No Transitional Fossils image - Christians of Moddb

FINALLY!! Somebody actually POSTS something instead of being a gutless, moronic coward who resorts to childishly burying constructive arguments!

You sir, deserve an award. Not for the content of your post, but for posting at all.

Well the atheist method of down-voting was in vain. I don't even know what they hoped to achieve because I can delete and re-post comments as I like.

Blame the evolutionists who make these pictures then because most "evolution of man" pictures are exactly similar to this.

Perhaps evolutionists don't understand their own theory then?

(Only the words have been added)

Or perhaps that supposed chimp actually is a Australopithecus, which look much like a chimp. On that hand, that image would be correct, but there are no Australopithecus on earth for roundabout 1.2 million years. That image is wrong anyway. Not a single one of the first ape and billions instead of millions of the right one.

Perhaps evolutionists don't understand their own theory then?

Google.co.uk

Or perhaps you dont.

Something I forgot:

http://thinkinginchrist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/human-evolution-02.jpg

For the rest, look at the science group, this is the wrong place to discuss or bash evolution. ;)

Or perhaps I do and most evolutionists don't hence the apparent inaccuracies of all the human evolution images. Either way, the image you linked to shows the very early humanoid ancestors that humans supposedly descended from and not the "ape-like" ancestor both chimps and humans are both meant to share. This is what this image is conveying along with all the other human-evolution pictures I directed you too.

And as of 2013, there still is no complete line showing any evolution save for a few mutated skulls of apes and humans being presented as "evidence of human evolution". I find it funny that all these skulls lack bodies, the ones that do come with bodies show no difference when compared to modern ape bones.

@Bucket-Bot

I don't think evolution teaches that we evolved from modern apes. You simply think that I think that due to your stupidity.

@Admiral-165 (AKA Admiral-Gay - boring name BTW)

I never denied deleting your comments. I deleted them because you and your little trio of atheist trolls were trying to down-vote my comments so that they would be censored so you and your little kin have no right to talk about censorship. Hypocrites...

"It's all well and good being able to give an explanation for the hypothesis but an explanation proves nothing."

So does the biblical creation story, except that it is not even a hypothesis. The core of your argument works both ways, besides the fact that it is off-topic. ;)

"So does the biblical creation story prove nothing."

Where did I say it did? I haven't given an explanation for Genesis nor is it an explanation itself.

If I wanted to argue for design I'd mention the complexity of DNA, the stages of creation being accurate (vegetation created first, then every living creature afterwards with sea animals created first aligning with what paleontology science has discovered), scientific theories and facts like The Big Bang, Laws of Thermodynamics, Causality, Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem agreeing with the Biblical account that the universe was created, had a cause and isn't eternal. Then there's Biogenesis agreeing with what The Bible says.

Either way I was never arguing for design here. I simply gave links to sources which show that abiogenesis is based on speculation which is something you haven't disputed.

It's not an argument. I've been waiting an entire year in this group for an atheist to come forth with the apparently "luxurious evidence of evolution and abiogenesis" and none have done so. This says there never was solid evidence for the two to begin with.

Youtube.com :D

How would you define Evolution? Just curious

I will not explain all the Evidence that there is about Evolution, because I'm tired of doing so, people just ignore it, just google it up, for what I have seen, around 99% of all Christians that criticize Evolution don't even understand it.

You will not "explain the evidence" because none exists. The only "evidence" is speciation and the evolutionist proves their misunderstanding of the evolution theory and natural selection when they hail this as "evidence for the Darwinian theory of evolution" when in reality it's only evidence for the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance.

"around 99% of all Christians that criticize Evolution don't even understand it."

And around 99% of all the atheists that promote evolution don't understand it. False statistics work both ways.

Funny that you keep asking for evidence over and over again, but deny them all when we give them to you. Unlike you, Yuri seem to be really honest on this issue. Just saying that you are doing something utterly wrong.

@ Dormin
Take your own advice and dont waste any more time on him. He is not worth it.

