Evolution - defies accepted science

to the OP: You sure did a lot of copying and pasting here without acknowledging your sources...That's called plagiarism where I come from. Seriously??? do some research and post your own material

reply to post by TLomon


Most Evolutionists do not disagree with the Law of Biogenesis; you couldn't. A quick search will show this. Abiogenesis is a nice hypothesis; however, it has never been observed. They are attempting to generate a spontaneous life form now, though, it has still not been achieved. So it is not relevant to evolution either. It is a hypothesis they are working to form a theory on. Abiogenesis cannot be used in support of Evolution. At this current moment.

A few evolutionists sometimes do use the idea of acquired characteristics. Darwin himself did it a few times. So it was worth mentioning.

Mendal's law is applicable to the argument. It is simply stating that there are "limits" to organism variations. For example, you cannot breed a dog with an octopus and get a dogopus. It was worth touching on to mention that from his experiments, it seems different combinations are formed, and not different genes (new genes). Mendal's law gives a theoretical reason for why variations are limited. For example, if evolution occured, bacteria that produce offspring should have the most variations and mutations. In effect, the opposite has happened. If we came from bacteria / microbials, humans should have a short reproduction time and many children. For some reason, more complex life forms have fewer off spring and longer reproduction cycles. Again, it seems variations in organisms are bounded.

How does Natural Selection "not" prevent major evolutionary changes? The limb that is in transformation, slowly, will become a hazard much more quickly than it would become beneficial. There are many transitions that occur. As i used for an example, how did we survive the transitionary period when we had no hearing? The jaw bones were too busy slowly growing into an ear (basically).

It cannot be disputed that any observed mutations (experimental or natural) has EVER produced a more complex or viable life form. Scientists are trying to induce these mutations, and so far they have failed. Most mutations are harmful. Such as sickle cell, it gives you immunity to one problem, while giving you other unpleasant problems. An eye for an eye. You can live a decent life with sickle cell disease with precautions, certain routines, and depending upon the severity, medication. This, again, proves Micro-Evolution / Natural Selection. It does not prove Macro-Evolution. A simple example is the Fruit Fly experiments, thousands of generations have been observed while we have been trying to induce meaningful mutations, to no avail.

Okay, a fern has 400+ chromosomes if i remember correctly. A tobacco plant has 50 chromosomes. I am still not sure how this supports evolution. Humans are the most intelligent. We do not need to be the most complex life form, just the smartest. Obviously, we rule over the ferns because we plant and destroy them at will. Those 480 or 90 chromosomes aren't helping. Furthermore, I am not sure how the fern's complexity supports evolution. It is a very complex life form, that is about it. A new organ has never been observed developing in an organism. Mutations certainly have not been observed creating a new beneficial organ. For example, just because you live next to the sea and spend most of your life in it, and so do your off spring mean you are going to develop gills and webbed feet and hands because you spend most of your life in the sea. Natural Selection would kill you off if you tried to fully move to the sea.

If you consider the overall anatomy and physiology of the ostrich, rather than just its wings, you will see that it is a functioning creature that works well. The wings of other large flightless birds, emus, cassowaries, penguins, rheas, fit into the same category as ostrich wings – an extreme variation of wings, but still functional and useful structures that is part of a fully functional creature whose fossils show no evidence the bird has ever flown and perhaps was never meant to fly – but, which seem very efficient for running, cooling, mating and protecting young. How do you know an Ostrich is meant to fly? You do not. An ostrich is not proof of an intermediate.

reply to post by neOrevolutionist


Copying and pasting? Most of the information I have is written down in a notebook. I have been researching material for about a week and simply writing down what makes sense into a journal. I used a number of sources to cross view the arguments, I did not write down the websites. I just wrote the material down into a journal. If you look at the information, it should be common sense 99% of the information used is read / learned. I do not work in a lab.

How else am I supposed to word scientific arguments? This is the reason for school and researching. This was not meant to be a professional report or thesis presentation but a simple discussion about the numerous facts and information available on the internet for people to read and ponder.

