Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not surprising. Guy really did his homework! I've seen similar lists, albeit smaller and easier to look through and research. Lot's of phd's in unrelated fields, mail order degrees, etc... .
I have seen a few photo shopped images of a monkey becoming a man, in support of Darwin's "THEORY"
Quite apart from the Big Hint that evolution is "Just a Theory" when it has been explained dozens of time that a scientific theory is the very best evidence -supported explanation of what is observed, I note the familiar picking out of minor and pretty irrelevant image about as relevant to the argument as the Darwin Fish.
Quote:
Has anyone seen with their own eyes and observed human evolution in reality where a monkey becomes a man?
I like the way you demand 'with their own eyes' evidence of evolution and, I suspect because you have an idea that this has been observed and even creationism has to admit that, you switch it to human evolution which you are pretty sure is in the past and so you can safely use us not having a time machine as a reason to dismiss the evidence we do have.
Quote:
Scientific method must be "observable"
Because what is observable in order to be reliable evidence doesn't have to happen before our very eyes. If that was the case, nobody could be convicted of a crime unless there were people watching at the time. This is another common fallacy in evolution -debunking apologetics. Btw - I am curious, these stock objections are so common..do you come up with them yourself of just pick them up from Creationists sites?
Quote:
So, OP, first prove it to me that you came from a monkey (don't mean to be disrespectful) by an observable scientific evidence.
I'm sure the OP is not offended by the idea of coming from a monkey any more than I am or even from a fish and eventually from a handful of biochemicals. Which is better than the dust that Bible -believers apparently believe they came from. I don't mid the 'monkey' comparison because the common ancestor was either monkey -like or evolved from something that was.
Quote:
A few pictures of some 65 million years old skeleton or some photo shopped images won't do.
I love the way you are already taking up a stolid 'rejection of all evidence' stance before you even see it. - and on a false view, too. 65 million years old skeletons are of the dinosaurs' time. At best mammals looked like your pet rodents. Human evolution is really a few million years. You would of course have to look at the evidence and understand it rather than dismiss it as 'some ..old skeletons' as a pretext for ignoring the evidence and saying there isn't any. As to photoshopping, I'll leave that to the Biblical giant skeletons -mongers.
Quote:
Once you provide this observable scientific evidence, we will go from there.
Yep. We do have to provide a case. I see the need for that. But you really have to be willing to give it a fair whack and apply the same sort of evaluation as we apply to forensic investigation in criminal cases, reconstruction of history through archaeological study of excavated remains and being able to say what happens to stars and sub atomic particles without it being needful to actually see it happening in front of their eyes.
If you won't do that but insist that evolution has to be monkeys turning into humans before your eyes, then of course you won't see any evidence, but that is your shortcomings - not those of evolution - theory.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-04-2015 at 07:02 AM..
I have seen a few photo shopped images of a monkey becoming a man, in support of Darwin's "THEORY"
Has anyone seen with their own eyes and observed human evolution in reality where a monkey becomes a man?
Scientific method must be "observable"
So, OP, first prove it to me that you came from a monkey (don't mean to be disrespectful) by an observable scientific evidence.
A few pictures of some 65 million years old skeleton or some photo shopped images won't do.
Once you provide this observable scientific evidence, we will go from there.
Yes I have seen the same images. Of course they didn't have photo shop which I was younger in school. But in our text books there were images of humans evolving from chimps. Now scientists backpedal and say that never happened, that we never came from chimps. I notice that is a favorite thing for evolutionary scientists to do: backpedal, retract, or "well, we were wrong about that." In the mean time, millions of children were brainwashed into believing what was currently taught prior to the retraction. Now we have a bunch of bafoons on message boards actually defending evolution.
No one can prove humans came from anything other than a human. It is just their say-so.
Remember: in the mind of a creationist, no evidence trumps some evidence. So any debate will be difficult.
Remember: in the mind of the evolutionist, when the scientists says "this SEEMS to confirm evolution" the evolutionist turns that into "this absolutely confirms evolution."