Hahaha, you're right, it's just kinda hard to ignore so much ignorace :P

*Sigh*

Yes this is pathetic because all I'm seeing from you two are the same repeated dialogues over and over again:

"Whaaaaa! Why deny evolution and abiogenesis you gutless creationist ignoramus! IT HAS MASSIVE EVIDENCE!"

I deny it because the only "evidences" that are ever presented to me from atheist evolutionists are the same old repetitive and debunked claims backed by no sources whatsoever.

If there are transitional fossils that are complete and show the transition of a species, then they only exist in the imagination land of the atheist because I have never seen any and like always, you fail to provide any evidence for your claims.

One fossil chain.

That's all I ask for.

And solid evidence for abiogenesis.

It can't be that hard if there's supposedly "a great deal and luxurious amount of evidence for evolution and abiogenesis."

Perhaps it's time you just admit you're wrong unless you've *finally* found a museum which houses these fossils in and scientific experiments which have actually proved that life can come from non-life.

Right, well it seems that once again, I am led to doing your own research for you two:

Lmgtfy.com (Transitional fossil evidence for evolution - let me Google that for you)

Transitionalfossils.com

"...transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring. But don't be misled into thinking that fossils are the only evidence for evolution. They're not even the strongest evidence for evolution."

Transitional fossils as the extremist evolution imagines don't exist. Only fossils showing two separate species which are linked up via imagination rather than through actual fossils exist.

Theistic-evolution.com

Meanwhile broken and incomplete skulls of various species are the only "evidences" for human evolution. Not very strong there.

So as the first site said, "transitional" fossils aren't really the greatest evidence for evolution due to their lacking nature and gaps within them.

You can look at all the other sites by following that link, you still won't find a complete fossil chain. Variation can easily be explained away by the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance and the only reason variation is seen as evidence for evolution is because of the other so-called "evidences".

Beaten yourself by your own arguments... You said there are no transitional fossils but quoted the evidence. We actually never said that those are the strongest evidence, just that those are evidence. Nearly all "evolutionists" agree, that our genes are the most powerful evidence - atleast I never heard otherwise.

If wholes mean that a scientific theory/hypthesis is wrong, than all science is doomed to end in the trash can. Including the theories of gravity, Big Bang, Atomic physics and the earth going around the sun.

Besides, evidence has given to you in the debating group, we dont need to post them for you over and over again, or are you another Elffriend? Dig them up again and for the f*** sake learn the subject! Or just watch this video:
Youtube.com

--------------------------------------------

I really should stick to Buckets advice... Sorry for being so inconsistant, Bucket-Bot.

"holes", not "wholes".

Poor reading comprehension much? I used inverted commas around transitional to convey that they aren't really transitional. They're transitional only in the imagination of the evolutionist but as the sites I linked to above showed, they are based on speculation and don't form complete chains and don't even connect most species in the evolution theory.

The difference with gravity, the Big Bang, atoms and the earth going around the sun is that they are proven without doubt, can be observed and have no holes. So don't you even dare compare them to evolution unless you're willing to dish out substantial evidence and not the "evidence" I debunked over in the debate group.

The only worthy "evidence" you ever provided were the vestigial organs (all of which serve uses). However I explained why these weren't evidence for evolution over in the debate group. It's something you still haven't answered too so you're the one only ignoring the facts here.

So you think you are smarter than all those biologists who really studied their subject? This thought is either dumb or arrogant. I would say both.

Or do you just love to debate until your openent are tired of debating with you?

So you think you are smarter than all those scientists, theologians and philosophers who have all said that God exists? This thought is either dumb or arrogant. I would say both.

Or do you just love to debate until your opponents are tired of debating with you?

Good, do so and add every other site disagreeing with you (a great many it seems) while you're at it...

Sadly it dont really work. Besides, I dont do it because you disagree with me. I do it because you show massive amout of dishonesty and THATs something that annoys me that badly.

