WHY IS THE MISSING LINK STILL MISSING?

[Ibelieve]

Before we begin I have a question: If I cannot provide you direct proof that life originated out of one of the dozens of origin of life hypothesis ( read: Not theories ) do you assume that creationism is by default true?>>>

Firstly, creationism is based upon faith and faith is based upon evidence. For example, if I go to a desert island and I step off my boat and I notice a set of footprints on the beach that is evidence that someone else has been there. I don't have to actually see the person in order to come to that conclusion.

Likewise, if I see something in nature that has purpose and design that evidence would prompt me to ask the logical question, "who is the designer?" Again, notice I wouldn't have to actually see the person responsible for the thing produced in order to come to the conclusion. The faith part of the equation is, WHO is responsible instead of "what" is responsible.

Notice that when when we start asking WHAT instead of Who, the whole thing is thrown into confusion. We are thrown into the primordial stew with different people sticking their spoons in  and coming out with contradictory hypothesis, speculation and conjecture.

The biggest problem for evolutionists is that have dismissed the idea of a Creator and now desperately trying to find evidence to prove the theory. The problem is how to prove something when no evidence exist to support it. Well, you invent it. Piltdown man, for example. "For decades, a fossil skull discovered in Piltdown, England, was hailed as the missing link between apes and humans. Entire careers were built on its authenticity. Then in 1953, the awful truth came out: "Piltdown Man" was a fake!" It was just one of the many crutches that were produce to support the lie.

Interestingly and contrary to the beliefs of the less well informed, there isn't ONE stitch of evidence scientific or otherwise to support evolution.

So you see why I wouldn't even waste time in asking you to "provide direct proof" as it is a lost cause already even though you might not  realize it as yet.

The fact of the matter is that most people are just running with the theory because they do not like the alternative which is God.

You see accepting there is a God requires people to admit that they are sinners in bondage to habits of vice and lust and selfishness of one kind or another. Admitting God demands repentance and change. Some are running desperately seeking shelter in and idea that has not foundation in reality, in history, in religion nor science nor common sense.

The Big Bang supposed to have started with nothing but over zillions of years the nothing has become us. Here we are driving cars and flying airplanes which we were only able to produce within the last 100 years even though we were supposed to have been around for the past 100, 000, 000 years. You just couldn't make it up and even you did no one would believe it but incredible they did make it up and millions have embraced the idea. This is nothing less than mass deception.

Seeing that people on this forum are avowed atheist does that mean you cannot be honest? If you will not accept religion then will you not accept science? Evolution is NOT Science, Evolution is not observable, Evolution is NOT testable; and, Evolution is NOT repeatable.

Can I invite you to stop looking at the hypothesis and start looking at the hard scientific evidence.

The missing link is still missing because it never existed!

[Cycle4Fun]

Before we begin I have a question: If I cannot provide you direct proof that life originated out of one of the dozens of origin of life hypothesis ( read: Not theories ) do you assume that creationism is by default true?>>>

Firstly, creationism is based upon faith and faith is based upon evidence. For example, if I go to a desert island and I step off my boat and I notice a set of footprints on the beach that is evidence that someone else has been there. I don't have to actually see the person in order to come to that conclusion.

Likewise, if I see something in nature that has purpose and design that evidence would prompt me to ask the logical question, "who is the designer?" Again, notice I wouldn't have to actually see the person responsible for the thing produced in order to come to the conclusion. The faith part of the equation is, WHO is responsible instead of "what" is responsible.

Notice that when when we start asking WHAT instead of Who, the whole thing is thrown into confusion. We are thrown into the primordial stew with different people sticking their spoons in  and coming out with contradictory hypothesis, speculation and conjecture.

The biggest problem for evolutionists is that have dismissed the idea of a Creator and now desperately trying to find evidence to prove the theory. The problem is how to prove something when no evidence exist to support it. Well, you invent it. Piltdown man, for example. "For decades, a fossil skull discovered in Piltdown, England, was hailed as the missing link between apes and humans. Entire careers were built on its authenticity. Then in 1953, the awful truth came out: "Piltdown Man" was a fake!" It was just one of the many crutches that were produce to support the lie.

