Replies

When Darwinism faces off against real science it always has and always will be knocked out cold.

LOL. Really? You folks have been saying this for 150 years and yet, it still isn't true.

let’s look at just one tiny aspect of the overall picture. That is, apes turning into man.

You suffer two problems here. One, quite simply, is you seem to not know how to Google or read or visit your local natural history museum. There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of fossil evidence, showing a rather beautiful lineage to Homo sapiens. (Incidentally, even if there were none of that, DNA evidence is even stronger.)

Two, you erroneously think that human evolution involves "apes turning into man." Man is an ape. I know that is blasphemy to you, but scientific facts don't really care about your feelings or ego. Where do creationists get their flawed idea of what evolutionary theory actually states?

If the theory is correct, shouldn’t evidence abound? Why have the only missing links presented been man-made hoaxes?

Ah. I see. You've unfortunately been lied to. Sure, there have been a few hoaxes many decades ago, almost all of which were exposed by scientists, because that's how science works. How in the world have you apparently ignored the mountains of evidence that haven't been beaten to death by the AIG/ICR PR machine?

The flaws in his theory that Darwin thought time would correct have only become more problematic. For instance, those elusive transitional fossil between the major species which he thought would be found, haven’t been. How many fossils are in existence? 200 million? More? Name one that provides proof of macroevolution. How about irreducible complexity to name another problem Darwin had with his own theory?

You say man is an ape. Do we have 24 pairs of chromosomes? And why, at the very least, do we have 100+ million more bits of info separating us from our supposed closest ancestor? Do you think we need more than one link to bridge that gap? Where this “beautiful lineage” you speak of?

Please tell me what you believe the creature is that is man’s closest relative in Darwinian evolution and I’ll go do more thorough research on it. Spare the condescension and lay the science on me.

“You suffer two problems here. One, quite simply, is you seem to not know how to Google or read or visit your local natural history museum. There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of fossil evidence, showing a rather beautiful lineage to Homo sapiens. (Incidentally, even if there were none of that, DNA evidence is even stronger.)”

Far less evidence than you would think. There are people living in New Zealand or Australia whom, if Scientists found their skulls in some ditch somewhere, would measure them out to be Neanderthals or Homo Erectus and publish it in a scientific journal somewhere as evidence for evolution. You’d be surprised how much specious reasoning and fraudulent evidence has been put together to aid your evolutionary religion.