You don't know the meaning of the word dishonesty.

I could only be dishonest if I was lying. You're the one lying here because I'm still waiting for the supposedly "great deal and luxurious amount of evidence for evolution and abiogenesis" it can't be hard to provide if it exists in great quantity.

"I've given you evidence."

No, that YouTube video is the first source you've used in this argument. Everything else has been opinion and speculation on your part hence why you've found zero sources to back you up.

You couldn't even address my argument about the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance explaining variation better than evolution and yet you accuse me of dishonesty?

Your genetic evidence argument consists of what has been discussed in the DNA image I posted. As ElfFriend said, "it can be used for both sides but leans more towards ID rather than evolution". Meanwhile, DNA being similar isn't greatly explained by the abiogenesis hypothesis. If abiogenesis had a probability of occurring during "early earth conditions making life from non-life very possible" then it would have occurred in more than one place leading to different structures and yet all DNA and cells retain the same formation and setup something best explained by a designer.

Biologos.org

"Darwin developed his theory of evolution by looking at scientific evidence available in the mid-1800s. Since then, the whole field of genetics has developed, adding a powerful independent line of evidence in support of evolution. Genes show how the physical traits of living things are handed down and modified from one generation to the next. By comparing the DNA of many organisms, scientists can map the relationships between species. This map is in remarkable agreement with Darwin’s predictions. The structure of chromosomes and particular genetic sequences point to the conclusion not just of common design, but common descent as well."

Your problem is that you're mistaking the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance as evidence for natural selection and the Darwinian theory of evolution. The above isn't evolution at work, it's genetic inheritance at work. Humans share half their DNA with bananas but does that make us relatives of the banana? No nor does it mean we share a common ancestor unless you are prone to wild speculation. The genes that are supposedly similar in species are noted as looking completely different.

Genetic inheritance and speciation can exist without evolution and are not limited to it. They are not the evidence for your evolution and I do not deny them so try again.

"Your problem is that you're mistaking the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance as evidence for natural selection and the Darwinian theory of evolution."

No, thats artifical selection, not natural selection, but it is in fact a part of evolutionary theory. Besides its neo-darwinian evolution. The theory has been revolutionized, thats why.

"Humans share half their DNA with bananas but does that make us relatives of the banana?"

I admit I dont know why we share so much with bananas, but Im sure a molekular biology expert can explain why.

"No nor does it mean we share a common ancestor unless you are prone to wild speculation."

It can mean exactly that we do so, even if it means it was 700 million BC.

"Genetic inheritance and speciation can exist without evolution and are not limited to it. They are not the evidence for your evolution..."

They are the very core of evolution. Without those and micro evolution in general, evolution would freakin not work at all. Thats the big picture you are wrong about.

Again you prove you're misunderstanding the facts.

"I admit I dont know why we share so much with bananas, but Im sure a molekular biology expert can explain why."

Their explanations aren't backed by evidence. Their claim is that we all share an ancestor in the tree family even though there's not even any genetic evidence to support. And you have the cheek to mock ID?

"They are the very core of evolution. Without those and micro evolution in general, evolution would freakin not work at all. Thats the big picture you are wrong about."

No, it's the big picture you're wrong about. Speciation and genetic inheritance are the only truths of evolution. The natural selection concept and entire new species evolving from others hasn't enough evidence to be considered factual and even the "transitional" fossil evidence is considered weak by evolutionists, a claim supported by that evolutionist site I linked you too. You're simply not being open minded about this.

I deny natural selection, I deny the idea that new species can evolve from others because of no solid evidence, lacking "transitional" fossils not even explaining the link or bridging species together. This has got nothing to do with me being religious. I came to this conclusion long ago. Speciation and genetic inheritance are the only truths of the evolution theory which is why it's still alive today.

"I deny natural selection"

But it has been observed along with other types of selections that drives the gears of evolution.

"I deny the idea that new species can evolve from others because of no solid evidence"

You deny the solid evidence, the case that those evidence dont exist is wrong.

