Hellbender

well thats possible, but take into consideration that all claimants for talents such as this are most likely frauds who have no such powers, making it quite difficult to study. I know what you mean, gamefreek, but we can't apply knowledge to something which doesn't exist. Hypothetically, the psychic would have to complete a test (like the JREF challenge) proving that that claimant has such powers before you can have a subject for testing how they work.

its natural for domestic animals that are used to each other to from some kind of bond, or at least tolerate one another. But a tortoise taking care of a hippopotamus?

actually, we understand this quite well. The record isn't quite perfect, but then, the fossil record on the whole is far from perfect. But it is still sufficient.

as far as I know, heavy traffic around the area, and storms explain the bermuda triangle "mystery". I didn't even know it was still a subject of debate. Here's a link: http://skepdic.com/bermuda.html

we do, lots of them, but they are extinct. Do your research. Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo erectus etc. are all considered "transistional" or traditionally apelike human ancestors. Both apes and humans are alive today (something that may not continue if we keep it up) becasue we are not the same species. We occupy different niches in the ecosystem and generally do not come into conflict, which could lead to the extinction of one or the other. Do your research I don't understand your "apes giving birth to humans" statement. It is becasue it is such a twisted strawman of hominid evolution that I can't comprehend it. If you mean that we propose that an ape simply went into labor and popped out a fully-modern human, then I would say do your research. Its not that simple. There is a well-accounted fossil record that shows apes getting evolving and ending up more and more like Homo sapiens. It didn't simply "happen" one day.

lol, how true. Excuses excuses. The "science can't measure my ability" is one. I like the "it interferes with my powers" too. Others include "my powers can't be turned on or off" or "I have nothing to prove to you" are other ways they weedle out of controlled tests.

This is funny, but maybe would be more if I knew how to play poker..............

I agree. The similarites from any perspective are staggering. I challenge anyone who won't accept the fact that humans are apes to go to a zoo and look a chimp or other ape in the eyes. you will be surprised, even moved by how human they seem.

great posts, swansont.

thats kindah sadistic.......

I personally don't take that position, but it is used by a lot of psychics to support their claims. I agree with you completely, though. Chance is actually better at determining results, in the accounts of tests I have read at randi.org.

actually it does make sense, you are just not letting it make sense to you. We have explained how evolution happens and the mechanisms involved ad nauseum. No one said it was a simple, easy to fathom process. Its what happens, and whether it agrees with the Bible or not is irrelevant. It is certainly not unrealistic, only your creationist strawmans of evolution are unrealistic. What does the this have to do with evolution? This is a strawman of the big bang theory, not evolution theory. The link between the two is tenuous at best.

can you clarify what this means?

thats a new one. I am not an oceanographer, so I can't say whether this is true or not, but I suspect it is just a strawman to further their religious beliefs. My advice, should you choose to take it, is to stay away from creationist sites. Not that I am withholding some kind of evidence (biblical creationism has none), but you won't get any unbiased, reasonable information about evolution (or biology, geology or astronomy, for that matter) from those sites. All they are out to do is further their religious dogma.

just a question, you obviously don't accept that evolution through natural selection took place. But you think some abstract being molded people out of dirt is a better explanation?

this is correct, for computers, but alas, another strwman of evolution. Computers are not organisms with the ability to reproduce, meaning they cannot evolve (to put it simply). Natural selection acting on random traits does not need any "guiding intelligence" but you can bet things would be much more perfect than they are if there was.

This is true for a messy house (like mine) but again, evolution is not random, its directed by natural selection i.e. the environment selecting the fitness of random genetic traits.

one question: why can't the process of natural selection account for complex organisms? I think you don't understand the basic premises of this phenomena.

I am totally stumped. I all my years of reading about animals I have never heard a claim like this. I hope someone with a better education than me can give some insight on this.

(I started this topc with Ophiolite's avatar in mind.)

It could have been made by whomever chronicled this account to support his "mystic scary vampire guy" image.

I'm not sure, but it must have been done. The JREF Million dollar test is a challenge for so-called psychics and other such claimants to test and prove their abilities in a controlled environment. So far no one has won the "easy" million. I don't think scientific knowledge can easily be applied for a lot of reasons. It defies scientific measurement. Now people may say this is becasue science can't yet describe these mystical powers, and that is a good defense, but I happen to be in the camp that thinks it is all frauds using stage tricks and sleight of hand and playing guessing games. In fact, all those psychic "readers" do just that. For a psychic, John Edward (for example) asks a lot of questions.

no one said humans appeared out of nowhere. You need to imagine the bigger picture, of gradual change over time periods unfathomable to us. Given enough time in constanty shifting environments, I don't see it as impossible for self replicating molecules to become intelligent organisms.

strawman. Evolution is not as random as you think. Natural selection, remember? Eyes didn't just appear suddenly, they evolved, becoming more and more complex over the eons. The simplest eyes (light/dark detecting eyespots) would have still been useful i.e. in planaria (flatworms), their eyespots are not fully formed eyes, they can just detect light and dark. Still useful for a simple organism, but with room for complexity. Our eyesight isn't that great. Compare it to the eyes of a bird of prey. Or better yet, a squid. Squids have the perfect eye structure, better than any vertebrate's eyes (including ours). (I don't quite remember, something with a reversed membrane that gets in more light, I will look it up.)

well the ball's in your court, why don't you present fossil examples that only and indistuputably support biblical creation? PS are the names Ambulocetus natans, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus and Ichthyostega familiar to you?