Are we living on the planet of the apes?

Can I just address an open reply to all the Post-Modernists who may be reading? Thanks:Post-Modernists! Your metaphors and dreamlike prose, as pretty as it may be, is not equivalent to science! Science is superior to making stuff up!Comments like: while pretty, are nonsense compared to data collected via the scientific methodology and models that explain data and make predictions. Sorry, it's just true. You may find science cold and heartless but Finnegan's Wake isn't going to build you a VCR. Science will.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-10-2004]

Irrelevant. Ants are self-assembling. VCR's are not. Living systems self-adapt. Human artifacts do not. No known intelligence has ever built anything like life, so it's reasonable to conclude that life is not the product of direct intelligent action.

It's hard to tell what you mean, since there aren't any "gulfs". What there are in fact, are genetic similarities - more than similarities, in fact - between primate DNA and human. For instance the Vitamin C pseudogene we share with primates is broken in exactly the same place. A designer might put a broken part in one system, but two? That's beyond belief.

Your ignorance is staggering. They won't evolve until they can mate.

Oh, you mean Hovid's ridiculous prize?Go do some research. Find out if Hovind actually has the $250,000. You'll discover that he does not.Now, what kind of guy posts a reward that he's not prepared to pay? Is that Christian behavior to you? Furthermore do you believe that the fact that he's not prepared to pay it represents an objective situation? Or isn't it much more likely that Hovind is prepared to ignore whatever evidence is presented simply to avoid payment? Like what, exactly? A god that doesn't exist? A flood that didn't happen? Created kinds that can't be identified? Please. Creationist claims haven't been supportable in the year I've been at this site. Somehow I doubt you'll be the first to successfully defend them, especially if you're promulgating the worst sort of Hovind nonsense. But, I invite you to try. Start with defending his little bet, if you like. I think it's a clumsy attempt to squeeze the text of the Bible into the cosmological data in a sad effort to preserve the perceived inerrancy of a 2000-year-old book. But that's just me, I guess. I think you could squeeze an accurate cosmological narrative out of Dude, Where's My Car if you tried hard enough.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-11-2004]

So the answer is no, he doesn't have it. A "friend" does.Given that Hovind has lied in the past and failed to retract erroneous statements, do you still trust his "word" about his friend? The truth is, his word is not good - he's a charlatan and a fraud.What a world of credulity you must live in.The so-called "evidence" you have presented has been refuted at this board a hundred times. Take any single point you care to address and open a new thread,and we can talk about it. This is the wrong thread to do so.Most of your evidence rests on unproven, erroenous assumptions, bad data, and flat-out deception. We can debate every point on your list, if you like, but it'll take time. We should do it a point at a time, so start a new thread with whatever point you feel most able to defend. It's up to you (as it would hardly be fair of me to decide where to start.) If you don't start a new thread I'll assume you have no interest in defending this nonsense.

So, what you're saying is that you didn't actually do any research before you said "evolution is supported by no evidence."Well, that's fine. Shoot your mouth off for all I care. I guess I'm not in the habit of letting outraegously wrong statements go uncorrected. So sue me. Well, you have to understand that I don't see the Bible as any more significant a literary work than Shakespeare's Hamlet. So attempts to make it "right" seem pointless to me. The Bible is already mythically true, so why does it need to be more true than any other work of fiction?If that hypothesis floats your boat, fine. I guess it could be true if you squeezed the words around like that. Somehow I doubt that's what the original author intended, but that doesn't make your own interpretation any less valid.

Maybe you could try to explain how you feel that is the case?

Well, that's what you get when you push the Second Law Hot Button.

That's not the second law. For instance, how would you measure "complexity" or "disorder"?Thermodynamically speaking, a finished house is less ordered - greater entropy - than when it was organized piles of lumber on the lawn.

No offense, but isn't it just possible that the theory that only revolutionized the entire field of biology is maybe a little beyond your ability to comprehend or rebut?It never fails to amuse me how creationists can say stuff like "I failed high school but somehow I know better than thousands of well-trained Ph.D biologists" with a straight face.

You mean the modern science that's discovering unprecidented new trasnitional fossils? The modern science that's uncovering the genetic evidence that links all species? The modern science that allows us to use evolutionary processes to design circuit boards and jet airplanes?That modern science? Oh, I see, you meant a 2000-year-old book. That doesn't sound modern to me. You mean, a decrease in energy available to do work? What does that have to do with evolution? Yeah, I've heard of entropy. Obviously you don't really know what it is. No. What's absurd is trying to hold a 2000-year-old fairy tale over the most influential theory in biology. Your ignorance of the history of science is noted. You still haven't explained how the fact that you have less training, less education, less experience, and most importantly less data than biologists allows you to tell them what's what.