Interestingly and contrary to the beliefs of the less well informed, there isn't ONE stitch of evidence scientific or otherwise to support evolution.

So you see why I wouldn't even waste time in asking you to "provide direct proof" as it is a lost cause already even though you might not  realize it as yet.

The fact of the matter is that most people are just running with the theory because they do not like the alternative which is God.

You see accepting there is a God requires people to admit that they are sinners in bondage to habits of vice and lust and selfishness of one kind or another. Admitting God demands repentance and change. Some are running desperately seeking shelter in and idea that has not foundation in reality, in history, in religion nor science nor common sense.

The Big Bang supposed to have started with nothing but over zillions of years the nothing has become us. Here we are driving cars and flying airplanes which we were only able to produce within the last 100 years even though we were supposed to have been around for the past 100, 000, 000 years. You just couldn't make it up and even you did no one would believe it but incredible they did make it up and millions have embraced the idea. This is nothing less than mass deception.

Seeing that people on this forum are avowed atheist does that mean you cannot be honest? If you will not accept religion then will you not accept science? Evolution is NOT Science, Evolution is not observable, Evolution is NOT testable; and, Evolution is NOT repeatable.

Can I invite you to stop looking at the hypothesis and start looking at the hard scientific evidence.

The missing link is still missing because it never existed!

Jeebus you are dense.  Here.  The very first f**king link from a google search of "evidence of evolution."  Your deliberate ignorance pisses me off!
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

You have not made one post that demonstrates you actually understand the arguments for evolution.  All do is say "There is no evidence."  You are pathetic and deserve ridicule until you change your ways.

All examined faith healings are fake.  The catholic relics are fake.  Does that prove your religion is fake?  The piltdown man is a fake.  Good thing we have actual evidence.

And my theist friend wonders why I am avidly opposed to religion.

[tomthecool]

Get an education. There is a REASON why virtually every educated, non-religiously-brainwashed person in the world accepts evolution. And I know that argument is fallacious ("The majority is not always correct..."), but I just can't be bothered to explain evolution to you. Use google, and come back when you understand it.

[Ibelieve]

Jeebus you are dense.  Here.  The very first f**king link from a google search of "evidence of evolution."  Your deliberate ignorance pisses me off!>>>

Why did you type evidence of evolution?

I mean , would that not just guarantee you finding more flawed science.

The evidence, like piltdown man is contrived - DOESN'T EXIST!

We are talking science here!

Obtaining a balanced view would necessarily mean you having to read the real scientific facts
and not just the opinions another atheist.

[Dkit]

Here's another link:

Lines of evidence

How does evolution impact my life

I like the above link because it explains all the ways that evolution is used to help our daily lives.  Agriculture, medicine, conservation, forensics, vaccines, bio-weapons, etc. 

This will give you a basic understanding.
Evolution 101

Transitional fossils

Five Misconceptions about evolution

Lizards Rapidly evolve after introduction to island

 

[Dkit]

Piltdown man is an example of why/how science works. 

[tomthecool]

Obtaining a balanced view would necessarily mean you having to read the real scientific facts
and not just the opinions another atheist.

Scientist =/= atheist. More theists believe in evolution than theists who don't.

[Dkit]

From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

Learning how the layers of fossils show life getting more complex as time progressed helped me when I first started reading about evolution.  There is a reason scientists don't find complex life in the oldest strata.

[Codswallop]

Easily the dumbest OP in the history of the world wide intertubes.

Now get this, all you true believers: I know there are smart people who believe all this ID-creationism stuff. I insist you bring them here. Stop sending out the pawns to waste our time with their semi-literate, illogical arguments. BRING US THE QUEEN!

[xphobe]

Likewise, if I see something in nature that has purpose and design that evidence would prompt me to ask the logical question, "who is the designer?" Again, notice I wouldn't have to actually see the person responsible for the thing produced in order to come to the conclusion. The faith part of the equation is, WHO is responsible instead of "what" is responsible.

[MrFriday]

snip (because who wants to see that silliness again?)

