True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

It is surprising that so many people seem to be so sure of their views and opinions when neither evolutionists or creationists have very convincing stories.
The creationists are relying on ancient texts some of which is so absurd they cannot be taken literally. These texts are not written by God but by man.Evolutionists on the other hand seem to have just created this theory without conclusive evidence. Their only objective seems to be to discredit religion. I find this extremely frustrating. Religion should not factor into any scientific field. When you see Richard Dawkins admitting that intelligent design is possible then you have to ask yourself. Why did you go on such a hate campaign against all religions when you cannot even explain the begining of life and you actually admit that intelligent design is possibleA wise man once said "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"
This still applies todayEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Evidence is not conclusive nor is it absolute.
I agree but then why do people take issue with questions being raised.

I agree the title may be a touch overboard but it get peoples attention first. But you are a seemingly logical person to point out the 2 things that im just making a point of.
1. No one knows eveything which some people seem to deny
2. The evidence used is inconclusive and not absolute which most people have a really hard time accepting. And something being taught as fact in public schools should be absolute and conclusive like F=ma.As for silly questions, are you saying I've asked silly questions. If so is there no tolerance for someone who admittedly is ignorant in biology and confused?
And if my questions are so outrageous than why has no one been able answer them.
They are questions not made up by myself. I am mearly parroting the ideas and points made by many others.Like why don't we see thousands of intermadiate fossils of humans?
What kind of predictions have been made to support the theory?
What are the best forms of evidence supporting the theory?Have I been rude at all? Haven't I stuck to the subject?
But my points are never addressed. And no one can produce anything for me to consider. Furthermore i keep being accused of being a heritic which makes my blood boil. Yet I haved kept my cool and stayed on track.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

I've seen and heard enough. People are still making these religious allegations that are so fucking insulting I cannot stand it anymore. This is not a religion. This is a cult.These ToE people love to try and read between the lines not only in terms of my writing but life. Seeing their insulting theories about me were incorrect then I wonder if all their theories are incorrect.
I see different opinions in your people. As with the statement "no evidence is conclusive nothing is absolute". There are differences in peoples view of that.Nearly everything about this is dejavu for me ok. The way it is presented to the inability to explain things I saw it all before in religion. Both have exactly the same traits in so many aspects I couldn't even list them all if I tried. Interestingly is that both views involve inbreeding at the very beginning (even though ToE doesn't cover that it is still "science"). And both have the same beginning of there just being nothing. But even though I hate religion I was never insulted for asking questions or abused for looking at things from another perspective. That's why I call this a cult.To RAZD after taking time to objectively read your post that begins with Newton you then end it all be insulting me, claiming I'm some sort of undercover creationist. I actually was taking you seriously before you revealed you true thoughts. Review your statements on Newtons Law (not theory) because I think you have misunderstood it and its practical application on earth as it is not superseded by general relativity which I have never seen used in mechanical engineering. You need to also confirm your assumptions on steel quality, strength and testing. They are also incorrect in general but especially in highly critical applications such as a bridge where the material is not just bought from walmart or something.Every damn argument here has involved religion. Why has religion influenced science like this? FUCK RELIGION OK FUCK IT. Why is it always part of your explanations?People I know in biology tell me that any hypothesis formed by a student must comply to the theory of evolution regardless of the strength in the data, facts or evidence before them. Like WTF, this outrages me even more than teaching false information to our children. And I learn that this is the case in all western universities. So in order of preventing people disproving the theory we will make it unacceptable to do so. It is holding back science. Cellular biology is apparently waiting to advance but are held back by this Neo Darwanistic regime along with other fields of science too. Get over it, just because these stupid people are following these stupid religions it does not mean you must stoop to their level. At the moment Biology has stooped to that level. I must trust these scientists. Have faith in them and their all encompassing knowledge. Ye sure.I would like to thank JonF for actually providing links to information, the only person to do so. I thought he was the most objective and sane person here until ending it with a statement on creationists which left a sour taste. My posted links were not accepted (again a religion based mentality) claiming I cannot use outside sources to argue my point or something along those lines. I, however, do not have such objections and will take them on board to have a closer read of them.At this stage of my life I feel let down by everyone and everything I thought I trusted. I feel I must question everything and trust no one. When there are so many people opposing ToE with good arguments that aren't countered very well you have to ask yourself. When Richard Dawkins, forefather in ToE makes such statements and admissions I have to question it.Anyway Im off on a snow trip now and will most likely not re visit this site so best of luck to all (even the haters) Be objective, trust the word of no one and question everything. Goodbye

