Two and a half hour explaination of everthing Creationism.

Once again.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.



Talking to you creationists is worse than trying to talk to a wall.

 

Humans are apes. We evolved from previous apes.

 

http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

 

So that is how you excuse not being specific

 

Show the evolution and progression

 

Which proves what. show an explanation

 

lols

lesson one:

fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
b. A real occurrence; an event

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

 

That is what you asked.

I am asking what we evolved form and what that species evolved from that is evolution. Your argument is a copout because no one knows where we started.

The problem with evolution is they will never admit there are things we do not know and will probably never know. Instead they talk in general generic terms because the have no proof of specific and act like that is proof. It is more like a fairy tale. They would be better off saying we do not know

 

You asked for a transition. The explanation is painfully obvious.

 

The recurrent laryngeal nerve runs from the brain down into the chest, around the aorta and then back up into the throat to the larynx. Why would an IDer do this?

The evolutionary answer is simple. The ID answer makes no sense.

 

An even better one, breathing, drinking, and eating out of the same opening.

Why would an intelligent designer make it so easy to choke?

 

Oh I dunno Panzer ... if you look at the bible you can see this God bloke is into all kinds of crazy (*)(*)(*)(*).

he creates everything in seven days and creates a paradise on earth for adam and eve and then chucks a sad because they want to know about good and evil and kicks them out.

he's supposed to know everything, but never saw it coming that if he said he liked abel killing sheep and giving it to him (why would he even want it? is he some kind of bloodthirsty vampire) better than cain slogging his guts out in a field and giving him some grain it would cause jealousy.

he has a huge hissy fit and swamps the earth killing everyone and everything, except some fruitcake named noah who he prewarns, and who stupidly ensures the survival of every pest species known to man ...

who's to say he wouldn't make laryngeal nerves that knot around like tangled fishing lines?

it would kind of make sense, looking at all his other (*)(*)(*)(*) ups.

 

It's pointless, guys. The poster is either trolling, or just a very, very stupid person. I'm going to go with the former, though.

 

there is a lot of both on here.

its often hard to pick which is which..

 

Your position is that person A is a criminal, therefore his theory or position is false? How does that work? Isn't this what is known as a logical fallacy?

(note: I do not agree with his theory.)

 

He lied about his income. He's a liar.

It's not a logical fallacy to use the fact that someone is a liar against them.

 

Maybe not trolling, but a bit ironic.

In this forum we post evidence for evolution, he refuses for reasons that illustrate a lack of knowledge concerning evolution.

In the gun control forum I request evidence to substantiate the notion of a vast left wing UN conspiracy to destroy the 2nd Amendment and apple pie, he offers none.... well he does offer one link to prove my point, but says its obvious. That I should accept the UN arms treaty as being what I described because thats what the UN does.

Irony? I think so.

 

If a person, who is known to have lied about many things, makes a true statement, his being a liar in other cases does not make his true statements false. If his (Hovind's) theory of creationism is true, his lying in other cases does not make his theory false. That's why this kind of argumentation is a logical fallacy.

 

So you have no proof we should believe evolution opinions and guesses

 

If that was his only crime then he could still have been a decent person by most standards. Alas, it's not.

 

That is not the start. You will not answer because evolution does not know but we should believe what vague information they have.

Evolution should admit they do not know and may never know instead of trying to rationalize and making assumptions that can not be proven.


The have no credibility if they can not prove what they claim. Another words they as much proof as creation

 

So a bunch of skulls with no explanation is obvious? LOL

 

Only evolution makes sense to you because it is a religion to you