unlike idea/belief,evolution doesn't require faith as it's a proven FACT...

Proven? You mean people actually saw monkey evolve into humans?

you dont have to see something for it to be proven. there are numerous other supporting evidence.

google: scientific theory

you haven't seen your grand grand grand parents existed and gave birth to your grand grand father but why do you think they have existed?similarly,we haven't seen big bang happened but does that mean we need to observe it in order to know that it did happen?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 02:42 PM

If weight/size proportion is to be calculated, then the mighty insects will win hands down.

Ants can carry weight 900 times their weight. winrar period.

monkey / apes / chipanzee / gorillas... give us to notice one thing in them.... is what they eat..

we human have everything ih the world in our stomach.. makes us having various kind of desease or sickness shall i say...

but, they (animal refering to the topic) only takes the nature as their food and way to survive..

things that we eat make who we are.. either healthy or else..

no such thing as evolution from monkey to human, n nobody would like to admit that they come from monkey... do you..? hehehe...

common ancestor, not monkey > human

you dont come from your cousin, but both of you come from your common grandparents.

Is he seriously that dumb?? I didn't saw tiger wood cheat on his wife, so is it proven or not??

I did not expect science to be based on circumstantial evidence.

you have not answered my previous question,we haven't seen big bang but does that mean we need to observe it in order to know that it did happen?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:16 PM

CleverDick,
Making deduction that we come from monkeys sound circumstantial to me.

then have you heard about about dating methods?geological dating?molecular clock?radiometric dating?Homology?Biogeography?falsifiability?peer review?etc...each of them contributes to the conclusion that 'humans and apes share a common ancestor',if you understand the meaning and applicability of each and everyone of the methods mentioned then you'll realize the evidence aren't circumstantial at all...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:31 PM

CleverDick,
They contribute to conclude (there is the circunstantial part).

---

Added on May 3, 2010, 4:39 pmBy the way CleverDick, the BBT has many underlying assumption. These assumptions given current level of science is accepted. Newton thinks the most basic is atom and cant be split. People then had theor assumptions. Some mordern scientist prove Newton wrong. Then we had a new level of knowledge and assumption

This post has been edited by faceless: May 3 2010, 04:39 PM

circumstantial is sometimes essential when you want to link an evidence to another,just like big bang theory,you can't expect to prove a single phenomenon by using a sole evidence...

it is much bigger than take evolution ultimately mean we and monkey have an common ancestor and all the life form on earth have one common ancestor. not human come from monkey.

then you should know the assumptions proposed have to be what?Falsifiable,able to prove the assumptions wrong is what makes them credible and reliable...
btw,when you said circumstantial i thought you meant depending on circumstance,my fault for not conveying my message clearly...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 6 2010, 11:30 PM

CleverDick, enough had been said. We can continue without end. Suffice to say, you still will not be able to convince me evolution is a fact. Nor will I be able to convince you evolution is based on circumstantial evidence.

Robert, nice one. I guess those who believe in evolution can accept that we all came from the one cell animal. Not me.

i just have to say that,wether you like it or not,believe it or not,Evolution is a fact is the consensus in the scientific community,you can choose to hide in the tortoise's shell but science has to move on regardless of the opinion of a bystander who is not specialized in the related field...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:57 PM

Thanks CleaverDick. I had enjoyed the discussion.

clay, dust, ash, water, ribs etc is a much more convincing argument, huh?