Be happy in your belief. You are welcome to believe anything you like. No one is stopping you. I support freedom of belief. You can go on believing that you know it all and the only options are your belief or evil opposition to it in the world. If you shelter yourself from learning well enough, you can go to your grave knowing without question that you are correct and that everyone else is wrong. You can die a smug and self-satisfied death. You'll never have opportunity to regret that choice whether or not there is life after death. If there isn't, you won't ever think again. But if there is life after death, you won't regret your choice, right? Well, perhaps you will if you get to God and he says that you were being tested for humility and since you have none, you're going straight to hell. What if God turns out to be Allah or Brahma? You may be in a lot of trouble. There is another possiblity. What if you get to the seat of God and he says, "Hey, how did you like my design of the evolutionary process whereby I brought life from inorganic matter and led all the way to the evolution of the human race?" Are you going to say its all lies then? I'm just curious.

As it stands, I think you should really stay out of things you clearly do not understand. All of your objections to evolution are nonsensical. Evolution is the primary foundational theory used in biology. The Bible says "ye shall know them by their fruits" meaning you'll know true believers by what they do. In this case you will know a valid theory by its fruits. Understanding of evolution has lead to advancements in life sciences that result in medicines, treatments and products that enhance our lives. This is not just opinion or rhetoric. It is documented fact. Ask any working microbiologist if their science would be anywhere near as advanced if it were not for the fact of evolution. The fruits of the theory of evolution are monumental. The fruits of religion are perhaps some people feeling comforted but at the cost of bigotry, violence and war. You'd be hardpressed to find an atrocity in science to rival the witch hunts, inquisitions and ethnic genocide that have come as a result of religious dogma.

It appears that you are only harping on evolution because it seems to show there is no need for the hypothesis of God. But evoutionary scientists have no bone to pick with you. They aren't out to disprove God. They don't start by assuming there is no God and then look for ways to support that assertion. They are looking for the answers to the origin and processes of all life by looking at the evidence. There just isn't any evidence that leads to the conclusion that a God did it. If there were, they would be following up on it. Science is about honest inquiry. If religion had anything to offer, they would use it. But it doesn't. In any case, you don't have to let the facts bother you. You are free to ignore the evidence and believe whatever you like. However, you can't wish it away or convince all the people who know the evidence is real to turn away from it and go back to cowtowing to an ancient middle-eastern bogeyman.

You speak of evidence supporting the hypothesis of God. But you don't provide any. If saying that everything you see is evidence of God because it was made by God is valid, it would be equally valid to say everything you see is evidence of evolution because it came about through evolution. That is not evidence in either case. Evidence must be some fact besides the things in question that leads one to understand more about how it happened. The proposition of Goddidit is essentially saying it is all magical. No one can see any evidence that any beings just appeared whole and complete. Evidence does not have to be visible to the naked eye. But it has to be more than an assumption and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. In other words, show me the "footprints" of which you speak.

Science is self-correcting. When scientists find that there has been fraud or error, they look for the real answers. Piltdown man is an example from a less sophisticated era. Yes, it was a fraud. Shame on scientists for accepting it. But people can always be fooled. In fact, religion thrives on that fact. But science puts the frauds behind it and moves ahead to find the real answers. It progresses and learns from mistakes. Can the same be said of religion? Is it substantially closer to explaining anything in this world or is it still simply saying God did it just like it has for thousands of years?

[MadBunny]

Firstly, creationism is based upon faith and faith is based upon evidence.

Yes.  Faith is defined as belief without evidence.
Sure, I have no direct evidence that the sun won't explode in the next 24 hours, but I have evidence that it hasn't, and I can see from empirical observations of other suns throughout the galaxy that suns which resemble ours tend to last a very very long time.




It must be nice not needing to think.  Here is the basic problem: rather than looking for answers you just make stuff up and pretend its right.
I can't even imagine how vapid your mind must be if that kind of thinking is good enough for you.


Don't bother with the usual "well where is the missing link" then, if you feel that your bible and subsequently your faith can withstand the same level of insane scrutiny that you like to place on science then we'll talk.  As long as you keep looking for an unbroken line of relatives all buried hand in hand starting with your grandfather and ending with a fish you'll never be satisfied.

Stick with your fairy tales.

