What if they were reproducing asexually by splitting themselves in half? The devil's in the details, Bruce.

Who (what) reproduced asexually by splitting themselves in half?
Kocsis says man couldn't have evolved from apes, because that would leave no explanation for spacemen. I can't consider his argument because I've seen no spacemen... don't believe anyone else has either.

But even if someone produces a spaceman, that doesn't prove we didn't evolve from apes, only that spacemen developed somehow, somewhere, and bears investigation.

Sundae was referencing the post before the spaceman post.

Roy Comfort? I'd already discarded him... completely.

Exactly, and if that someone can also produce a space-ape then it lends credence to evolution since it apparently happened twice!

Not necessarily. If somebody produces a spaceman, I'd have to reconsider the position of the very few, (read nutters) that have been saying that humans came from other worlds.

If someone produces a spaceman and spacemonkey, that introduces the possibility that;
1- we came from other worlds where we (and the spaceman) evolved from spacemonkeys.
2- we came from other worlds where we [and the spaceman] came about some other way.
3- we evolved from earth monkeys and the spaceman have evolved from spacemonkeys.
4- we evolved from earth monkeys and the spaceman came about some other way.

The spaceman and spacemonkey certainly present a myriad of possible scenarios.

BUT, until the spaceman, with or without spacemonkey, shows up, I'll stick with the preponderance of evidence that man evolved from apes... earth apes.

Which is what I said originally;

Funnily enough, there was an advert on this morning for a series of BBC programmes to celebrate the 150th anniversary of The Origin of the Species. It's called The Origin of Genuis. It's just accepted in this country - Darwin was right, end of. And the vast majority of Christians accept it too.

Then again, I suppose we have such a small population compared to America. The tiny percentage of those that reject the concept of evolution means less in terms of numbers.

Anyway, the first programme is called What Darwin Didn't Know. I'll be watching it.

Not all the 40% who would like to see the biblical story taught in schools actually adhere to that belief. There are a large number of people who accept evolution as the most likely answer, but who think we should teach both theories in school.

I have only met a handful of people over here who dismiss evolution entirely and subscribe to a non-evolutionary creation story. Most people over here either believe in evolution without God or believe in it with God. I would query their overall results. It doesn't match my own experience of this country: 52% don't believe in evolution at all? That doesn't fit to me.

The battle ground is the theory of evolution. The underlying theme of the battle is whether or not God is or God is not. Not wether or not evolution is a workable theory or not.

That question can not be answered by the theory of evolution. I think it is misguided to use things such as the theory of evolution to prove or disprove God.

God either is, or God is not. As far as I can tell this is a very personal matter. It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.

I'm having trouble believing that also.

And vice versa.

Or god is but not as defined in fairy tales (parables) written in a bible. The bible may be how those without basic knowledge (similar to children) grasp a concept too far beyond them. Rather than ask whether god does or does not exist according to their definition, instead, ask what really is god.

When god is personified by human characteristics, then god is simply a false idol. If god has characteristics such as anger and other emotions, then god is only a man – not a god. Clearly, the god defined in a bible is only what naïve children (adults of that time) could comprehend. Time to move on from myths and speculation into, instead, asking what really would be a god. What is defined in the bible is best described as similar to the gods worshipped by the Romans and Greeks – humanized and therefore false idols. Time to ask what a god would really be - which is not what parables in a bible define. But then men were grasping the best they could at that time.

Therefore, tw, you must logically extend that god 'cares' nothing for humanity, since 'caring' is an anthropomorphization.

So, why do we care about god?

People don't care about God, they care about themselves. Think about it; would any religious person you know consider their god to be important if it didn't care about what they did? There is always either a reward or a penalty associated with behavior or mindset, and without any sort of interaction or consequence from belief the god is pointless. The common concept of an acceptable god even rules out non-earthly concerns. God never needs help with something beyond what humans can do, god never gets angry at things beyond human actions.

It is no surprise that a more advanced view of what God should be leads to logical inconsistencies. It is religion, it never makes any sense.

Logical inconsistencies can also be found in observations of experiments conducted at the subatomic level, what we call quantum mechanics. I don't hear many physisists saying "It's just science, it never makes any sense."

My point is this, there are many things in religion that do make sense, and yes there are logical inconsistencies. These also exist in the scientific world as we are able to observe it. Using one or the other to discount one or the other is useless.