I am sorry I do not work in a laboratory, and I did not make all of these observations myself. I have to go on what others have written and off the hard work they have put into this research.

I am not randomly speaking, everything I have stated has come from someone elses hard work. As this should be obvious. Otherwise I would have no argument and would probably be outside eating raw meat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
www.creationresearch.net...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org...
projects.gnome.org/evolution/
www.creationism.org...
www.evolutionnews.org/
creationscience.com...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
evolution.berkeley.edu/
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
www.evolutionsociety.org/
www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creationism
www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/
ncse.com/creationism

This is a FEW websites in my history regarding this topic. I am more than certain ALL of this material is plagiarism. I didn't speak to the researches face to face, or do the lab work myself. I have to read and write down all of the material. How else am i going to form opinions without using some one elses work? I have to study their explanations and then agree or disagree .... why would i change their material they worked so hard on to make it appear to be my own material when it isn't. I just figured it was common knowledge that if you aren't a scientist working on this product, you are plagiarizing their facts that you use to formulate your opinion and express it.

If i need to paste ALL of my sources before hand, i will, however, last i recall, I am not turning this information in as my own or claiming it as my own. I am simply discussing it .. this is NOT a thesis presentation. It is a discussion.

Hopefully no one here thinks i am pulling this information out of a place where the sun doesn't shine. I am a Mathematics major, not a biologist.

Also, if you go through the pages of information in the sources, you will notice all those sources continuously sight the same information. There is a very little differing explanations. Simply because you cant really word it different ... science doesn't exactly have broad terms.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by CrimsonMoon

 

I am sorry that Evolution defies our own science and established methods. Let's ignore the faults of evolution and teach it like facts, it's okay if it defies established science. It's our best guess; it's all we got! So let's teach it to our off spring.

I much rather be ignorant than wrong.

So if Evolution defies our own established methods and science i much rather choose God than best guess.

edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

And yet you manage to be both.

Well done you!

reply to post by randyvs


Way to edit your post. If you believe something then stick with it and defend it. Don't try to lie and squirm your way out of a statement you obviously made.

Creationism is rooted in religion. To say otherwise is just a lie. There is zero evidence for it. ZERO. Evolution has observation and evidence to back it up. While not complete it brings more to the table than the fantasy of creationism. Whose only evidence is a book full of tall tales. Schools are for knowledge not idiotic theories from religious nutjobs. Schools are there to educate children not INDOCTRINATE them.

I don't think creationists understand the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Look it up.

Once again, Creationism=zero evidence, just baseless speculations that only religiously indoctrinated folks would believe.

Evolution= Observation backed by Scientific study, peer reviewed and double checked numerous times. While incomplete it is still on the correct track.

reply to post by milkyway12


Abiogenesis has no bearing on evolution. Evolution explains biodiversity thus it requires life to already exist. As for acquired characteristics that is a Lamarckian idea. It's been a while sine I read On the Origin of Species but if Darwin mentioned acquired characteristics it was most likely to argue against them as Lamarck's theory of soft inheritance went against Darwin's theory of natural selection.

I'll get to the rest of this post later when I'm not on an iPad.

reply to post by milkyway12


If we want creationism to be mainstream, it would need to be well defined. Saying that an unknown, all powerful entity decided to throw us together for their own reason leaves a lot open to interpretation. So here goes.

God or Supreme Entity. Which do we use? After all this is the "Big Bang" of creationism. This is it's beginning. Do we only accept modern entities or do all entities count, whether they are still believed in or not? If we go with 'unnamed entity' in the curriculum, how are questions regarding specific deities answered? Or is it whatever you want to believe, then that is the right answer?

Creation Story. Again, which do we use? Remember, this is being taught as fact. Or is no story used but rather "Mankind popped into existence"? How do you explain how humans came to be without referencing at least one of the creation stories? Once again, is it only modern beliefs that hold weight, or should we go with older source material closer to the actual event?

