't care what you think anyway, I could pull cotton candy up from the ground and you still wouldn't believe me..oh, btw did you know the trees are made of candy corn? They are. But if I show you proof it'll only make the debate go on longer."

I just think if you come on a forum that is specifically set up to debate, you shouldn't make claims with no intention of backing them up (and just acting all high and mighty when people ask you too) and you should be open to actually looking at other people's proof (especially when the other people provide them). That's all I'm saying.

It's not a debate until both sides actually participate.



I haven't seen any one call you names. Although you made a comment about everyone who believes in evolution having the intelligence of monkey...



I haven't seen you refute anything at all. If you've done it in the past, the least you could do is give reference to the thread you posted in, or do a search for the relevant posts.

Like I said earlier, can you describe a mechanism by which genetic change can possibly not occur?

I have a question for all those who favor "micro" evolution while poo-pooing 'macro' evolution.

The question is: where along the chain of species, from single cell organisms up to multicellular critters like humans whales & bears, is the division between micro & macro?

I have heard staunch creationists acknowledge their acceptance of microevolution, so I am curious where they think this division is.

Anyone care to answer?

I don't think you'll find much creationists around here.

Neph I am sorely disappointed in you, you claim have all this evidence debunking evolution and a geocities and msn groups page is the best you can come up with?

Lets take a look at your links. And why you need an education rather than a geocities page.

Here is some quotes from the geocities page and my responses as to why they have no idea what they are talking about.

• They clearly have no idea about anthropology. The distribution of Neanderthal man is widely known and is something you would learn about in an introductory anthropology course.
  Here is a map for you of the distribution of Neanderthal man.
  
  
  The oldest human remains found in N/S. America are circa 13,000 years old. While Neanderthal man died out 24,000 (at best) years ago.
  
• Notice how it fails to give any names or specifics here? "The scientists said".

I think the second thing you should notice here is that all the cases this person's personal webpage cites are old, real old.



But lets look at the only case presented here that is not hundreds of years old.


It is presented as
Boy that sure sounds like a proper source for "scientific" findings.

Also as a side note, You should have noticed from my profile that I live in Ohio (Its written as OH-IO because that is what we yell at football games (I get free tickets since I work at OSU!)). I grew up in Dublin Ohio, about 20-25 minutes south of Marion, A few of my best friends from college are from Marion. Anyway I have been to numerous caves and NA sites here around central Ohio and the Ohio valley, I have yet to see one of these so called giant skeletons.



A close friend and colleague of mine works at the OSU-Newark earth works, I can assure no such large round headed giants exist.

Now on to your second source....
I am trying to give you the time of day and not laugh in your face, but serious MSN groups is the best you could come up with?

Again they are linking personal news stories of prospects and making claims that simply are not true,
Meganthropus and Gigantopithecus are both well described and are most definitely not giant humans...

Then it cites stories such as this


With a nice little picture with a big fossil femur. But we should notice this

• Firstly, I would not trust the archaeological descriptions of someone who is not an archaeologist.
• Second you should note that the actual fossils and artifacts are no where to be found, only "sculpted" ones exist
• Finally, you should probably not it starts off "Dear Christian friends", Now I am not saying all Christians are dishonest, but maybe that should wave some red flags?

Frankly neph, all you have shown is you are gullible and willing believe any piece of crap you read on the internet so long as it supports your beliefs and you are highly uneducated on the subject at hand. I was hoping you would come up with scientific stuff to actually debate with, I suppose I should have expected links to geocities webpages which detail personal accounts from the 1800s.

If you can come up with something better, than "Ohh I can disprove evolution and have, you need to search my posts" and "Here look at this geocities page" please be sure to post it.

Knowing he would not even do this, I went ahead and looked through his posts of his best "refutations" of evolution.

No it is not ,it is pseudo science ,your still trying to prove the bible


fullywired

not really. simulated reality theories have nothing to do with bible

For the life of me I can not understand how anyone has a problem with evolution when they are prepared to believe that:


Methuselah lived to be 969 years old and that Angels came to earth and mated with women and produced giants

a donkey sees an angel and recognizes it as such then speaks in human laguage to his master
1KI 6:2, 2CH 3:3 Solomon's temple was only about ninety feet long by thirty feet wide, and yet --
1KI 5:15-16 153,300 persons were employed to build it.
1KI 6:38 It took seven years to build.
1CH 22:14 13,100,000 lbs. of gold and 116,400,000 lbs. of silver were consumed in its construction.
1CH 23:4 24,000 supervisors and 6,000 officials and judges were employed to manage it.

KI 16:2, 20, 18:1-2 Ahaz was thirty-six years old when he died. His twenty-five year old son Hezekiah succeeded him. Thus Ahaz was a ten or eleven year old father.

2CH 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slain in a single battle. (Note: This is more than were lost in any single battle of World War II, and even exceeds the number of deaths that resulted from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At Gettysburg, the greatest battle of the Civil War, the defeated army lost 5,000 men.)




MT 4:23-24, 9:32-33, 12:22, 17:14-18, MK 1:23-26, 32-34, 5:2-16, 9:17-29, 16:9, LK 11:14, 4:33-35, 8:2, 27-36, 9:38-42, AC 8:7, 16:16-18 Both physical and mental Illness are caused by demon possession and can be cured by exorcism.






Source http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/dmabsurdities.htm








I would have thought evolution was much more easier to swallow but "what ever turns you on baby"



fullywired

To camlax or cimber, this isnt intended to be a religious debate with evolution and creationism but a question about evolution. Do you believe that the deadly gamma ray bursts that appear to have occured around at least a thousand times within a 4 billion year period could solve some of the problems in fossil record?. Extinctions sometimes appeared in one of the hemispheres and not the other. Since gamma ray bursts seem to last about ten seconds to an hour, one burst would impact only one hemisphere. Do you think this could account for some of these global extinctions that paleontologists have observed in the fossil record?. Do you believe this could cause a challenge to the evolutionary theory?

Camlax is more of the physics person than I am, but I think I can bring a biological explanation. A gamma ray burst would no doubt cause damage to the atmosphere (depending on how close it was) and effect the organisms that come into contact. Its hard to decipher if a Gamma Ray Burst caused a certain extinction (Ordovician extinction seems to be a notable one that many seem to throw around) because they are so rare in the Milky Way.

Hey-0! Fugeddaboutit! It was a Union job, you know what I mean?
I know cuz my uncles brothers fathers great-great-grandfather ( from the old country) was a shop steward on that job...............

Yes I would like his response as well.

Booo, I've seen a third grader come up with more hardcore evolutionary "facts" than this, I give you 2/10 on this one.

So, in other words, your response to him pointing out that your "source" is hardly credible at all and frankly wrong about a number of things (including the distribution of Neanderthal) is to . . . compare him to a third grader? I guess irony is above you, as well as evolutionary theory.

don't encourage the trolls guys & gals. They only reproduce faster.

I agree that evolution lacks intelligence, as it is only a reaction to circumstances that insures the survival of a species.

Now, I would say that "stupid" is not a scientific term, and something this Dr. Whathisface seems to share with evolution.

But then again:


Source

says it all.