[Ibelieve]

As it stands, I think you should really stay out of things you clearly do not understand. All of your objections to evolution are nonsensical. Evolution is the primary foundational theory used in biology. The Bible says "ye shall know them by their fruits" meaning you'll know true believers by what they do. In this case you will know a valid theory by its fruits.>>>

There seem to be some misunderstanding. Look, I have no quarell with science or biology.

What we are discussing is not whether science is fact. What we are discussing is whether
the theory of evolution is true.

I am sorry if you did not understand that.

In a nut shell, what I am saying is that, looked at purely from a scientific point of view,
evolution does not stand up!

If it fails so miserably the empirical test upon which it depends, how can my view be nonsensical?

Evolution is not killed by religion its decapitated by its own sword.

The strange thing about logic, like the law of physics, it has no friends. You either run
with it or you are left for dead.

So what are some of the ways in which evolution is killed off by science?

Have a brief look at the laws of thermodynamics. The second law tells us empirically that
everything in the universe is in a state of decay and tending toward a break down to its
most simplest most basic components while the theorists insist that exactly the opposite
is happening.

Now tell me, who will you go with? Will you side with the scientific law or with he theory
that contradicts it?

Is there anything about this that you do not understand or find nonsensical?

"In this case you will know a valid theory by its fruits.>>>"

Certainly!

[xphobe]

Have a brief look at the laws of thermodynamics. The second law tells us empirically that
everything in the universe is in a state of decay and tending toward a break down to its
most simplest most basic components while the theorists insist that exactly the opposite
is happening.

Let's see what the theorists are in fact saying, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Gee that took me all of 1.5 googleseconds.

[Dkit]

Have a brief look at the laws of thermodynamics. The second law tells us empirically that
everything in the universe is in a state of decay and tending toward a break down to its
most simplest most basic components while the theorists insist that exactly the opposite
is happening.

Since I gather you didn't look at the links I provided, here is one of the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution from Talkorigins:
 

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.
Cont. . .

[spider]

What we are discussing is not whether science is fact. What we are discussing is whether
the theory of evolution is true.

That doesn't make sense.  The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.  It is the explanation that science upholds - it is used and cross-referenced in so many different scientific fields.  To say it's not true is to question science - and not just biology.

If it fails so miserably the empirical test upon which it depends, how can my view be nonsensical?

Because your premise is nonsensical:  the theory of evolution does not fail the rigors of science.  It is remarkably resilient to them.  That's why it's the main theory that mainstream scientists advocate and that many different scientific disciplines rely upon.   

You're telling scientists to look at things from a scientific point of view - do you understand how arrogant and misguided that is?  Obviously not.

Evolution is not killed by religion its decapitated by its own sword.

If it weren't for religion, who would ever dispute it? 

Have a brief look at the laws of thermodynamics. The second law tells us empirically that
everything in the universe is in a state of decay and tending toward a break down to its
most simplest most basic components while the theorists insist that exactly the opposite
is happening.

Now tell me, who will you go with? Will you side with the scientific law or with he theory
that contradicts it?

Okay so the universe must've then started completely ordered at t=0, and has degraded from there.  What kind of fantastic things have we then lost?  I guess we should all be de-evolving then, in a sense, right?

TalkOrigins has several articles that deal with this objection. 
  ----- snip - Damn!  Dkit quoted the 5 major misconceptions section first.

Here's the link anyway: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

The universe overall may see a net increase in entropy, but systems within the universe may well become more ordered without upsetting this law.

The simplest way to explain it is if my money is split among many bank accounts.  Bank Account 1 is slowly being drained at a rate of $100 a day.  Bank Account 2 is being drained at rate of $200 a day.  But Bank Account 3 is steadily earning $5 a day (possibly  taken from the other accounts).  If I state "My money is constantly decreasing in amount", is that really contradicted by having one bank account that is increasing in amount?

[Dkit]

I have a feeling this person isn't reading our posts or the linked sites. 

[StPatrick]

When the Christians repeat the same old nonsense,
It's like a leech on my brain...

Seriously dude.  Go read up on evolution before you make these claims.  Wikipedia would be a good place to start.

