[loser]

Its basic physics that creationism should be having a problem is, but they're still pissed they came from monkeys

No, I think they're mad because ignorant people claim that we came from monkeys without an iota of evidence (though they claim much evidence to the contrary) merely because they don't want to believe in God (but do, no matter how hard they struggle against it).

My point is that evolutionists (scientists devoted to a better physical understanding of the origin, nature, and development of live) in general are more responsive to evidence that runs contrary to their theories than do creationists who have a base of faith rather than education and scientific observation for their conclusions.

I say that your observation is completely false and only believe that because of your bias. I see just the opposite...is it possible that I am biased, as well?

That some creationists cannot get beyond that 'they came from monkeys' to see a possible flaw in their own theory shows the level of ignorance that must be overcome before a scientific conversation can even begin with 'devout' creationists

Ignorance is where you find it. Evolutionary biologists can't get beyond God to see the absolute flaw in their own theory..

Scientists (I'm not sure why you specified 'evolutionists') virtually leap at evidence that is contrary to accepted theories. That's how science works and how scientists get their name out there.

Indeed...Piltdown man comes to mind. Uh,wait, that proves the OPPOSITE of what you said.

Sorry......NOT!

On the other hand, Creationists reach their conclusions by faith rather than observation. If their faith cannot be reconciled with reality, creationists reject reality.

Really? It seems to me, from the confessions of many 'once religious' posters, that they have rejected their faith and not their perceived reality. Truth is a lot less assailable...you know that, right?

Yep. I'm sure. I've been debating creationists for over 20 years...

This should explain your debating skills...but does it?

...and have been an evolutionary biologist, studying and teaching it, for over 30.

Now that's a scary thought. I hope you're still teaching in "The Great Wide Open". I mean, after all, what harm could a bunch of cowboys do up on "Brokeback Mountain"?

I'm just Adam's ribbing you with sarcastic humor. The reason?

You never took debate, did you?

How sad that you seem to want to learn and yet are unable to accept correction from someone who knows more about the topic than you.

That's exactly my point. You should listen to me...I know everything that needs to be known. Accept correction like a hominid...or, at least, a closely related species!

I wasn't trying to sound smarter.

Don't worry...you don't.

Holy Jesus!

See? Even evolutionary biologists aren't totally clueless!

In the spirit of reconciliation and in an effort to help you understand, here is a summary of Darwin's thoughts about natural selection.

Why would you post the thoughts of Darwin? His only degree was in THEOLOGY and he failed that miserably. Darwin wasn't very bright and he was an abysmal failure in school. His ideas weren't original, he merely tried to advance the ideas of his grandfather. As a theologian who turned from his faith (and with a father and a grandfather who were atheists), he had motive to construct a theory which rejected the reality of God. He had motive (desire) but he didn't have the ability to do proper study and research. Of course, that didn't stop him from deceiving millions of people who welcomed his theory since they rejected God, as well. It isn't the science of Darwinism that has captivated the masses, it is the philosophy/religion of it.

No, he didn't. Have you actually read anything by Darwin?

Once again, a horrible source. If you have read anything by Darwin and accepted his fallacious reasoning, then you are not qualified to teach evolutionary biology. Brainwashed (programmed) people do not make good teachers. They are just more bricks in the wall...and we don't need no (sic) source control.

We have found fossils of intermediate (i.e., transitional) species.

No, 'we' haven't. You're making fallacious connections.

Though humans have shared the planet with millions of other creatures for thousands of years, we know surprisingly little about our neighbors — we don’t even know exactly how many flora and fauna call Earth home. The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million. “We’ve only touched the surface of understanding animal life,” said entomologist Brian Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences. “We’ve discovered just 10 percent of all living things on this planet.”

How many species exist on Earth? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

By the way, the two Brokeback Mountain cowboys at the top of your page are impressive.

Not to everybody, however.

'm not familiar with this creationist invention and I thought the the region just north of Australia was ocean.

You said that math wasn't one of your strong points, I would guess that geography isn't either. You probably don't know this but there are a lot of islands in the ocean. Even Australia is an island and is north of somewhere. Google earth could probably help you.

These are not accidents but the result of billions of years of evolution

It's billions now, is it? Wow...my watch stopped.

There is no question that everything is the result of a magical and invisible being. Why would anyone doubt it?

Uneducated, ignorant, or superstitious people believe that ALL science which they can't understand is magic. Air is invisible but most of us know that it's not magical. Magnetic attraction seems magical but it's not. Spontaneous combustion appears magical to those not understanding chemistry. What are you going to do...we live in a 'magical' universe!

One theory of gravity is that what comes up must come down, because the earth has its own gravitational pull. Another theory is that what goes up comes back down because little invisible and intangible gremlins grab on to anything that goes up and yanks it back down to earth. We can't exactly disprove the second theory, yes, but why would we even put stock in it when the first has a much more logical and sensible explanation?

Which is why "logical and sensible" people believe in God. It's hard to put stock in the little green goblin called evolution.

Ok, fair enough. Now just give us your "much more logical and sensible explanation" of the origin of life and the universe. Go read a few pages of this thread, you should get a general idea.

Better yet, just read all of my posts.

I seem to remember something about a big bang? Doppler effect? Universal Background Radiation?

A big bang implies an explosion. What exploded and where did it come from?

The Doppler effect is the observed change in the frequency of a wave due to motion. How does that explain the origin of what caused those waves?

Universal Background Radiation? How does that explain the origin of matter?