Hi Arion

It is the lack of evidence that is the 'achilles heel' of the theory of evolution.  There should be millions upon millions of examples of fossil 'mistakes' for every example of a species that has actually evolved by chance - like fossils that are part squirrel and part bat as an example.  Even Darwin admitted that there should be abundant fossil evidence of the mistakes of natural selection.  It just isn't there.  It's a huge problem for the theory of evolution.

I'm not surprised that after 4 years of learning, you've not figured out any kind of liberal 'cover up'.  The 'cover up' is that liberals have managed to actually outlaw teaching anything that doesn't embrace the theory!  If you want to lose your job as a teacher; just mention in your class room a position that is 'anti' evolution.

I might also mention what a great impact this theory has had on mankind.  Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin were two of the greatest disciples of Charles Darwin's theory.  They, and others Darwin Disciples, made the 20th century the absolute 'bloodiest' in human history.  Afterall, when you view mankind not 'as a little less than the angels', but rather 'a little more than the apes'; how much value do you put on human life.  Does it surprise you to know that the teenagers who perpetuated the atrocity at Columbine had abundant material about Natural Selection on their computers?

To be fair, it must be said that there have been charlatans throughout history that have used religion to justify atrocities against their fellow human beings - but if you want to talk about the needless shedding of human blood - the past 100 years - the age of Darwinism -  has by far dwarfed all of history when it comes to shedding innocent blood.

Hi dittohead

It is the lack of evidence that is the 'achilles heel' of the theory ofevolution.  There should be millions upon millions of examples offossil 'mistakes' for every example of a species that has actuallyevolved by chance - like fossils that are part squirrel and part bat asan example.  Even Darwin admitted that there should be abundant fossilevidence of the mistakes of natural selection.  It just isn'tthere.  It's a huge problem for the theory of evolution.

-    Just because there are no inbetween fossil evidence doesnt disprove the theory. Its just a missing piece of the puzzle. Also evolution is mainly a slow process and fossils of animal skeletons are very rare. The chances of finding any signifacant fossils are very rare and the chances of finding a one in a million mistake is therefore exponentially less likely. The small changes that occur to an organism over 10,000 years is not noticed in the fossil record. It isn't like one day a fish gives birth to a fish with legs.

I'm not surprised that after 4 years of learning, you've not figuredout any kind of liberal 'cover up'.  The 'cover up' is that liberalshave managed to actually outlawteaching anything that doesn't embrace the theory!  If you want to loseyour job as a teacher; just mention in your class room a position thatis 'anti' evolution.

-    Well as a future medical professional I would be appalled if in one of my biology classes the professor anounced that today we are going to learn about Intelligent Design. They start with the earth was created by god seven thousand years ago. I would ask, "But professor didn't we learn last week that carbon dating goes back at least 7,500 years?" How can you teach something that has absolutely no proof and is believe soley from faith. Now if you want to teach it in a relgion class or an anthropology class I would except it. But it has no place in a science class because it is not science at all. Its a religion.

I might also mention what a great impact this theory has had onmankind.  Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin were two of the greatestdisciples of Charles Darwin's theory.  They, and others DarwinDisciples, made the 20th century the absolute 'bloodiest' in humanhistory.  Afterall, when you view mankind not 'as a little less thanthe angels', but rather 'a little more than the apes'; how much valuedo you put on human life.  Does it surprise you to know that theteenagers who perpetuated the atrocity at Columbine had abundantmaterial about Natural Selection on their computers?

-See what you have done here is a Falacy of False Cause its where you state falsely that the belief in evolution caused Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin to have less concern for human life. When any number of reasons could have caused this.

To be fair, it must be said that there have been charlatans throughouthistory that have used religion to justify atrocities against theirfellow human beings - but if you want to talk about the needlessshedding of human blood - the past 100 years - the age of Darwinism-  has by far dwarfed all of history when it comes to shedding innocentblood.

-Again see above falacy.

I can do this all day. As I stated in my other posted I do not believe that the theory of evolution is fact. It is the best explanation science has come up with to date and maybe in 50 years a piece of evidence will come along and totally disprove the theory. Now as you stated a lack a certain evidence does not disprove a theory.

Hi  Arion,

First of all, good luck with your medical studies...  Now on to a few comments about your post.


-    Just because there are no inbetween fossil evidence doesnt disprove the theory. Its just a missing piece of the puzzle. Also evolution is mainly a slow process and fossils of animal skeletons are very rare. The chances of finding any signifacant fossils are very rare and the chances of finding a one in a million mistake is therefore exponentially less likely. The small changes that occur to an organism over 10,000 years is not noticed in the fossil record. It isn't like one day a fish gives birth to a fish with legs.

