Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You haven't seen a human laying eggs or a whale with legs. You suppose it is something from the past.

Of course not, that would be absurd; what we do see is ancestors of mammals that lay eggs (and a couple of mammals that still do), and we do see vestigial legs in whales, flippers based on leg bones in their ancestors, and true legs in their remote semi-aquatic ancestors.

A basic understanding of evolution would give you something to construct your arguments against - I don't know any good arguments against it, but arguing from fundamental misunderstandings or straw-man versions is just a waste of time, and potentially embarrassing.

 

[rjs330]

So you've made posts that had real content somewhere else? Why bother with the content-free posts here, then?


Sure, but I dismiss your objections because they consist of nothing but your personal incredulity while you dismiss mine because you can't answer them. Bit of a difference there.


I'm a Christian -- in fact, I just got home from church. So I don't see what your problems with atheists have to do with me.


As I've already told you, you're simply wrong. Scientists don't have to re-create phenomena to study them, and they don't have to be present to test suppositions about the past.

You are,a Christain. That's great! We then have a completely different discussion then which is,why you don't accept what the bible says about creation. The science of man contradicts scripture as you know.

 

[Speedwell]

You are,a Christain. That's great! We then have a completely different discussion then which is,why you don't accept what the bible says about creation. The science of man contradicts scripture as you know.

No, it just contradicts your interpretation, which has other problems that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, it just contradicts your interpretation,

Noti contradicts what it says.

which has other problems that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

What theory of evolution?
O, you mean saying "evolution did it" repeatedly...

But you know what, i'm gonna get us two out of eachother's hair by means of ignore-list.

May God bless you.

 

[Speedwell]

Noti contradicts what it says.
What theory of evolution?
O, you mean saying "evolution did it" repeatedly...

But you know what, i'm gonna get us two out of eachother's hair by means of ignore-list.

May God bless you.

So you are going to give up on trying to convince me that I have to quit being a Christian unless I take up with your interpretation of scripture? Good.

 

[sfs]

You are,a Christain. That's great! We then have a completely different discussion then which is,why you don't accept what the bible says about creation. The science of man contradicts scripture as you know.

Nah, first we should deal your implication that I don't know how to do my job. Wouldn't want to let something like that fester.

 

[ScottA]

Time is man made as are Gods.

Wrong.

 

[loveofourlord]

You evolutionists crack me up with all your assumptions. You assume everything. You assume the yolk thing must be evidence of egg laying past despite the fact that the gene mentioned does have other uses besides making yellow goo. You assume the bones in whales are vestgial legs rather than perhaps other things like extra fins or soemethimg that had to do with their hip structure. You assume everything. Everything to you points to evolution because you assume it does. Sorry, but you can't go back in time and prove any of it. Its a wild guess and speculation. You so desperately want evolution to be real you're willing to accept anything as evidence. Yet you can't test it or observe it. Its not real science. You can't show a common ancestor. You can't show anything changing into anything else. If a fish crawled out of the sea and evolved into a reptile it changed into something it wasn't. There is no observable or testable evidence to that wild speculation. You guys are funny.

we reject things like this nonsense as everything here is both explained by evolution and understood.

For the first bunch evolution says that things no longer have their original use, but may be co-opted for something else. See if your going to argue somthing doesn't show evolution better have a clue what evolution says about said thing.

And yes you can assume so, especially when it fits how evolution works, this is how we do everything in science, I love how people like you complain about how science works when you don't like it, especially with such poor understanding of it.

The fact you think things have to be observed to understand shows a complete rejection of everything science, and how most of our knowledge works it's just another case of, "I don't like that so I will reject it." I find your complaints pretty childish.

 

[rjs330]

Nah, first we should deal your implication that I don't know how to do my job. Wouldn't want to let something like that fester.

What job? I guess I missed that.

 

[rjs330]

we reject things like this nonsense as everything here is both explained by evolution and understood.

For the first bunch evolution says that things no longer have their original use, but may be co-opted for something else. See if your going to argue somthing doesn't show evolution better have a clue what evolution says about said thing.

And yes you can assume so, especially when it fits how evolution works, this is how we do everything in science, I love how people like you complain about how science works when you don't like it, especially with such poor understanding of it.

The fact you think things have to be observed to understand shows a complete rejection of everything science, and how most of our knowledge works it's just another case of, "I don't like that so I will reject it." I find your complaints pretty childish.

Of course you reject it. Your an evolutionist. I don't expect otherwise. Evolutionists are so bound to their unprovable theory they can't help themselves.

Just so you don't think I'm being hypocritical I myself am bound to The word Of God that I can't help myself either. If God said it I believe it and if science says something different science is wrong.

I can't personally prove God but evolutionists can't prove evolution either.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

What job? I guess I missed that.

SFS works in genetics and is an expert on this topic. Good luck to you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I can't personally prove God but evolutionists can't prove evolution either.

Science isn't in the business of proving anything. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

 

[rjs330]

Science isn't in the business of proving anything. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

Umm... Only if you believe in the assumptions.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Umm... Only if you believe in the assumptions.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Care to use your own words? I'm not interested in a gish gallop blog post from a creationist. How about some peer reviewed research? Demonstrate that you understand the topic.

Which skull is a chimpanzee and which skull is fully human?

 

[rjs330]

Nah, first we should deal your implication that I don't know how to do my job. Wouldn't want to let something like that fester.

Well I just discovered What you do. Nice! But my statement still stands. I think you've been taught by too many evolutionists that you've bought the assumptions. Makes sense. You have to go to schooling for what you do and I too make an assumption about your professors and text books. They all believe in evolution. Therefore teach it as fact.

Whereas God says differently. I believe God over evolution.

 

[rjs330]

Care to use your own words? I'm not interested in a gish gallop blog post from a creationist. How about some peer reviewed research? Demonstrate that you understand the topic.

Which skull is a chimpanzee and which skull is fully human?

See I knew you would do that, that's why I don't bother much with trying to show how evolution is a bunch of assumptive nonsense because all you do is dismiss it any way. Just like I dismiss evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

See I knew you would do that, that's why I don't bother much with trying to show how evolution is a bunch of assumptive nonsense because all you do is dismiss it any way. Just like I dismiss evolution.

LOL

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

See I knew you would do that, that's why I don't bother much with trying to show how evolution is a bunch of assumptive nonsense because all you do is dismiss it any way. Just like I dismiss evolution.

Do what? I'm asking you to demonstrate why you think evolution is just assumptions in your own words. Posting a link to a blog post with nothing in your own words doesn't do you any good. Care to try again? Or we can go over evidence if you'd like.

 

[MasonP]

Wrong.

If that's what you want to believe it's OK by me.

 

[loveofourlord]

Of course you reject it. Your an evolutionist. I don't expect otherwise. Evolutionists are so bound to their unprovable theory they can't help themselves.

Just so you don't think I'm being hypocritical I myself am bound to The word Of God that I can't help myself either. If God said it I believe it and if science says something different science is wrong.

I can't personally prove God but evolutionists can't prove evolution either.

Thing is we can, there is a reason we accept evolution, because nothing you've said adresses the evidence outside of handwaving wich isn't how you prove or disprove something, you wouldn't accept those kind of arguments against god, but feel quiet happy to throw them around when it's evolution. No offense, but it just makes you look silly, as your not actually adressing the facts.