Search results

I can only assume you're asking that if the domesticated dog descended from wolves, what did the first human descend from? There are a few proposed species, but the generally accepted one is called australopithecus.

In my original frequenting of these forums, I was fervent in my debates and poignant in my posts. Soon, though, I really lost the motivation and have been since simply lurking. ChordatesLegacy was one of the amazing people here who've been at it for years and would still be with the same unique...

I love how you call us young whippersnappers and then end with contemporary slang :D

Exactly. That's the point that I have been trying to make. In my "Response to the Apple Challenge" I pointed out that absence of all empirical evidence is evidence itself. When investigating a bullet wound to the head, absence of trace is evidence -- evidence of suicide.

Then what in the world, pray tell, would provide sufficient reason? :doh:

The article says that Hitler's scientists weren't real scientists. They were pseudo-scientific maniacs. That is what we were saying. Just because it called them scientists doesn't mean they actually were... It's sort of a figure of speech.

I proposed no such argument. In fact, I concluded nothing. I didn't conclude that Satan wrote the Bible, my contention is why one should believe in something that is unverifiable.

Often an atheist will say "believing in God is like believing in invisible pink unicorns" or something to that effect. This thread is not about that, specifically, because the obvious answer thereto is "no, because we have the Bible and the Bible says otherwise". In fact, any what-ifs about God...

Haha, that's a nice list. I may not even know all of those... Evolution -- the accumulation of alterations of a genome due to imperfect replication which has the emergent effect of perpetuating the genes that are conducive to their own reproduction? I really have never heard it formally defined...

I included ERVs. And I was trying to stick to broad things, not specific cases so as to avoid the kind of nitpicking rhetoric into which things usually get tangled around here. However, I guess I could add "speciation has been observed" to the list.

Plus, he wasn't going "hmm, I need such and such to get to the human eye -- this could probably work" with the deeper eyes, the lenses, the irises, et cetera. He found examples of EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE INTERMEDIATE STEPS in nature.

Not even the atheists like you here, Consol... It's kinda sad.

Hit and run reply? The creationists can't touch this one. -cue MC Hammer-

This makes me so angry. Notice how "transitional fossils" is a hyperlink. Notice that when you click on said hyperlink, it brings you to a list of transitional fossils. Notice how we have FOUND TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS and yet you claim that they "are not there". Close your eyes a bit tighter and...

Evidence for Evolution. I expect a full refutation of each of these ten categories of support for evolution before you even think of saying that evolution is preposterous. I find it funny that this thread is still raging while not a single Creationist has touched mine.

I understand that most Creationists will ignore this. Nothing can get to those kinds. This is just to put off the "Teach the Controversy!" group that has been growing and whose major slogans include "there is no evidence for evolution" and that "it's only a theory".

I'm sick and tired of hearing Creationists say that there is no evidence for evolution. I hereby am compiling a list of the 10 most moving pieces of evidence there are. Since there is so much depth to each of them, I must be brief and so please, before discrediting any of it, do some research (I...

The "Problem of Irreducible Complexity" explained.

In all seriousness, I think that was an accident. :doh:

Okay, it has been 24 hours and I still have not received reply. Is it because I was too technical and it went over your heads? Please let me know and I will try to get you to understand; my goal in this case is to educate.