So, what else am I missing? What if a different version of creationism was taught to your child? Or is it made so generic that there are no definitive answers? At that point don't we need to go back to which church or god you follow to find those answers? And if you are going to be teaching your version of creationism to your kids anyways, why subject my child to your views, generic or not?

You do realize that whichever god you believe in created this universe on a very strict set of rules. The universe around you does not run on random miracles, but on a very precise set of organization. We humans call these rules and organizations 'Science'. So all those who want to cast science aside, you are saying that the rules god setup are meaningless.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
A fish trying to walk on land will die. Every fish that tries, (why would they try?) would die. You can't pass on a gene for trying to walk on land if your a fish if you die because you can't reproduce if your dead.

There is no argument to reverse this death producing a gene that creates a fish that successfully grows legs because the gene cannot be reproduced.

Those that believe in evolution have more faith than those that believe in God.

And THAT ... I can respect! Evolutionists have awesome faith.

Two words.

Mudskipper

Lung fish

reply to post by idmonster


That isn't very productive to the thread. I am looking for information i can study that i haven't found yet. That post didn't help with that. Thanks for posting though.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

No, i do not. I just think students should have the opportunity to learn about the Creation prospect, or be able to " Choose " to take a creation view.

If they want to teach the Big Bang, go ahead. I just think a student or parent should be able to choose if their child should take a creation view class and/or an evolution view.

I think the optimal thing would be to let them hear BOTH views.

Narrow minded doesnt even begin to............!

Both views...BOTH.

You think there are only two choices?

So, evol' is one choice, whats the next?

Christian biblical account (choice of two right there)?

Hindu?

Shamanic?

Budhist?

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Pan Spermia?

reply to post by idmonster


Are you trying to say mud skippers are an anomaly? Walking Cat-Fish are a prime example. They can cross land ... okay ... now, you have to "make" it fit into evolution. Creationist will simply say God created it .. and the fact that there are several species of fish capable of crossing land, makes mud skippers some kind of transitionary anomaly, is far fetched. They work perfectly with their environment and do not struggle to survive any more than other species. Saying God could not create a creature who could both be on land, in water, and survive is not doing God any favors. When we start observing the mud-skippers transition again, let me know. I need more proof than just saying fish on land is impossible, but it evolved so it's now possible. Also, frog anyone? Land and water. Amphibian. It could just be a "species" instead of a transnational amphibian. Mud-skippers are not a random anomaly.

reply to post by idmonster


Double Post.

reply to post by idmonster


Creation does not have to support a specific god. It can attempt to show science in regards to intelligent design. Whether you believe in one god or multiple. Biology is not the study of how the planets formed, but of living things and their processes.

Even though evolution is not meant to explain the origins of life, people often use it to explain away God for some reason.

evolution is basically an ape turning into a human.

a lizard turning into a giraffe, a bird turning into a shark and other ridiculous laughable claims.

but it fails to explain what the 8 million other species on earth evolved from.

it doesn't explain why alligators according to them have remained unchanged for 250 million years.

shouldn't alligators have "evolved" to being more than scavengers wallowing in putrid swamps being eaten by toothless cajuns on swamp people.

the whole theory, at its core is not about facts, which are so very little, but to deny God. to give atheists something to cling on to, to fill the void of rejecting God.

if atheists want to believe that a monkey turned into a human, just the sadness of that statement is enough to feel pity. it doesn't show intelligence but ignorance.

evolution is not a scientific debate, but a theological debate.

reply to post by randomname


Alligators have evolved. Anyone familiar with biology will tell you this. The reason they may not have changed as much as other species is because their environment has remained largely unchanged.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by idmonster

 

Are you trying to say mud skippers are an anomaly? Walking Cat-Fish are a prime example. They can cross land ... okay ... now, you have to "make" it fit into evolution. Creationist will simply say God created it .. and the fact that there are several species of fish capable of crossing land, makes mud skippers some kind of transitionary anomaly, is far fetched. They work perfectly with their environment and do not struggle to survive any more than other species. Saying God could not create a creature who could both be on land, in water, and survive is not doing God any favors. When we start observing the mud-skippers transition again, let me know. I need more proof than just saying fish on land is impossible, but it evolved so it's now possible. Also, frog anyone? Land and water. Amphibian. It could just be a "species" instead of a transnational amphibian. Mud-skippers are not a random anomaly.

edit on 12-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Dishonest and ignorant !