"lacking "transitional" fossils not even explaining the link or bridging species together."

ANY fossil, any current living being is transitional. Fossils are step of macro evolutions (aka speciations) from the past, conservated through lucky circumstances we all know as fossilisation. "Transitional" is just the additional term, but you might as well just say fossil. Doesnt matter, its still the same.

"Speciation and genetic inheritance are the only truths of the evolution theory which is why it's still alive today."

Including all the selection types and some other stuff. The theory is large and helps us to see the signs of climate changes and provides a better understanding of the biosphere in general.

I just noticed something very odd:

"I deny the idea that new species can evolve from others because of no solid evidence"

How can you agree with speciation ( En.wikipedia.org ) and say this? This is highly contradictory. Do you mean biological classifications? Please explain or rephrase.

"Their explanations aren't backed by evidence. Their claim is that we all share an ancestor in the tree family even though there's not even any genetic evidence to support. And you have the cheek to mock ID?"

50% that we share with bananas is a pretty strong genetic evidence. And the following link explains why:
Newton.dep.anl.gov

And yes, I have the cheek to mock ID, since ID is know as creationism in disguise. We all know that especially YEC is know for contraproductive way of doing science and intelligent design is just the more neutral term of creationism with the agenda not to do more research on evolution to fill the gaps and backing science up, but to misrepresent the theory as many ID-guys and creationists do in order to force their faith into - science out of - class and public knowledge just because evolution contradicts the literal interpretation of their holy books, not because of gaps in the theory! Its more likely a brainwashing strategy that creation / ID institutes are aiming for to get more people into faith.

"I could only be dishonest if I was lying. You're the one lying here because I'm still waiting for the supposedly "great deal and luxurious amount of evidence for evolution and abiogenesis" it can't be hard to provide if it exists in great quantity."

=>

"Poor reading comprehension much?"

=>

"Besides, evidence has given to you in the debating group, we dont need to post them for you over and over again..."

"Besides, evidence has given to you in the debating group, we dont need to post them for you over and over again..."

I already said this was debunked, you want to ignore that? Fair enough but don't pretend I never answered this claim.

"Your genetic evidence argument consists of what has been discussed in the DNA image I posted. As ElfFriend said, "it can be used for both sides but leans more towards ID rather than evolution". Meanwhile, DNA being similar isn't greatly explained by the abiogenesis hypothesis. If abiogenesis had a probability of occurring during "early earth conditions making life from non-life very possible" then it would have occurred in more than one place leading to different structures and yet all DNA and cells retain the same formation and setup something best explained by a designer."

Moep... No. Elf isnt an expert on this subject and basicly wrong about nearly anything when it comes to biology at least. Im not jumping on your abiogenesis crusade again, cause its irrelevant to the DNA argument. As for your last sentence: if the Designers name is "Laws of Physic", then I tend to agree.

And this argument is just the continue of the ones in the debating society forums, just if you have a short memory. And yes, I accuse you of dishonesty, but mainly not for the reason you think, rather for quoting something about transitional fossils from a site about evolution and later assuming with the certainty as if you would know for 100% sure that there are no transitional fossils without considering in any way that you could be wrong. This is similar to lying and dishonesty by definition. Another example of that is to accuse "evolutionists" to not understand "their own theories" and yet you are the one who is getting it all wrong. I admit that I dont understand the whole theory, but I can comprehend most of it, thats how I learned it.

And you're an expert on biology? Because the head scientist of the human genome project (Francis Collins - an expert on DNA and genomes) has pointed to them as evidence for God and even wrote a book about this called "The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief" so are you saying you know better than the award winning chief scientist behind the HGP?

"if the Designers name is "Laws of Physic", then I tend to agree."

At this point it becomes apparent to me that you have doubts behind your atheism or deep down believe in a god and refuse to admit it. You are simply giving the designer another name and attributing to him mindlessness when him having a mind makes more sense unless you're willing to present evidence for chaotic forces creating the harmony we can observe throughout the universe. I have waited for proof of this since last year and no atheist on this site has come forth with any.