[Eschaton]

Friends scientifically illiterate or intellectually destitute may with profit be directed here:

[MrFriday]

There seem to be some misunderstanding. Look, I have no quarrel with science or biology.

Oh, there is a misunderstanding alright. It is right between your ears. If you have a quarrel with evolution, you have a quarrel with science and biology. Evolution is fundamental to both. Discarding evolution would set science back immeasurably. I'm sure you are getting this notion that scientists dispute evolution from your fundamentalist friends at places like the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research (teach the controversy!). But you are being hoodwinked. I've read reams of their literature and it is all nonsense. You are repeating complete nonsense. There probably aren't more than a handful of working scientists in the world in any field of life sciences who dispute the great importance of evolution to their discipline. Most of them who do are only scientists in the sense that they have academic credentials. How they got them while throwing out some of the best science in the world is a mystery.

What we are discussing is not whether science is fact. What we are discussing is whether the theory of evolution is true.

To have such a discussion you would have to demonstrate at least a small amount of understanding about what science is. You haven't done anyting but proclaim a significant portion of it to be false with no evidence at all. Anyone can shout "You're wrong" and make a lot of snide comments. To dispute evolution's value to science you would have to know what that is. Clearly you do not.

I am sorry if you did not understand that.

Oh I understand your intent. I'm just asking you to support your premise. So far all you have is ridicule, misunderstanding and denial. That's not enough, my friend. It appears that you are unwilling to educate yourself so I am quite certain that your argument will never get any better.

In a nut shell, what I am saying is that, looked at purely from a scientific point of view, evolution does not stand up!

With such vacuous statements as that, what do you do with all the remaining space inside that nutshell? This is where you are wrong. Who decides what is a real scientific theory other than those who do the work? The only scientists, in particular professional biologists, who dispute the value of the theory of evolution to science are those who have a religious axe to grind and are willing to fall on their sword for their dogma. There may be a few working scientists in the fields of life sciences who don't believe it is true but in order to do any real science they must use it as if they believed it is true. Creationism and its bastard stepchild Intelligent Design offer absolutely nothing to science. There is no science to be found in them. Why don't you try to show us just one bit of scientific research where the insertion of anything from creationism or Intelligent Design adds anything and helps us make progress in our understanding the workings of biological organisms? Claiming that God did something is the intellectual equivalent of claiming that it was magic. People who do that cannot succeed in performing anything that could be called science. 

If it fails so miserably the empirical test upon which it depends, how can my view be nonsensical?

What empirical test is that? It seems to me that your only alternative proposition is that God did it. Comparing science to that is not empirical. But if you don't even know what the word means it will be hard for you to understand.

Evolution is not killed by religion its decapitated by its own sword.

The strange thing about logic, like the law of physics, it has no friends. You either run with it or you are left for dead.

So what are some of the ways in which evolution is killed off by science?

With that kind of build up you should have something besides complete ignorance to show us. 

Have a brief look at the laws of thermodynamics. The second law tells us empirically that everything in the universe is in a state of decay and tending toward a break down to its most simplest most basic components while the theorists insist that exactly the opposite is happening.

See what I mean? Pure ignorance. That is a creationist caricature of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Do you know anything about this law? Would it surprise you to know that entropy can be obstructed by activation energy? This goes a little deeper into chemistry than I'm sure you are prepared to go since it is clear that fully understanding the law would not help you to maintain your ridiculous claims. However, it is part of the study of chemical kinetics which is based on chemical bonding. The actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really states that the entropy of an isolated (closed) system cannot decrease. Guess what? We don't live in an isolated (closed) system. Through the processes described in chemical kinetics we derive the energy needed to obstruct the increase of entropy primarily from the sun. Ultimately the 2nd Law proves that evolution is possible because what it says about the direction of energy flow is what makes life possible via these obstructions. It is actually the last thing you should want to bring up when denying evolution of life on this planet.

Now tell me, who will you go with? Will you side with the scientific law or with he theory that contradicts it?

Until you show one theory that contradicts evolution, I don't see anything to answer. This is an old chestnut that has been rolling around the internet and snaring dupes like you for a long time. It's nonsense. The vast majority of scientists view evolutionary science as a law itself. The only thing that real scientists disagree over regarding evolution is in the minor details of how it works. There is no significant dispute over whether it is real science.

