Re: Question of Athiests

dan.alex wrote:

Why are only humans the
"intelligent" ones?
Evolution.
Evolution isn't able to provide the missing link b/t us and our
ancestral 
species.

That's not the job of the theory. 
Don't you find it odd that only humans are the so-called "intelligent"
beings?
No.
Well, I do. 
You haven't even proven that humans are the only intelligent species to
have ever existed on this planet.

You're becoming nit-picky here, too. By "intelligent," I mean man. 

No, you're being deliberately vague to try and hide your losing argument.

Define man as an intelligent species.

Why did chimps, gorillas, and orangutans fail to evolve any further
than they have?
Inferior genetic adaptations. 
Your response evidently leans towards Evolution. I respect that; but why
can't that theory link not only the Homo sapiens to its ancestors, but
the
ancestors to its own ancestors? 
Please do not try and pass of your ignorance of the subject as proof
that evolution does not happen.

You're calling my wanting to discover the truth as ignorance?

You are not trying to discover the truth. You are using your own ignorance of many subjects as proof that these subjects are false. This is a deeply flawed way of proceeding and I insist that you stop.

Please don't
become a teacher -- ever. You would shatter the confidence of many students. 

Perhaps they should be less ignorant.

Evolution is not proof of anything. It's a theory. It's Evolutionary Theory,
not Evolutionary Fact.

And the more knowledgeable we become, the closer and closer we can correct the theory to reflect the facts.

We can trace a potential lineage back
many millions of years, long before hominid times.

Yes, potentially; but why can't we actually do it? 

Who are you to say we can't?  DNA and fossil evidence says otherwise.

That's why I'm not
completely satisfied with Evolution.


It must be nice to subsist on ignorance so.

They explain the many different Homo
australopithecus and habilis, but they can't link any of the species to
one
another. They simply assume one must have come from the other. 
No they don't.  You are now just making up words, there is no such thing
as Homo australopithecus.


It's actually Australopithecus africanus, my bad; but I know you knew what I
meant. You're just struggling for words now.

You clearly do not know what I mean. I am proving your ignorance of the discussion at hand, you are now struggling to participate in this discussion.

Besides, not all hominids need be related in
a direct line. 

No, not all, but the scientific world can't even connect one line from one
species to another.


Yes it can.  Learn what DNA is.

How many times must I say this? Why isn't there a
gradual change from one to another?

Prove there isn't. Meanwhile, we can show this gradual change in, amongst other things, homo sapiens, bacteria, viruses, and domesticated animals.

Instead there is only a sudden cutoff,
and we're supposed to believe that a new species just emerged?

Show this sudden cutoff. If you are so anti-evolution, why are you now arguing for punctuated equilibrium?

Doesn't that raise an eyebrow with you? 
I fail to see why it should.  We're still in the process of learning how
speciation works.

According to the theory, we have the same ancestors.
That doesn't mean the descendants have to turn out similarly.
It also doesn't prove Evolution is right. 
Incorrect.  The ability to trace many divergent species to a common
ancestor is massive proof that evolution has taken place.


You can't prove that if you can't even link any one of the species to
another.


Yes, yes we can.

If Evolution is absolutely right providing there is no direct
lineage to its predecessor, sapiens are supposed to die off completely
whereas another species emerges out of nowhere continuing where sapiens left
off.

Incorrect. You are clearly not understanding the subject matter at all and are inventing bizarre new concepts to compensate.

--
Rockboy
I'd like to supersize death.
Can I have a supersized death?
I'd like to supersize a death, with a Coke.
.