Take another look at what I was replying to, your statement ( and i will paraphrase " a fish on land will die")

You are arguing against something that you dont understand.

You are repeating the dogmatic mantras that your religious leader has told you is real.

You are using scienctific explantaions that are flawed, biased and poorly explained in order to allow you to continue to believe in your chosen god.

And you know what...thats fine...i dont care. Your beliefs are yours and you're welcome to them. But to argue that any creation myth is comparible to the scientificaly accepted, observable, repeatable facts that form the theory of evolution is laughable.

I personaly think that religious education should be exactly that, all religion should be given equal time and emphasis in schools.

No longer should christianity hold sway in the class room, being taught as THE religion of choice with all religions being a mere side note of what "other people believe".

Evolution is science and should be, and is taught as such. End of. Rant and disagree all you like.

Religion is subjective and ALL religions deserve equal class time.

reply to post by TheIrishJihad

Creationism is rooted in religion. To say otherwise is just a lie. There is zero evidence for it. ZERO. Evolution has observation and evidence to back it up. While not complete it brings more to the table than the fantasy of creationism. Whose only evidence is a book full of tall tales. Schools are for knowledge not idiotic theories from religious nutjobs. Schools are there to educate children not INDOCTRINATE them.

Seriously ?: You accuse me of lying ? Are there anymore like you at home ?

From Websters/ Creationism - The DOCTRINE that the true story of the creation of the universe is recounted in the Bible. I'm saying otherwise.

Wiggle ?

reply to post by milkyway12

If the nature of underlying reality is the zero point field aka akashic field as a fully informed cosmological unity, the best metaphor being a giant hologram built on an architecture of sacred science/geometry, then what we have is BOTH intelligent design AND evolution, but as a formative causation with intent. Thus, the differentiation of species did not come about by simply popping into being at God's command, but rather as a direct and sole result of built-in relationships, made by design in order so that such variation of life might be expressed, relative to the source, as a first/last cause in eternity whereby species differentiation is in accord with a deep intent reflected most directly and immediately in the earth/moon/sun relationship without which such a process (of evolution) would not be possible. Therefore, should anyone PROVE that the earth/moon/sun relationship is not mere random occurance according to the laws of physics, but the manifestation of a much deeper intentionality by which the various phylos (forms) are expressed, each according to a design and a purpose, since there is not such thing as an evolutionary process occuring in isolation - then this whole "debate" or argument would begin to enter into a whole new domain of possibility within the framework of which there would be much agreement, and little dischord, except perhaps when it comes to the absolute scientific proof of the existence of a super-intelligent creator God, that's where both believers and atheists might both be left scratching their heads and wondering what side of the argument they're really on!





---

Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field

by Bernard Haisch

Is matter an illusion? Is the universe floating on a vast sea of light, whose invisible power provides the resistance that gives to matter its feeling of solidity? Astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch and his colleagues have followed the equations to some compelling — and challenging — conclusions.

"God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light."

It is certainly a beautiful poetic statement. But does it contain any science? A few years ago I would have dismissed that possibility. As an astrophysicist, I knew all too well the blatant contradictions between the sequence of events in Genesis and the physics of the Universe. Even after substituting eons for days, the order of events was obviously wrong. It made no sense to have light come first, and then to claim that the Sun, the moon and the stars — the obvious sources of light in the night sky of the ancient world — were created only subsequently, be it days or eons later. One could, of course, generalize light to mean simply energy, and thus claim a reference to the Big Bang, but that would, to me, be more of a stretch than a revelation.

