Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
Class dismissed.
I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
Class dismissed.
Specifically, you have achieved embracing fear and superstition. You have failed to denigrate science in favor of your gods and your have failed to make a case for your conspiracy theory whereby every major university in the world has accepted the fact of evolution.You actually failed with every post.
Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.
Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?
Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college...Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
Class dismissed.
Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites.I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
Class dismissed.
I do not hate anyone or anything. Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
None of those facts are false.
Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
I agree. The fundies in this thread are unable to offer coherent sentences on their own so are forced to cut and paste creationist slogans and falsehoods.I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
Class dismissed.
Pathetic. Just once I would like to see you posit an actual rebuttal that you didn't cut and paste.
Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college...Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
Why don't you tell us where you went to college first?
You poor dear. Everytime you question someone else's education I am forced to bombard you with the large fonts the next 5 pages. When will you learn?
Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites.I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
I do not hate anyone or anything. Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
None of those facts are false.
Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
Your angry responses are also stereotypical Christian creationist reactions to knowledge and reason dismantling your claims to supernaturalism and magic as inept explanations for the diversity if life on the planet.
As to your lack of education, that is apparent in your inability to offer anything but creationist ministry cut and paste which is the irrelevant, angry Christian fundie revulsion for science and knowledge.
Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites.I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
I do not hate anyone or anything. Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
None of those facts are false.
Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
Your angry responses are also stereotypical Christian creationist reactions to knowledge and reason dismantling your claims to supernaturalism and magic as inept explanations for the diversity if life on the planet.
As to your lack of education, that is apparent in your inability to offer anything but creationist ministry cut and paste which is the irrelevant, angry Christian fundie revulsion for science and knowledge.
Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites.I do not hate anyone or anything. Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
None of those facts are false.
Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
Your angry responses are also stereotypical Christian creationist reactions to knowledge and reason dismantling your claims to supernaturalism and magic as inept explanations for the diversity if life on the planet.
As to your lack of education, that is apparent in your inability to offer anything but creationist ministry cut and paste which is the irrelevant, angry Christian fundie revulsion for science and knowledge.
There are pages upon pages within this thread supporting everything I stated.
Why do you insist on projecting your emotions upon me? I hate no one, I'm not angry with anyone and I do have a formal educational background.
The material I offer is just as relevant as that which you offer.
Evolution stands upon many assumptions.
What about the "God particle" or the Higgs boson?
I actually don't really expect a response. Hollie has proven over and over again that she most like never finished junior high.
So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
[...]
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." Charles Darwin
This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.
If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
It has?
When?
Why wasn't it front page news?
Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
It has?
When?
Why wasn't it front page news?
Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
I actually don't really expect a response. Hollie has proven over and over again that she most like never finished junior high.
Such an attention starved stalker.
Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.
If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