Is there anything about this that you do not understand or find nonsensical?

I understand the point. It's total rubbish. The laws of thermodynamics are not nonsense but using them ignorantly surely is. Have you got anything that supports your claims?

[Pastafarian]

Ibelieve, a challenge for you. Read the links provided and address any points you disagree with using quotes. If your argument holds no water, say "i was wrong to argue that." You can still believe, but you'll need another reason. Try goddit. Works every time.

[Traveler]

I'm sorry, I really do usually try to speak rationally to all, but I have to confess that I am laughing my ass off. It's that or cry in my beer. So much misinformation.

Please, Ibelieve, do a little more studying. Your misperceptions are frightening.

[Ibelieve]

So we see that the theory or Evildelusion completely flunked the second law of thermodynamics!

What about the First Law?

"The first law of thermodynamics, better known as Conservation of Energy, says that you can't create energy from nothing: (OOPS!)

it prohibits perpetual motion machines of the first type, which run and run indefinitely without consuming fuel or any other resource.  According to our modern view of physics, energy is conserved in each individual interaction of particles.  By mathematical induction, we see that no matter how large an assemblage of particles may be, it cannot produce energy from nothing - not without violating what we presently believe to be the laws of physics."

Don't you just hate this Law?

It just mucks up our most cherished theories and make us look like idiots.

I know, lets just squeeze our eyes shut real tight and maybe it will just go away!!

Whatever this stupid law says just remember this "I am a scientist, man, I KNOW
science, ME!" 

Once upon a time, boys and girls, long, long ago there was nothing and all of this
nothing came together and there was a big bang.

BANG! 

And here we are today, boys and girls, descended from monkeys and thinking
like morons!

[Ambassador Pony]

BM

I'm disgusted but I cannot look away

[Pastafarian]

And here we are today, boys and girls, descended from monkeys and thinking
like morons!

Why do Christians always speak for the rest of us? 

[xphobe]

Once upon a time, boys and girls, long, long ago there was nothing and all of this
nothing came together and there was a big bang.

Wait... we were talking about evolution, not the origin of the Universe.  You wouldn't be trying to move the goalposts now, would you?

[Omen]

Before we begin I have a question: If I cannot provide you direct proof that life originated out of one of the dozens of origin of life hypothesis ( read: Not theories ) do you assume that creationism is by default true?>>>

Firstly, creationism is based upon faith and faith is based upon evidence. For example, if I go to a desert island and I step off my boat and I notice a set of footprints on the beach that is evidence that someone else has been there. I don't have to actually see the person in order to come to that conclusion.

False analogy.  You already know that those foot prints belong to a human being, so your conclusion is based on what you already have knowledge of not of knowledge you gained.

Faith cannot be based upon evidence, because the definition of 'faith' exists in contradiction to what evidence is supposed to do.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith

Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim; Belief and trust in the Christian God's promises revealed through Christ in the New Testament; A feeling or belief, that something is true, real, or will happen; A trust in the intentions or abilities of ...

Likewise, if I see something in nature that has purpose and design that evidence would prompt me to ask the logical question, "who is the designer?" Again, notice I wouldn't have to actually see the person responsible for the thing produced in order to come to the conclusion. The faith part of the equation is, WHO is responsible instead of "what" is responsible.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question ( Circular Fallacy )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
In contemporary usage, "begging the question" often refers to an argument where the premises are as questionable as the conclusion.

You have to demonstrate that there is purpose or design, before using it as your premise.  It simply begs the question of how you did that, which inevitably leads us down the road of constant special pleading.  The argument for design is inevitably and by necessity one made purely on circular reason.

The real dishonesty here is using an analogy where you can identify the designer, in order to conclude design in comparison to something you can neither identify design or designer - in order to conclude in a circular fallacy that there is infact a designer you know the identity of.

Notice that when when we start asking WHAT instead of Who, the whole thing is thrown into confusion. We are thrown into the primordial stew with different people sticking their spoons in  and coming out with contradictory hypothesis, speculation and conjecture.