My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left at 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing full well I was not there to share the thrill.

What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.

Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living?

But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.

But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.

To understand this zero-point field (for short), consider an old-fashioned grandfather clock with its pendulum swinging back and forth. If you don't wind the clock , friction will sooner or later bring the pendulum to a halt. Now imagine a pendulum that gets smaller and smaller, so small that it ultimately becomes atomic in size and subject to the laws of quantum physics. There is a rule in quantum physics called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that states (with certainty, as it happens) that no quantum object, such as a microscopic pendulum, can ever be brought completely to rest. Any microscopic object will always possess a residual random jiggle thanks to quantum fluctuations.

Radio, television and cellular phones all operate by transmitting or receiving electromagnetic waves. Visible light is the same thing; it is just a higher frequency form of electromagnetic waves. At even higher frequencies, beyond the visible spectrum, you find ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. All are electromagnetic waves which are really just different frequencies of light.

It is standard in quantum theory to apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to electromagnetic waves, since electric and magnetic fields flowing through space oscillate like a pendulum. At every possible frequency there will always be a tiny bit of electromagnetic jiggling going on. And if you add up all these ceaseless fluctuations, what you get is a background sea of light whose total energy is enormous: the zero-point field.

The "zero-point" refers to the fact that even though this energy is huge, it is the lowest possible energy state. All other energy is over and above the zero-point state. Take any volume of space and take away everything else — in other words, create a vacuum — and what you are left with is the zero-point field.

We can imagine a true vacuum, devoid of everything, but the real-world quantum vacuum is permeated by the zero-point field with its ceaseless electromagnetic waves. The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest energy state makes it unobservable. We see things by way of contrast. The eye works by letting light fall on the otherwise dark retina. But if the eye were filled with light, there would be no darkness to afford a contrast. The zero-point field is such a blinding light. Since it is everywhere, inside and outside of us, permeating every atom in our bodies, we are effectively blind to it. It blinds us to its presence. The world of light that we do see is all the rest of the light that is over and above the zero-point field. We cannot eliminate the zero-point field from our eyes, but it is possible to eliminate a little bit of it from the region between two metal plates. (Technically, this has to do with conditions the electromagnetic waves must satisfy on the plate boundaries.) A Dutch physicist, Hendrik Casimir, predicted in 1948 exactly how much of the zero-point field would end up being excluded in the gap between the plates, and how this would generates a force, since there is then an overpressure on the outside of the plates. Casimir predicted the relation between the gap and the force very precisely. You can, however, only exclude a tiny fraction of the zero-point field from the gap between the plates in this way. Counterintuitively, the closer the plates come together, the more of the zero-point field gets excluded, but there is a limit to this process because plates are made up of atoms and you cannot make the gap between the plates smaller than the atoms that constitute the plates. This Casimir force has now been physically measured, and the results agree very well with his prediction.

The discovery that my colleague first made in 1992 also has to do with a force that the zero-point field generates, which takes us back to F=ma, Newton’s famous equation of motion. Newton — and all physicists since — have assumed that all matter possesses an innate mass, the m in Newton's equation. The mass of an object is a measure of its inertia, its resistance to acceleration, the a. The equation of motion, known as Newton's second law, states that if you apply a force, F, to an object you will get an acceleration, a — but the more mass, m, the object possesses, the less acceleration you will get for a given force. In other words, the force it takes to accelerate a hockey puck to a high speed will barely budge a car. For any given force, F, if m goes up, a goes down, and vice versa.

Why is this? What gave matter this property of possessing inertial mass? Physicists sometimes talk about a concept known as "Mach's Principle" but all that does is to establish a certain relationship between gravity and inertia. It doesn’t really say how all material objects acquire mass. In fact, the work that Rueda, I and another colleague, Hal Puthoff, have since done indicate that mass is, in effect, an illusion. Matter resists acceleration not because it possesses some innate thing called mass, but because the zero-point field exerts a force whenever acceleration takes place. To put it in somewhat metaphysical terms, there exists a background sea of quantum light filling the universe, and that light generates a force that opposes acceleration when you push on any material object. That is why matter seems to be the solid, stable stuff that we and our world are made of.