If you think I was quote-mining then you never read what I wrote. I concluded long ago (and mentioned this on the debate forum) that there were no true transitional fossils and I even explained why your "examples" weren't true transitional fossils, unless of course *you* have short memory?

And you're getting it all wrong about me accusing evolutionists of not understanding their own theory. Perhaps I should have re-worded. I mean most atheistic evolutionists don't understand it and this was backed by all those incorrect pictures of evolution. Do you really think the picture above was made by a creationist? The only thing they did was add the words, the image was created by an evolutionist and you'll be lying to say otherwise.

"And you're an expert on biology? Because the head scientist of the human genome project (Francis Collins - an expert on DNA and genomes) has pointed to them as evidence for God and even wrote a book about this called "The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief" so are you saying you know better than the award winning chief scientist behind the HGP?"

Did I ever said or acted like a real expert? If I had studied biology like biology scientists have to, I would ****** destroy all your arguments with a much greater varity of knowledge then Im doing now. In other words: No.

Francis Collins beliefs in theistic evolution (including transitional fossils ect.), which I kinda accept and suggest to YECs like Elf.

"At this point it becomes apparent to me that you have doubts behind your atheism or deep down believe in a god and refuse to admit it. You are simply giving the designer another name and attributing to him mindlessness when him having a mind makes more sense unless you're willing to present evidence for chaotic forces creating the harmony we can observe throughout the universe. I have waited for proof of this since last year and no atheist on this site has come forth with any."

Yeah, I pray to the holy Medusa, the goddess of all life on earth. *Hamenahamenahamena*
lol, no. I dont belief in a designer not even in the deepest core of myself. Any assumption that says otherwise is invalid, I have no reason to deny it if it would be the case. So gfo with that bs.

Evolution is blind, so if you associate blindness with chaotic, then so be it.

"Do you really think the picture above was made by a creationist? The only thing they did was add the words, the image was created by an evolutionist and you'll be lying to say otherwise."

Yes, I really thought that and I still doubt that unless its meant to be a parody as we in the atheist group did it. O_o On the other hand I do know that there are atheists out there who get evolution wrong at some points.

"I already said this was debunked, you want to ignore that? Fair enough but don't pretend I never answered this claim."

Ok, lets make the assumption that you are right. To make a few points clear:
- You belief in a Designer (Lets name him Mr. D, just for fun) or God or whatever
- You accept the Big Bang Theory and therefor that the universe is 13.4 bil years old
- You accept the old earth theory
- You accept speciation, genetic inheritance and micro-evolution as only thing of the theory of evolution

Lets get started:
1. Mr. D makes the universe through a singularity (lets just name it zero-hour or just ZH).
2. Mr. D spends the first 7 billions of years formng the universe and setting everything in motion.
3. Mr. D then forms a star, 25 times as heavy as our sun, to cook the materials through fusion he needs for creating life. Ehm... The ****** creator of the universe needs an exploding star to get the materials he needs for life? A ****** giant star that is about 20 or more LYs away instead of creating the stuff where he needs them?
4. Mr. D creates 9 billion years after ZH a tiny little solar system with a even tinier littler planet he calls earth and needs about 2 billion years to create the right conditions for his first try in creating life.
5. Mr. D starts makes building blocks of life and later on the first cell in a couple of billions of years. I mean... Really? He needs that much ****** time to get the ****** first cell???? But ok, lets assume Mr. D was just lazy.
6. Mr. D then creates more advanced forms of life, step by step and in really slow motion.
7. Mr. D then forms... Ahw, mass extinction time.
8. Ok, Mr. D starts anew with the remaining forms of life. Now he needs hundreds of millions of years to create the first plants, fishes and later on the first tetrapods! Wow, what an amazing job so far!

