Yes, I was wrong.

Don't red herring me. The Piltdown Man was total bull and has nothing to do with serious scientists at all. You shouldn't have to resort to this type of argument if you have sound faith in your knowledge. In fact, you're using the same logic you argue against when people generalise all Muslims when they see a minority of terrorists. Shame on you.

Besides, the Piltdown Man hoax discovery is a wonderful example of how rigorous scientific experimentation is. Falsifications don't stay around for long and that is great confidence for science enthusiasts.

Well, you should use the correct terminology then, lest educated people actually use them. Darwinism != Evolution. It's a shorthand subset of the latter.

An example of observable natural selection for those interested.

 

Piltdown man is one of the reasons I don't trust scientists.

If you want to put your faith in scientists that's fine. 

 

Al-Qaeda is one of the reasons why some don't trust Muslims. Just as silly, eh?

I put my faith in them when I'm able to study their observations and theories myself.

 

Well you can know that not all Muslims are like Al-Qaeda, the mistrust can be removed by doing some studies.

But, when I pickup a book that talks about how we evolved from apes, I can't verify the information because I need to see the evolution take place before I say it's a fact.

 

You can see that it takes place by doing some studies and reading peer reviewed journals.

 

I have to see with my own eyes that apes evolve into humans.

Scientists made a mistake centuries ago when they said the earth was flat, today they can see with their own eyes that it is not flat. 
 

 

Scientists never said the Earth was flat, theists said that.

 

Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct, introgressed or extant.

Scientists supporting an alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neaderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to modern humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Scientists have also seen evolution, in the bacterial matter as just described by BRUm. So seeing you now believe the earth is round based on scientists (unless you personally traveled to space), surely you should also believe the scientists who tell you evolution is correct.

 

Okay fine, but still, I need to observe apes evolving into man until then this is not a fact, it's just speculation. 

Just because we can see bacterium evolve does not mean man is a descendant of apes.   

 

cant delete this.

 

Have you observed God by your own eyes? It seems you can believe something as ridiculous as God without seeing it with your own eye but you can´t believe much simpler idea which actually has factual proof without seeing with your eyes.

 

A hypothesis would be educated speculation, but as I've shown, a theory is not.

 

You don't have to see God to believe in him, for example I believe that Hitler authored Mein Kampf, but I have never seen Hitler with my own eyes. Similarly God is the author of the Quran, but I have not seen him with my eyes.

With regards to "man evolved from apes" then this not a simpler idea at all, and it has no evidence either, that's why I have to say that I need to see the evolutionary process with my own eyes, had there been convincing evidence I would not say that I need to see it with my own eyes. 

I don't know why you think its so simple to believe  man evolved from apes, I guess you just want it to be true, that's why you find it easy to accept, as for us religious people who believe in Adam and Eve we don't submit easily to these theories.

 

Man didn't evolve from apes, human is an ape, but don't bother talking about it IsraeI, you have something blocking you in your head and that's your islam bullshit, otherwise evolution by natural selection is such a simple and elegant explanation that it is clear to understand if you don't have that stone in your head blocking the way.. And that stone is simply that your islam (or any of the other 3 main monotheist religions) is telling you another explanation, much more complicated in fact. So, since you believe this explanation because you've been submitted to it while a young mind, you find it complicated to understand evolution simply because it contradicts your first explanation, it doesn't fit in your mental construct of the world.

That's the only reason why you find it difficult to understand. Honestly your god explanation is to me much more complicated, so human was made by God, fine, so how God was made? You'll certainly have another explanation in your book I believe, but the explanation of how God was made must be even more complicated than how human was made.

So man didn't evolve from apes, human is an ape, all apes you see today are all evolved from a common ancestor at some point in time, while some apes species have a closer ancestor, etc. I don't see what's complicated to understand if you take the time to actually watch explanations such as the royal lectures of richard dawkins (on his website) and don't simply ignore them as the work of evil, this way you'll never advance in life, but maybe you're simply afraid that looking too well into it you'll lose your faith because that's the only natural consequence of careful study of the matter. So ignorance is bliss, if you don't want to lose your faith, stick with your own, even debating in forums is dangerous, many ex-believers have started like this, debating on forums, take care...

 

The Atheists have yet to explain the difference in intelligence between Man and Ape and between all species and their intercommunications if they all evolved from a similar source.

Why a Chimpanzee hasn't text or a Human can not communicate with an Eagle.

That all species are dissimilar and the Architecture that evolved for their development.   

 

Are you really asking that Breeze? The world "evolution" itself explains why humankind is more intelligent than all other animals. Our brains evolved. They're bigger and more complicated.

 

I don't have to travel myself, I see the satellite images of how the earth looks like, and my religion teaches the earth is round anyway.

And just because a scientist is right in 1 thing doesn't mean he's right in everything. It's possible that another scientist 50 years from now will completely debunk Darwinism. 

 

You're right there, but that isn't the case at the present. So until this future scientist comes about logic will have to prevail.

 

Logic according to your opinion.

 

Who knew the Earth was round and when did they know it?

People knew the Earth was round 2500 years ago. They just forgot.

Because Earth-bound observers could only view a small section of the globe at a time, it wasn't possible to tell from direct observation whether the Earth was a flat disk or a sphere. The Greeks were the first to theorize that the Earth was round. Scholars like Pythagoras in 500 BC based their belief on observations about the way the altitudes of stars varied at different places on Earth and how ships appeared on the horizon. As a ship returned to port, first its mast tops, then the sails, and finally its hull gradually came into view. Aristotle, who lived 300 years before Christ, observed that the Earth cast a round shadow on the moon. When a light is shined on a sphere, it casts the same shadow. The Greeks calculated the general size and shape of the Earth. They also created the grid system of latitude and longitude, so that with just two coordinates one can locate any point on the Earth. Greek philosophers also concluded that the Earth could only be a sphere because that, in their opinion, was the "most perfect" shape.

Around 150 AD, Claudius Ptolemy, a Greek geographer, mathematician, and astronomer, compiled an encyclopedia of the ancient world from the archives of a legendary library in Alexandria, Egypt. His eight-volume Geography included extensive maps of the known world, all based on a curved globe.

Unfortunately, learning and intellect went out of fashion in Europe between 400 and 1200 AD. The storehouses of Greek knowledge were lost to Western society with the advent of the gloomy period known as the Dark Ages. Sea monsters and Vikings ruled the seas, and ships that ventured too far from shore were sure to fall off the edge of a flat Earth. Maps made in that time were based on religious beliefs or superstitions, not on observations, calculations, or scientific inquiry. Rectangular maps of the Earth represented the "four corners of the Earth." Circular maps usually placed the birthplace of Christianity, the holy city of Jerusalem, at the center of the world.

After 1250, map making in Europe took a turn for the better. Land maps and nautical charts were produced for travelers using measurements and observation rather than mythology and literary sources.

In Europe, the Middle Ages progressed into the Age of Discovery. Meanwhile, the Arab world had preserved Ptolemy's Geography. Ptolemy's works were rediscovered by the Western world and translated into Latin. Ptolemy's map projections explaining how to represent a sphere on a flat piece of paper enabled cartographers and explorers to chart newly-discovered lands and seas. The invention of the printing press made it possible for more people to use, circulate, and refine maps.

Christopher Columbus' voyage in 1492 confirmed that the Earth was round. Magellan's crew proved the fact definitively by circling the globe on a three-year voyage from 1519-1522. Map making joined hand in hand with the Age of Discovery.

http://www.gma.org/space1/nav_map.html