Saying this is one thing. Proving it scientifically is another. It took a year and a half of calculating and writing and thinking, over and over again, to refine both the ideas themselves and the presentation to the point of publication in a professional research journal. On an academic timescale this was actually pretty quick, and we were able to publish in what is widely regarded as the world's leading physics journal, the Physical Review, in February 1994. To top it off, Science and Scientific American ran stories on our new inertia hypothesis. We waited for some reaction. Would other scientists prove us right or prove us wrong? Neither happened.

At that point in my career I was already a fairly well-established scientist, being a principal investigator on NASA research grants, serving as an associate editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and having many dozens of publications in the parallel field of astrophysics. In retrospect, my experience should have warned me that we had ventured into dangerous theoretical waters, that we were going to be left on our own to sink or swim. Indeed, I would probably have taken the same wait-and-see attitude myself had I been on the outside looking in.

An alternative to having other scientists replicate your work and prove that you are right is to get the same result yourself using a completely different approach. I wrote a research proposal to NASA and Alfonso buried himself in new calculations. We got funding and we got results. In 1998, we published two new papers that again showed that the inertia of matter could be traced back to the zero-point field. And not only was the approach in those papers completely different than in the 1994 paper, but the mathematics was simpler while the physics was more complete: a most desireable combination. What’s more, the original analysis had used Newtonian classical physics; the new analysis used Einsteinian relativistic physics.

As encouraged as I am, it is still too early to say whether history will prove us right or wrong. But if we are right, then "Let there be light" is indeed a very profound statement, as one might expect of its purported author. The solid, stable world of matter appears to be sustained at every instant by an underlying sea of quantum light.

But let's take this even one step further. If it is the underlying realm of light that is the fundamental reality propping up our physical universe, let us ask ourselves how the universe of space and time would appear from the perspective of a beam of light. The laws of relativity are clear on this point. If you could ride a beam of light as an observer, all of space would shrink to a point, and all of time would collapse to an instant. In the reference frame of light, there is no space and time. If we look up at the Andromeda galaxy in the night sky, we see light that from our point of view took 2 million years to traverse that vast distance of space. But to a beam of light radiating from some star in the Andromeda galaxy, the transmission from its point of origin to our eye was instantaneous.

There must be a deeper meaning in these physical facts, a deeper truth about the simultaneous interconnection of all things. It beckons us forward in our search for a better, truer understanding of the nature of the universe, of the origins of space and time — those "illusions" that yet feel so real to us.

Bernhard Haisch, staff physicist at the Lockheed Martin Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, California, is a scientific editor of The Astrophysical Journal and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

homepages.ihug.co.nz...

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpearMint

 

There is literally no difference between saying "A giant unicorn with seven legs created the universe from his sparkly faeces" and "God created the universe". Both statements have the same amount of evidence to back it up, and both are as scientific as each other.

But evolution isn't an explanation for how the universe was created or anything else for that matter. Seems to me that Creation gives us a more in depth explanation and makes just as much if not more sense than evolution.

Evolution was not meant to explain the origin of life, just how life diversifies and adapts to the environment.

If you want to learn about those processes in the universe, learn about astronomy.

I'm not trying to be facetious here.

This is a common claim that get repeated millions upon millions of times in these arguments.

Most people just don't understand that there really is a lot of science behind evolution and there really is a lot of answers, you just have to find them, and ignore the creationists. They are always very dishonest and misleading in this topic.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

The problem the "creationists" and intelligent design crowd has with evolutionary theory as traditionally understood and described - is in terms of the differentiation of species, not the evolution of individual phylos-morphology. And that's why we say it's just a theory, not a fact.