9. Ahw, its mass extinction time again.
10. Ok, now for real, lets make some HUGE stuff! Dinosaurs! Mammals! More! Until about 65 million years before our time.
11. Cause now its mass extinction time again! Hurray!
12. Now Mr. D makes huge Mammals and the first Birds (or were the first birds made before the mass extinction? Dont care now, have to compromise a greate story!)
13. Mr. D evolves his creation... Ehm, I mean forms his creation until he got an idea. He makes beings formed by his own image! Hurray!
14. Untill 70.000 - 30.000 BC atleast, 'cause guess what time was again! Bingo, mass extinction time through a supervolcano namely Toba! Hurray!
15. Hey, his creation survived his mass extintion test again - well, most of them died, but hey a few survived again!
16. And today after 13.4 billions of years that Mr. D had to create his ultimate master piece of work, his so called creation, even though its only half-intelligent, is even smarter then the creator of the ****** universe and recognizes countless flaws in his work? He made life look like it evolved as it had, instead of just going straight for the goal?

Something is ****** wrong in your theory!

"Did I ever said or acted like a real expert? If I had studied biology like biology scientists have to, I would ****** destroy all your arguments with a much greater varity of knowledge then Im doing now. In other words: No."

You would at least be able to withstand me from obliterating all your arguments seemingly for a little while longer before resulting to angry and emotional charged replies again as usual. In any case, my comment was a counter-argument to you talking about Elf, you're not an expert either so you can't really speak on this matter according to your own argument.

"Francis Collins beliefs in theistic evolution (including transitional fossils ect.), which I kinda accept and suggest to YECs like Elf."

Francis Collins explains all the holes in evolution with God guiding evolution (the only evolution that makes sense but with all the arguments against, I see no reason to accept it) which is rather irrelevant to God anyway.

"Yeah, I pray to the holy Medusa, the goddess of all life on earth. *Hamenahamenahamena*"

So instead of coming up with an argument about how I'm wrong, you pretty much admit that I'm right but ascribe creation to another god? TBH if Sigmar Heldenhammer came down and said "I am the god" and proved it you atheists would be the real affected ones because your atheism is destroyed in the end anyway still. What sort of argument is this? Theism is right but Christianity isn't? Atheism is still defeated anyway by your admittance to theism here.

"Evolution is blind, so if you associate blindness with chaotic, then so be it."

Atheistic evolution is also mindless.

Wow, you really started to fantasize here! Time for some corrections (as usual):

1. Mr.D's writer makes the universe through a singularity which results in The Big Bang.
2. Mr.D's writer fine-tunes everything straight after The Big Bang to ensure everything forms fine.
3. Mr.D's writer instills itself into everything to ensure that everything is guided according to Mr.D's orders.
4. Stars are formed under the orders of Mr.D which works through his writer. Stars are formed by gravity compressing gas together and combining them to produce stars. Meanwhile all the materials needed for life in the universe are already available for everything to form.
5. Mr.D's writer comes upon the already formed Earth (which is formless everywhere else) and populates it.
6. Mr.D's writer doesn't make the building blocks for life because abiogenesis is a myth. Mr.D's writer creates life according to the laws of the universe and nature established by his master.
7. Dinosaurs die out but not all life. Small creatures survive, some dinosaurs survive and water/flying creatures survive. Humans created some time after.

8. Flood occurs in the human populated region where the first human civilization is found in the Middle East and not in Africa because humans did not come from there.
9. Ice age occurs. Humans live through it.
10. Great differences in fossil geology because of the flood.
11. All human life descends from Noah. In this, all humans share a common ancestor.
12. Human life only has limited capability to understand the cosmos, some time in the future, a certain atheist from Germany concludes that humanity is smarter than the creator he doesn't believe in and understands everything there is to know about the universe despite concluding that humanity isn't very smart. Ignoring the gaps in his arguments and theories, this atheist alongside the small percentage dismiss God while the majority of the human population recognize a creator and 50% of the human population recognize this creator as God.

