I would just appreciate one of your to veiw the vids and comment on them, but it seems to never happen. It's always back to some unrelated topic that wasn't even asked.

Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE

No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

Any takers?

wilderness,

Your're quoting from a Blog (rolls eyes)...mmmm mkay..... Do you understnad why invoking 'god dun it' to explain something isn't falsifiable and thus isn't Science? Show me a single time when 'god done it' or it was "an intellgently designer did it" has answered something that resulted in actual greater knowledge for mankind.

For the Believers: Please, it only damages your soul to attack someone who can't accept Truth. Christ couldn't save the world, only those whom He came for.... the more the loved the greater the persecution. The one thing we all have in common, both believer and non-believer is that one day every knee shall bow... the difference being..some will bow before the throne of God in heaven and others will bow as they have wrought damnation upon themselves..

They may well make a good arguement of the science which they erroneously construe, but at the end of the day, Paschal's Wager will always be resolved in favor of the believer.

SC,

“Now let's move onto the fact that there are huge jumps in the fossil records that have yet to be filled.”

Define 'huge jump' please. I gave you some vids on transitional fossils which do fills in some gaps, please explain what ‘huge jumps’ you’re eluding to.

“http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/3442_ifatal_flaws_what_evolution_12_30_1899.asp”

Did you even READ that link? It’s a rebuttal against Hank Hanegraaff and how his paper is wrong. You're amazing.

“http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html”

You call that ‘hard evidence’ ? Evidence for what? Java man and Peking man are specimens a of a species known as Homo Erectus, they weren’t hoaxes.

“What about the fossils of similar humans back before these so-called evolutionary stages?”

Which ones? You mean like the Australopithecines Genus? Australopithecines weren't humans, only those in the Genus Homo qualify as hominid or human.

“Now I think I'm done explaining myself.”

Well, thanks for not even bothering to address any of the evidence I presented in vids earlier, thanks a lot for wasting all of our time on waiting for you dead reply.

oldguy

Re:"I got the answer. God did it!" The other scientists would laugh at the nitwit. You don't want to be laughed at, do you?

Did people laugh at you when you said you believed in God or was a Catholic when you were a young boy? Is that why you rejected the religious beliefs you were raised on? Were you embrassed? Was your spirited wounded when you were laughed at? Is this really the source of your attitudes and rejection of God?

"Invoking intelligent design is no different from invoking magic. It’s childish and it’s stupid. It certainly isn’t science." (BobC http://www.pbs.org/nights/blog/2007/11/nova_judgment_day_intelligent.html#comment-28030)

I would have to disagree with the above quote. A relationship with God and a knowledge of God has nothing to do with magic. Every child should be taught the ways of God.

By the way, ShuckCreations, more than a century has passed since Darwin dropped dead. Do you think scientists have done nothing since then?

ShuckCreations: "Obviously a higher power was at work there."

Obviously? Magic is obvious? I suggest you should not be so quick to invoke magic. It makes you look lazy. Another reason to not invoke magic is because it makes you look childish. Imagine a group of scientists trying to solve a problem, and one of the scientists says "I got the answer. God did it!" The other scientists would laugh at the nitwit. You don't want to be laughed at, do you?

Also, ShuckCreations, when you quote a scientist you should provide the whole thing and you should provide a source for the quote. When you select one sentence out of a paragraph, you look extremely dishonest. Creationists do this kind of quote mining all the time. They select a sentence out of context to completely distort what the scientist meant. This tactic always backfires because everyone knows how dishonest it is.

"Piltdown man was a hoax."

So what? Is this your excuse to insult all scientists?

Your Piltdown man is a bad sign. It makes me think you are a total waste of time. Only a creationist would make a big deal out of one dishonest scientist who died many decades ago. It's difficult for me to respect somebody who would insult thousands of scientists because a small number of dead scientists were not honest.

oldguy aka first/danny2/danny/bob

Re:This explains why creationists are a waste of time.

Then why don't you leave and invest your time in something else.

I just found this quote. This explains why creationists are a waste of time.

"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."
[Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research]

oldguy aka first/danny2/danny/bob

God loves you anyway.

First before I talk about evolution there exists one problem that even Darwin himself admits:

"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest fossilferous rocks." Darwin, The Origin of Species, p 348

Regardless of if there is evolution or not there's still one point where life was created all at once. Obviously a higher power was at work there. Now let's move onto the fact that there are huge jumps in the fossil records that have yet to be filled.

"But, as by this theory inumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin, The Origin of Species, p 163

And now check out the quoted block in the middle of the page...
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/3442_ifatal_flaws_what_evolution_12_30_1899.asp

Now let's see about the famous ape-men fossils:

Piltdown man was a hoax:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

As matter of fact here's a nice big list of ancient ape-men fossil inconsistencies, click on the superscripts for sources:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html

Oh and one last thing. What about the fossils of similar humans back before these so-called evolutionary stages? Why would there be a difference? Wouldn't that just mean there might have been another close relative to the humans, as are the chimps today, that might've become extinct? And now we're trying to piece together something that no one was around to document.