You call it a missing piece.  I call it a huge gaping hole.  After 150 years of very determined looking there is no proof of evolution to be found in the scientific laboratory, nor in the fossil records.  Since evolution is accomplished completely by chance, there should be an abundance of in-between mutations.  There are plenty of animal fossils that have been found; just none that support evolution.  Darwin, himself, was confident it would not be too difficult to find them.  

One of the major tenets of Darwin's theory is that single cells are relatively simple.  Actual scientific experiments have not proven this to be true.  Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel prize for his co-discovery of DNA, said this, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd." -  I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution today, than it did in Darwin's day.

-    Well as a future medical professional I would be appalled if in one of my biology classes the professor anounced that today we are going to learn about Intelligent Design. They start with the earth was created by god seven thousand years ago. I would ask, "But professor didn't we learn last week that carbon dating goes back at least 7,500 years?" How can you teach something that has absolutely no proof and is believe soley from faith. Now if you want to teach it in a relgion class or an anthropology class I would except it. But it has no place in a science class because it is not science at all. Its a religion.

If your professor announced that the earth was about 7000 years old, he would be discussing Biblical Creationism, not Intelligent Design.  Intelligent Design makes no claim of a young earth.  Intelligent Design is no more or less a religion than is evolution.  As a matter of fact, I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution, than it does to believe in Intelligent Design.  Evolution has its' on deity, he is called 'chance'.  Chance is given the same kind of creative abilities as is the deity of Intelligent Design.


-See what you have done here is a Falacy of False Cause its where you state falsely that the belief in evolution caused Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin to have less concern for human life. When any number of reasons could have caused this.

I agree with you that it can not be proven that Marx, Stalin, and for that matter Hitler, used evolution as their primary motivation for the low value that they placed on human life.   Nevertheless, it is an irrefutable fact that Darwin's 'Origin of Species' had a great impact on all three of these men - they were avid Darwinists.  Though 'any number of reasons could have caused' their low regard for life, I believe their fascination with Darwin to be the primary cause - just my humble opinion.

Hi dittohead

I know that I will never be able to convince you any different from what you believe. I could sit hear and tear down everyone of you arguments but in the end it wouldn't convince you. How could I when you believe that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a religion with its deity being chance. I am not a paleontologist and do not have enough knowledge of the fossil record to explain it down to the species level. I did find with a couple of minutes on the internet that horses in a specific time period are highly explain by the fossil records down to the species. It just isn't true there in no evidence. Thank you for the lively discussion.

You are right Arion - we will just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, Niles Elredge, an elite world renown paleontologist and proponent of evolution, had this to say about what the fossils of horses can tell us.  The famous 'evolutionary' horse sequence purporting to show diminutive horses 'evolving' into modern stallions, is entirely 'speculative' and yet is 'presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook'.

There is no direct scientific evidence linking the various horse fossils other than a popular theory that conforms to the theory of evolution.   It may be a reasonable supposition, but it is certainly not scientific fact.

Evolution does not stand up scientifically. It has nothing to do with theistic faith and that is the false argument that evolutionists have used to cover up their scientifically-invalid pseudoscience for decades.

Unlike real sciences like physics and chemistry, evolution has to hide behind biology for legitimacy. I have two college biology textbooks that actually try to validate spontaneous generation -- which Louis Pasteur disproved 140 years ago.

The fossil record is an abysmal joke. The closest thing to proof the evolutionists have is speculation about reptile scales turning into flight-worthy feathers and whale fins turning into feet. The otherwise intelligent scientists actually call these examples science while chastising those who disagree with them as ignorant, Bible-thumping hayseeds.

Arion wrote:Hi dittohead

It is the lack of evidence that is the 'achilles heel' of the theory ofevolution.  There should be millions upon millions of examples offossil 'mistakes' for every example of a species that has actuallyevolved by chance - like fossils that are part squirrel and part bat asan example.  Even Darwin admitted that there should be abundant fossilevidence of the mistakes of natural selection.  It just isn'tthere.  It's a huge problem for the theory of evolution.

-    Just because there are no inbetween fossil evidence doesnt disprove the theory. Its just a missing piece of the puzzle. Also evolution is mainly a slow process and fossils of animal skeletons are very rare. The chances of finding any signifacant fossils are very rare and the chances of finding a one in a million mistake is therefore exponentially less likely. The small changes that occur to an organism over 10,000 years is not noticed in the fossil record. It isn't like one day a fish gives birth to a fish with legs.

I'm not surprised that after 4 years of learning, you've not figuredout any kind of liberal 'cover up'.  The 'cover up' is that liberalshave managed to actually outlawteaching anything that doesn't embrace the theory!  If you want to loseyour job as a teacher; just mention in your class room a position thatis 'anti' evolution.