You built the logical fallacy, it is your responsibility to correct the fallacy and it cannot simply be dismissed as 'asking what instead of who'.  You have yet to demonstrate design or purpose.  This is an example of special pleading.

The biggest problem for evolutionists is that have dismissed the idea of a Creator

False. "Evolutionists" is a coined creationist term meant to refer to anyone that accepts evolutionary science, it often includes many associations meant to further elicit a stereotypical 'enemy image' of the person in question.  Such as the idea that all individuals who accept science ( evolutionary science ) are atheist, which is false and not even logically consistent.  Pay very close attention as this has been pointed out to you several times already Nothing about evolution proves or offers to disprove the notion of a god or gods.

More importantly, scientists do not sit around calling each other 'neo-darwinist' 'darwinist' or 'evolutionist'.  They simply call each other biologist, geologist, micro-biologist etc.

and now desperately trying to find evidence to prove the theory.

No desperation required.  The very foundation of all biological sciences is the notion of evolutionary change, which would include several theories beneath the 'evolutionary sciences'.  There is no 'theory of evolution' for example, as evolution itself is simply a word to desribe a field of research that consists of dozens of individual findings/observations/theories.  That being said: evidence, observations, experiments, and predictability all lend themselves towards testing theories like the theory of natural selection.  It has already been demonstrated to an extreme degree.

The problem is how to prove something when no evidence exist to support it.

Chromosomal relationships, tracing/comparing genetic break downs of individual species, and protein mapping.  Not to mention that all of this ( arrived to through seperate individual research ) creates a nested heirarchy pattern that not only mirror each other but also mirror the growing understanding of the 'tree of life'.

Not to mention the same pattern of inheritance of transposons, pseudogenes, sex chromosomes ( beyond other shared chromosomal relationships ).

Hell, we havn't even gotten into the fossil record yet.  Oh btw, that fossil record also matches the same nested heirarchy that occurs above.

Well, you invent it. Piltdown man, for example. "For decades, a fossil skull discovered in Piltdown, England, was hailed as the missing link between apes and humans. Entire careers were built on its authenticity. Then in 1953, the awful truth came out: "Piltdown Man" was a fake!" It was just one of the many crutches that were produce to support the lie.

Do you want to know who found piltdown man was a fraudulent? The same scientists that go on to discover the thousands of transitional fossils for hundreds ( if not thousands ) of species ( including ourselves ).  The reason creationist concentrate on Piltdown Man, is because they really have no other adequate example to attack.  They cannot actually bring themselves to the table of valid criticism and they must concentrate on examples that have nothing to do with what we understand in the modern biological sciences today.  They ignore by willful omission the countless transitional fossils for not only other species, but ourselves.  Cherry picking what they want to address and ignoring all the important findings.

It is dishonest and ignorant, it also simply begs the question:

Why are all these examples being ignored?

Why is misinformation being presented by creationist?

Why are creationist often attacking evolution as if it had anything to do with atheism?

Why all the lies for jesus?

Interestingly and contrary to the beliefs of the less well informed, there isn't ONE stitch of evidence scientific or otherwise to support evolution.

There are mountains, but first you have to stop using misinformation long enough to actually concentrate on the examples.  Piltdown man is not evidence for evolution, perhaps you could bring yourself to the table to actually concentrate on evidence for evolution?

So you see why I wouldn't even waste time in asking you to "provide direct proof" as it is a lost cause already even though you might not  realize it as yet.

No, I do not.  I see you acting in a manner that is demonstrateably dishonest, woefully misinformed, and logically inconsistent.

The fact of the matter is that most people are just running with the theory because they do not like the alternative which is God.

False.

Evolution does not disprove or prove a god in any form.  The only morons that believe this are creationist, who in a way that is more telling of their attitude - are attempting to draw the association in order to demonize both non-christians, science, scientists, and even christians that do not have the same dishonesty/willful ignorance to science itself.

I've even pointed this out where christians ( creationist ) were attacking other christians ( for not believing in creationism ).

Here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=332.0

You see accepting there is a God requires people to admit that they are sinners in bondage to habits of vice and lust and selfishness of one kind or another.