Let's have a go at the atheistic theory now:

1. 13.77 billion years ago, a singularity from literal nothingness came forth from this nothingness and The Big Bang was the result.
2. From The Big Bang, matter and time and everything that existed expanded across this space and time. Along with the matter and time that came from The Big Bang, laws, properties and variables came into existence from nothingness.
3. The chaotic forces of the universe suddenly came to be managed by these laws that had spontaneously appeared from nowhere. With them universally established, the properties of the universe were fine-tuned and stars, planets (and ultimately) life could form.
4. Eventually approximately 9.23 billion years after The Big Bang, the Earth formed.
5. Initially the Earth was in a condition where nothing could live on it but after millions of years when everything had cooled down, the first forms of life formed from dead material which had come to life due to a combination of components and environmental causes although the exact order and how this all could have happened is in a matter of dispute. This occurred only once and only in once place on the Earth although this is a matter in dispute. The primitive life that had formed had a very complex system known as DNA.
6. The cells turned into bacteria which eventually formed very primitive life blocks such stromatolites although this is a matter in dispute.
7. The stromatolites evolved into more complex life forms such as plant life, although this is a matter in dispute. Some believe plant life formed separately although this is a matter in dispute.
8. The plants evolved into marine life although this is disputed by many. In another example, marine life evolved separately.

9. The marine life eventually evolved body features which would allow them to travel on land. After millions of years of jumping on land and waddling off due to the toxic atmosphere, the marine life eventually evolved the feature to breath in what was previously toxic to their ancestors who had been jumping on and off land for millions of years.
10. Dinosaur/mammal life eventually evolved. Dinosaurs were first.
11. Dinosaurs/mammals started jumping from trees which eventually lead to birds evolving.
12. After many matters in dispute and evolutions, most life today evolved from the dinosaur although this was later dismissed. Most life today evolved from mammals and man evolved from ape.
13. Man was different from ape. Man lost his fur despite the world being quite cold and despite going to cold regions like the North Pole to live, man never regained his fur although this is in a matter of dispute as some people cite the sasquatch as an off branch of the early humans who went to the North Pole.

That is the atheistic origin of the universe and life, disputed amongst its own individuals, filled with gaps, errors and generally concepts not even agreed upon and unscientific in nature. Meanwhile the entire footing has no empirical evidence. Something from nothing remains unproven, atheistic origin of the universe does not account for the order and laws we see and abiogenesis also remains a hypothesis with no evidence. Meanwhile the evolution theory has more holes than swiss cheese.

"That is the atheistic origin of the universe and life"

Since God or a designer has not been proven in science, it is the scientific description, if its right. I just skipped it.

"disputed amongst its own individuals, filled with gaps, errors"

Gaps and errors are important in science, because if there would be none, the progress of theories would stop.

"generally concepts not even agreed upon and unscientific in nature."

You are unscientific.

"Meanwhile the entire footing has no empirical evidence."

Wrong.

"Something from nothing remains unproven, atheistic origin of the universe does not account for the order and laws we see and abiogenesis also remains a hypothesis with no evidence."

The "atheistic" origin does not at all. But the laws of physics which scientists believe were created with the Big Bang do. And yes, abiogenesis is a hypothesis because we have no evidence what exact circumstance were the beginning of life. There are just too many to find only one possible solution to this: thermal springs, lightnings, solar energy, volcanos and meteors, just to name a few. And we crated life in a lab through experiments and it is possible through molecular engineering or better know as synthetic biology (for life at least).

"Meanwhile the evolution theory has more holes than swiss cheese."

Even more "holes" then your pullover has on microscopic level. Really tiny holes between countless hubs connected with lines of cloth that make the pullover. That would be a more accurate description of the theory of evolution. In the other corner we have ID, a V-belt that has no hole, because it is the hole itself and can be formed to fit reality to erase the imagination of the hole, not to fill it.

I rather prefer something that has many but tiny holes instead of something that the answer to everything but only one giant void.