I like the way you demand 'with their own eyes' evidence of evolution and, I suspect because you have an idea that this has been observed and even creationism has to admit that, you switch it to human evolution which you are pretty sure is in the past and so you can safely use us not having a time machine as a reason to dismiss the evidence we do have.
I'm still waiting for that evidence you do have ole chum.
Quote:
Because what is observable in order to be reliable evidence doesn't have to happen before our very eyes. If that was the case, nobody could be convicted of a crime unless there were people watching at the time. This is another common fallacy in evolution -debunking apologetics. Btw - I am curious, these stock objections are so common..do you come up with them yourself of just pick them up from Creationists sites?
Do you have something against creationist sites? The articles are written by scientists. Do you have something against scientists? I can say the same thing about your non creationist sites which use scientists who are definately biased and need that pay check or don't want kicked out of their college, or need to keep the money flowing into their department for research.
Quote:
I'm sure the OP is not offended by the idea of coming from a monkey any more than I am or even from a fish and eventually from a handful of biochemicals. Which is better than the dust that Bible -believers apparently believe they came from. I don't mid the 'monkey' comparison because the common ancestor was either monkey -like or evolved from something that was.
It was soil, not dust. The single cell is a veritable factory of parts which all must work together. The DNA has instructions in it to repair and keep the cell AS IS. It does not have instructions to evolve into something other than what it was created to be. Who put those vast amount of instructions in the DNA? You can't say biochemicals. The single cell was intelligently designed to be what it was and is. It is not designed to morph into this then that then this then that until we have a human. It has no instructions in its DNA to do that.
Quote:
I love the way you are already taking up a stolid 'rejection of all evidence' stance before you even see it. - and on a false view, too. 65 million years old skeletons are of the dinosaurs' time. At best mammals looked like your pet rodents. Human evolution is really a few million years. You would of course have to look at the evidence and understand it rather than dismiss it as 'some ..old skeletons' as a pretext for ignoring the evidence and saying there isn't any. As to photoshopping, I'll leave that to the Biblical giant skeletons -mongers.
Your faith is strong friend.
Quote:
Yep. We do have to provide a case. I see the need for that. But you really have to be willing to give it a fair whack and apply the same sort of evaluation as we apply to forensic investigation in criminal cases, reconstruction of history through archaeological study of excavated remains and being able to say what happens to stars and sub atomic particles without it being needful to actually see it happening in front of their eyes.
I'm still waiting for the proof.
Quote:
If you won't do that but insist that evolution has to be monkeys turning into humans before your eyes, then of course you won't see any evidence, but that is your shortcomings - not those of evolution - theory.
What is crazier? a single cell morphing into something else which eventually morphed into a fish which eventually morphed into a lizard which eventually morphed into a knuckle dragger which eventually morphed into a human, all of which is absolutely impossible due to the instruction coding in the DNA, or to believe God created mankind out of the soil of the earth in a day? I'd take the latter any day over the guessing of fallible humans.
Remember: in the mind of the evolutionist, when the scientists says "this SEEMS to confirm evolution" the evolutionist turns that into "this absolutely confirms evolution."
Nobody is claiming any kind of absolute proof for evolution. Absolute proof is only possible in mathematics and formal logic.
You are the one demanding absolute proof for evolution, without holding creationism to the same rigorous standard.
That's what makes these debates rather pointless. The creationist *just knows* that his particular creation story is true (and that every other creation story is false). It's an irrational belief that must be defended at any cost, for deep psychological reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like the way you demand 'with their own eyes' evidence of evolution and, I suspect because you have an idea that this has been observed and even creationism has to admit that, you switch it to human evolution which you are pretty sure is in the past and so you can safely use us not having a time machine as a reason to dismiss the evidence we do have. 
- and on a false view, too. 65 million years old skeletons are of the dinosaurs' time. At best mammals looked like your pet rodents. Human evolution is really a few million years. You would of course have to look at the evidence and understand it rather than dismiss it as 'some ..old skeletons' as a pretext for ignoring the evidence and saying there isn't any. As to photoshopping, I'll leave that to the Biblical giant skeletons -mongers. 
