Oh sry Chris, I thought you were "crow". I was on my iPhone, so things are very hard to read. My mistake and sorry about that post.
The heavily-documented and drastic evolution of man in the last few thousand years is proof enough for any clear-thinking person. Denying evolution is like denying tornadoes. Just because you fear the consequences doesn't mean you can wish it away.
Really? So you think there is a distinct difference from man now physically than those of men 1,000 years ago? Any again, just a theory. If it's so irrefutable then it would be easy to find fossils of the transition. I mean shit man, we've got fossils of freaked dinosaurs. Why can't we find any of the transition of man? Or any other animal for that matter?
Then, in 1998, evolutionist Michael Denton shocked everyone with his book, Nature's Destiny, when he admitted: This coming from one of the leading evolutionists...
Now I don't want to be depicted as some "Bible Thumping" eccentric, but I am using the same argument that others are portraying in this thread. If you need irrefutable proof that God exists; then I require that very same proof that evolution exists. How is it that paleontologists have dug up millions of fossils; yet haven't found a connection to evolution? If evolutionary man did exists, then it wouldn't be 1 man/woman in one selected area. There would be groups of fossils found of these types of humanoids. And since science has proven that animals are "social" and require the accompany of their own creed; why haven't we found these congregations? I mean in Montana; there were groups of the same species in the same area. And knowing that man is one of the most "social" beings on this planet; wouldn't you find the most fossils of these "humanoids" together?
What do you mean "evolution exists"? Do you mean you want proof that things have evolved? I never understand exactly what people are doubting. Do they doubt that organisms can change? What's happening in dog breeding, then?
I'm not particularly interested in debating evolution, at least in this thread which you kinda hijacked, but you should really study other sources since everything you've posted is based on propaganda-style misrepresentation (michael denton is a long-time ANTI-evolution author, not a leading evolutionist; every single fossil ever found has fit in with a pattern we would expect if evolution were true etc.) because conditions were so much more competetive our humanoid ancestors likely were much less social and more small clan-oriented than modern man. they also were very likely relatively uncommon in number compared to some dinosour species that may have existed in herds of millions as with modern plains mammal species. presumably being a little smarter than dinosaurs they also would have been less prone to lemming effects where a group dies the same way before individuals can adjust to what is going on, which is likely the case where groups of dinosaurs drowned together etc.
Ou guess you didn't read the quotes I just posted above that aren't propaganda based; but actual direct quotes from PHDs scholars and evolutionists. And this does relate to the topic and your argument ofjesus not existing becuase of your claim there is no physical proof he ever existed yet evolutionists, who hve no proof thru fossils or other physical evidence that evolution has ever existed. It's using the very same concept and theory
No I want proof that man has physically evolved. Where are the missing links? If man came to be, where are the fossils to prove the evolution of organisms that make up man, birds, lions, whatever. This is all theory.
Yay, I was hoping I would get an opportunity to post this: [video=youtube;KD40xi9KdqE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD40xi9KdqE[/video]
Exactly!!! Just because a Asian breeds with a white man, that you have a mix of race. This is no proof of the missing links to major evolutionary changes. Nothing...
individual PHDs and scholars can be just as biased in their motivation as anyone else, and it only takes a few of those among millions of scientists to fuel a creationist website. the fact is 99%+ of scientists working in fields related to evolution believe in it. for the few actual evolutists who you referenced such as Gould, their quotes were taken out of context. they in fact were just pointing out that we don't seem to fully understand the mechanism behind evolution, which is true, NOT that it's likely or necessarily even possible that common descent didn't happen. again, if you really care about this argument you should at least read other sources besides creationist-specific material. since you like wikipedia as an unbiased site - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution this is also pretty comprehensive - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
That they believe in them?! Lol u have been talking about how idiotic Christians are because they just believe and here you are saying that %99 of scientists ad scholars believe. Talk about contradictions
contrary to what you think it is possible to believe something is true based on evidence rather than faith. if you don't think there is any evidence read through those links. the second is a little more from a perspective of refuting creationist arguments so might be more readable for you.
