There is no ignorance in exposing missing or erroneous information.

No ignorance at all. of course, neither is there any “missing or erroneous information” ever found by creationists. Creationism is anti-science. The methods of creationism cannot lead to finding any areas of ignorance, only hiding the facts.

Science, or almost entirely comprised of science has its faults like if evolution were true then explain why there are so many gaps in the evolutionary chain. That is to ask where are the evolutionary chains between monkey and man? One has to accept the fact that the next evolutionary step after monkey had to be superior to monkey and subordinate to man, why did that life form(s) disappear and monkeys remain? It is a very perplexing question to be sure but there must have been many beings between monkey and man yet none of them exist today, why? Again keep in mind that these being were superior to monkey and should have had the survival advantage. So why did the not? Get use to it folks, neither have solid answers so until they do neither can be fully accepted nor discredited.

See what I mean? There is more ignorance used as smokescreen in that paragraph than there is actual information.

Why did the author not bother to search to see whether there are any gaps left in the “monkey to man” chain? Had he done so, he’d have realized that no one has ever claimed humans came from monkeys. Ooops.

Humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes. Our line split from theirs about 7 million years ago. In the “gap” of that seven million years we have no fewer than 20 species of ape and hominid between our common ancestor and modern humans. How can the author of the post above possibly have missed 20 species?

Get used to it folks: Creationists smash into solid answers in all their running about. They smash into the truth, then pick themselves up and rush off, pretending nothing happened.

Sheesh!

See here:
http://www.becominghuman.org/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/

OK, it is late and I like this one in particular so if I get more time I will also try to address the others.

The problem with this one is it is a loaded answer. Yes, Evolution is almost entirely comprised of science. To say otherwise is to reveal ignorance, a failed education, deceit, or a fear of learning the truth.

Almost entirely? Jumbo Shrimp? Giant midget? Completely wiped out most of them?

All very telling.

There is no ignorance in exposing missing or erroneous information. Yes, there are problems with creation, but one would have to admit the revealing of ignorance, a failed education, deceit, or a fear of learning the truth if one will not admit the holes in evolution doctrine.

Science, or almost entirely comprised of science has its faults like if evolution were true then explain why there are so many gaps in the evolutionary chain. That is to ask where are the evolutionary chains between monkey and man? One has to accept the fact that the next evolutionary step after monkey had to be superior to monkey and subordinate to man, why did that life form(s) disappear and monkeys remain? It is a very perplexing question to be sure but there must have been many beings between monkey and man yet none of them exist today, why? Again keep in mind that these being were superior to monkey and should have had the survival advantage. So why did the not? Get use to it folks, neither have solid answers so until they do neither can be fully accepted nor discredited.

bb

cheers, Fondue.

Insults have yet to prove your theory. If you were really confident about it then you wouldn’t need to resort to insults.”

It’s not insulting you. It’s merely pointing out that you lack the conceptual and theoretical foundation to truly understand the processes we’re talking about.

Creationism is, at its heart, an ignorant belief, whereas one does not believe in evolution so much as understand it. Every experiment by every biologist, chemist, and physicist concerning every theoretical underpinning has borne it out, time and time again. People who ask for demonstrations of “wing nubbins,” on the other hand, don’t actually understand what they’re asking for. Anyone who asks for a “transitional fossil” doesn’t actually understand how evolution works.

Go to college, study some science, come back when you’ve learned something.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you’re just under-informed, these sources should provide you with enough grist and material to point to other sources. There have been dozens of exciting finds in the past 20 years that fill in the picture of bird evolution, even if they leave open the question of just how flight evolved and in which line, or whether flight in birds might have evolved more than once.

Is this the only point that troubles you about evolution? You can get a great background at the Berkeley gateway to evolution site, or at the PBS site for the series “Evolution.”