And for those that say man wrote the bible...the apostles that wrote it were around Christ at the time He existed. They wrote of the things they saw, including the ressurection. Now I think I'm done explaining myself. I highly recommend reading "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" by Walt Brown. You might find some interesting things about science that you didn't know about.

LOL... well there is nothing left here but to pray for all the non-believers.... God will not loose one of His....

ShuckCreations: "It's pointless to debate when you're going to be so biased."

I'm not here to debate anything. All debating is pointless. I'm here to educate people.

BTW, why am I biased if I refuse to consider the nonsense and the magic of your disgusting death cult? I thought we were talking about science.

Christians have the unfortunate habit of mixing up scientific facts and supernatural beliefs. These two things are completely separate. Even religious scientists understand how important it is to not invoke God for any scientific problem. They know invoking magic has never answered any question.

Did you look at the amazon customer reviews of the book I recommended? You complained about the fossils, and you insulted the integrity of scientists. Do you still have problems with the fossils? What about all the DNA analysis that biologists use to test for evolutionary relationships? Do you understand how that works?

ShuckCreations, you should consider it a compliment that I talk to you at all. Some people, for example jar1961, are a complete waste of time. I'm probably wrong, but I think there is a very small chance you could understand why every biologist in the world calls evolution a fact.

It would be easier for you if you could at least temporarily set aside your supernatural beliefs, and imagine how the world would work without some invisible man in the sky performing magic tricks.

Yes orange, that wasn't directed at you. I'm interested in discussing, not converting. I'll leave that decision up to you but oldguy seems as though he's just here to troll and make people argue for the sense of pride and pleasing himself.

jar1961,

“evokution dictates that man came from apes... So who nutured the first baby chimps...? They are amammilian....it is the same question.....”

No, you’re confusing it. As a species branches out and evolves vie genetic isolation you have a group of formerly closely related species that overtime incur their own genetic mutations, selection, and thus evolve in their own trajectories. For a short period they could interbreed, then later interbreed with difficulty, and then later can’t interbreed. At no point would either side of this branch result in a parentless offspring as for the offspring to come about requires the parents in the first place.

Please understand, we didn’t come from Chimpanzees, and evolution doesn’t say that we did. Rather it suggests that both us homo sapiens (human) and Chimpanzees (Pan (and other great apes) both share a common ancestor some 5-6 million years ago, which would have been a primitve ape.

”You are claiming that man and apes were 2 different species”

Yes, they are. However, ‘APE’ as a taxonomic classification is at the Family level, which we are part of. Along with Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Those species are in the Great Apes Family according to taxonomy, genetics and other lines of evidence.

“... evolutionary theory claims man came from apes’

Well, not quite. Rather it suggests we and today’s members of the Great Ape Family shared a common ancestor, thus why I used the term ‘branching’ with reference to evolution.

ShuckCreations,

Will you still speak with me? I haven't insulted you, I am trying to bridge a gap here and would appreciate your response SC. Please say you'l review what I gave earlier and reply back.

"In evolution you have a group of species branching out to other descendants and therefore there is no instant part where an offspring would be without parent in the first place. You are totally misunderstanding what evolution suggests in the first place. Evolution never suggests that instantly life went from bacteria to humans in a single generation resulting in hapless babies".


Species of different types don't mutually nuture each other..... Wrong arguesment... evokution dictates that man came from apes... So who nutured the first baby chimps...? They are amammilian....it is the same question.....

You are claiming that man and apes were 2 different species ... evolutionary theory claims man came from apes

"Why should I waste my limited time looking at all aspects of your death cult?"

LOL oldguy, if you refuse to look at both sides of an arguement then I believe you and I are done with this discussion. It's pointless to debate when you're going to be so biased.

ShuckCreations,

Oldguy and I await your evidence and data that you bring forth, we understand you’re at work, that’s reasonable. Before posting your bit, please review those vids and sources from them it might explain something related to your points that you made earlier.

“God's Word has been, is, & will always be unchanged”

And WHOM do you think wrote it? Sure, you can say it was ‘inspired by god’, but in the end men, fallible men penned it. This logic swings both ways, so if men are by virtue of logic fallible, then it goes equally for anything and that includes holy texts.

You do know why Science knowledge changes yes? It’s b/c old ideas are debunked and others are revised further thus resulting in greater epistemological knowledge onwards towards ‘truth’. Decrying by fiat ‘the earth doesn’t move’ as the bible indicates doesn’t make it so, objective evidence and testing via scientific method makes it so. and it moves, so it’s not so.

“I have no problem whatsoever in supporting a theory that God himself could use”

SC, since god setup all the laws and rules, which govern the universe, anything derived from it is directly or indirectly from him/her/it. Think of it this way, if you were god and you had to setup a system to ensure that life could survive huge mass extinction events and other earthly calamities, would it be more logical to make life static and without any wiggle room to adapt and change, OR, would it seem more logical to have a system support life that is dynamic and can change, adapt to greater degrees and thus stands a better overall chance of living. Consider it, 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and yet life soldiers on.