False.  I can accept that human beings have bondages of vice with or without god belief, it is irrelevant.

False.  Evolution has nothing to do with disproving or proving a god or gods.

False.  Nothing about believing there is a god requires the belief sinners/bondage/vice etc.  Most of what your repeating is simply the christian perspective, and it can be applied to any belief in a god or gods and is irrelevant.

Admitting God demands repentance and change.

False.  I've explained, see above.

Some are running desperately seeking shelter in and idea that has not foundation in reality, in history, in religion nor science nor common sense.

False.  You have presented no evidence to support this claim and infact you have by far attempted to use ad hominens/emotional attacks/lies/misinformation instead.

We are attempting to get you to be honest and actually come to the table of communication, but you'll never get there blindly lashing out at others based on imagined perceptions that apply to no one except yourself.

The Big Bang supposed to have started with nothing but over zillions of years the nothing has become us.

False.  The big bang theory does not state there was 'nothing'.  You are wrong again.

Here we are driving cars and flying airplanes which we were only able to produce within the last 100 years even though we were supposed to have been around for the past 100, 000, 000 years.

False.  Humans have only been around about 100,000 years at most.  That time period is vague and often debated, but it falls to within that spectrum.

You just couldn't make it up and even you did no one would believe it but incredible they did make it up and millions have embraced the idea.

Nothing was ever 'made up' and lying about it in order to criticize a position you have no working knowledge of does not make you convincing.  It makes you appear to be a lying moron.

This is nothing less than mass deception.

You havn't demonstrated it to be deception.  You have in turned, presented a series of misinformation that would be deception and that we have addressed pointing out that fact exactly.

Seeing that people on this forum are avowed atheist does that mean you cannot be honest?

Strawman and ad hominen.  You havn't demonstrated us to be dishonest, however we have pointed out where creationist claims are often based in dishonesty and are easily demonstrateable.

If you will not accept religion then will you not accept science?

False. Religion and science are not comparable.

Evolution is NOT Science,

False.

Evolution is not observable

False.

Evolution is NOT testable

False

and, Evolution is NOT repeatable.

False.

Can I invite you to stop looking at the hypothesis and start looking at the hard scientific evidence.

You havn't produced any kind of information to support any of your own claims and you havn't produced any viable criticism of the field of science your attempting to attack.  Emotional pleas, insults, lies, and ignorance do not make for convincing arguments.  More importantly, when those same ridiculous statements are based on bigoted associations.

The missing link is still missing because it never existed!

Categorically False.  When we can get you to come to the table to actually address the information, this discussion can begin.  Until then you are simply engaging in insults, emotional attacks, and strawmen.  You make no attempt to even communicate with us that is productive or positive.

[Codswallop]

So we see that the theory or Evildelusion completely flunked the second law of thermodynamics!

What about the First Law?

"The first law of thermodynamics, better known as Conservation of Energy, says that you can't create energy from nothing: (OOPS!)

You're right, you can't create energy from nothing--yet this is precisely the creationist's claim.

Can't have it both ways, dude. You can't cite the 2nd law of thermodynamics and then magically ignore it. The difference between the woo-woo magical explanation and evolution is that evolution does not address how life or matter came to be. It is content to say we do not yet have enough information.

Hoist with your own petard!

[Cycle4Fun]

This is a waste of time gentle forum folk.  In another thread where Ibelieve first mentioned evolution, I linked him several youtube videos from DonExodus, CDK007, and Thunderfoot.  They all happen to be biologists who want to teach others about evolution.  They are part of the new age scientists who wish to teach modern science to the common man.

I linked the videos and here is what happened.

Cycle4Fun wrote:

Honestly, I don't think you have the integrity to watch these videos with an open mind.  I would gladly, and with great joy, retract that statement if you can show me you've actually watched them.

Ibelieve:

That is almost incredible!

I am trying to tell you to stop allowing people to poison and pollute your mind
and here you are telling me I should drink some of your poison![

I gave up a long time ago on letting other people do my thinking for me.

Ibelieve is beyond hope.  He has shut himself in a little box and refuses to come out.  The best you can do is to try to keep him from infecting others with his poisonous belief.