Thank you Jon F for providing those links.Assuming from those skulls that man evolved from other primates what next?
What did the primate evolve from and when?

The web brings up different opinions on this

Thanks for the links.
This is on that website you provided."Dendrogram
The following dendrogram represents a somewhat misleadlingly linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolution. Hopefully this will be corrected in future, as the various other branche son the primate evolutionary tree are fille dout."Its says it's misleading. All the suggestions I've read on that site and elsewhere start with "probably" "perhaps" "maybe" or other words of this nature.Why?

On message 38 I asked what did the primate evolve from.
Message 39 suggested I search the web for answers.
Not sure why I'm being rediculed.Anyhow that question remains.
What did the early primate evolve from?

I did see that websiteAccording to the quote presented"The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence suggests..."
"They probably were"
"These primate-like mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available"Sure is alot of conjucture. And from this knowledge these trees are drawn up showing direct links between every species all the way back to the ocean.Umm okay

ToE has collapsed under its own admissions of speculation being drawn from fossil evidence that is very fragmented.In a revealing statement that completely exposed the theory it was admitted that Mammals will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become availableObviously not enough data to draw factual conclusions from

Links to articles claiming to refute dna evidenceNew Discoveries In Genetics Refute Evolution TheoryDNA Evidence Debunks the "Out-of-Africa" Theory of Human Evolution | Wake Up World

Ridicule... Number 1 defence for the defenceless.Ridiculing myself with unfounded claims that are irrelevant to the debate. Ridiculing every link I have posted to avoid addressing the points made. Its a weak defence.I haven't personally attacked anyone despite being outnumbered by a team with a hostile attitude. I have not retreated to ridicule. I have accepted all forms of media without criticism of its source, including random pictures without reference and even pictures that have no relevance to the issue.This was the text put to me by your team with a link."The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates , evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago) at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (from Asia, Europe, North Africa, and especially Western North America) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet adapted for climbing in trees. These primate-like mammals (Plesiadapiformes ) will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data become available."I also refer to this statement from JonF"Some details of particular stages in the evolution of particular organisms are poorly known. Some are not"Given these statements can man accurately be traced back from 80 million years back to 6.5 billion years to ocean creatures? The way the animations depict it? With every step of evolution for every species?The conclusion I draw from this is that we don't have enough evidence to conclude much at all before this era. Certainly not enough to track the evolution of man back to the sea.Is that not a fair assessment given the scientific text presented and the given statement? Be honest.

The simple fact that we don't know everything has really ruffled feathers.
The truth is hard to face even when admitted by their own texts.Even against dozens of fanatics, one man with only a basic knowledge of ToE is able to expose the fiction which is littered throughout this fairytale and expose what is most definately a pseudoscience. Willing to debate a persons belief but not the theory.With no scientific arguments against the facts the fanatics are left with few options;
Ridicule or
Crawl back into their shells with their philisophical views.In conclusion I find the arguments of both sides to be totally exagerrated. Neither side will accept the others arguments and both sides claim to be in the possession of total knowledge based on faith of scripts.Anyways I'll leave the rest of the debate to the fanatics on both sides and go back to a real science which doesn't accept the theoretical without it being shown in practice. Where assumptions lead to fatal catastrophies. Where the laws of physics are truthful facts that remain constant and are never in doubt or questioned.

u know what... forget about itEdited by Porkncheese, : 2nd thoughts of even being back here against nowEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

wtf... the constant false accusations is not abuse???
the constant ridicule is not abuse???
im out of hereEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.