-    Well as a future medical professional I would be appalled if in one of my biology classes the professor anounced that today we are going to learn about Intelligent Design. They start with the earth was created by god seven thousand years ago. I would ask, "But professor didn't we learn last week that carbon dating goes back at least 7,500 years?" How can you teach something that has absolutely no proof and is believe soley from faith. Now if you want to teach it in a relgion class or an anthropology class I would except it. But it has no place in a science class because it is not science at all. Its a religion.

I might also mention what a great impact this theory has had onmankind.  Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin were two of the greatestdisciples of Charles Darwin's theory.  They, and others DarwinDisciples, made the 20th century the absolute 'bloodiest' in humanhistory.  Afterall, when you view mankind not 'as a little less thanthe angels', but rather 'a little more than the apes'; how much valuedo you put on human life.  Does it surprise you to know that theteenagers who perpetuated the atrocity at Columbine had abundantmaterial about Natural Selection on their computers?

-See what you have done here is a Falacy of False Cause its where you state falsely that the belief in evolution caused Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin to have less concern for human life. When any number of reasons could have caused this.

To be fair, it must be said that there have been charlatans throughouthistory that have used religion to justify atrocities against theirfellow human beings - but if you want to talk about the needlessshedding of human blood - the past 100 years - the age of Darwinism-  has by far dwarfed all of history when it comes to shedding innocentblood.

-Again see above falacy.

I can do this all day. As I stated in my other posted I do not believe that the theory of evolution is fact. It is the best explanation science has come up with to date and maybe in 50 years a piece of evidence will come along and totally disprove the theory. Now as you stated a lack a certain evidence does not disprove a theory.

****************
Arion,

You'd have to admit that evolution is more philosophy than hard science, wouldn't you? Evolution cannot stand toe-to-toe with physics and chemistry, which are the foundation of so many legitimate sciences.

As far as intelligent design, that's a separate issue. For me, ID simply means that there is something greater than ourselves. I don't see it as a scientific discipline.

Regarding the age of the earth, it does not matter how old the earth is because age adds no validity to evolution. I don't know what the earth's age is and this 6,000 year old number is one interpretation from one group based on their view of the Bible.

It would be an insult to believe that the genetic engieering that forms the instruction manual of life could have come about by random chance bumping into environmental changes over trillions of generations. For more information, read biophsycist Lee Spetner's book Not by Chance. He thoroughly explains why evolution cannot account for the complex genetic code.

Also, Darwin's Black Box by biochemist Michael Behe provides valuable insight.

Arion,

   As another who believes that evolution is the most appropriate theory to explain genetic and morphological changes over time -  I advise you to leave this argument alone -

It is not a winnable argument, no matter what you say, or evidence you could produce.  

Trust me, I've been through it before, it is a religious argument disingenuously described as science.

Keep banging your head against this wall and you'll only get a concussion.

- Eyas

'it is a religious argument disingenuously described as science'

I had to smile when I read this statement, because it is a perfect description of the disciples of evolution.

I am a Creationist, and the primary motivation for my belief is faith - not science; although I am not anti-science.  

Evolution, on the other hand, has evolved (no pun intended) into a full fledged cosmology and worldview that has gone far beyond the boundaries of science.  It even has its own pagan god.

The pagan god of evolution is called 'chance', and he has been given  the same creative abilities of my theistic GOD.  It just took him a lot longer to get everything done!

This pagan god called 'chance' has miraculously produced the DNA blueprint of every living cell; a blueprint of astounding complexity.  This pagan god called 'chance' has managed to create our vast universe with an order and design that is totally impressive, and belies the definition of his name.

Evolutionists like to boast that they are all about science, but yet there is not one single observable example of natural selection evolving one species into another - not in the science lab, not in nature.

Dittohead,

   I should know better than to get involved in this discussion; I hope that I can make one post, get your response, and then agree to disagree on the issue.

  First;  I have no problem at all with Creationism.  It is a belief based on faith, and I respect that, it is in no way disingenuous.  I should have been more specific, and I apologize if anyone interpreted my comment as disparaging Creationism.

  Second; what I believe IS disingenuous is Intelligent Design; which I believe is Creationism disguised as science -- which it absolutely is not.

  Third; I have no problem if someone disbelieves Evolution as a theory.  That's kind of the point of science -- that it could be disproven.  It's also the point of a theory -- that it is not fact.  It is a theory which I happen to believe is correct, based on the evidence supporting (but not proving) it.  

  Fourth;  If you would like some evidence, I'm sure I could come up with something, although it would not be comprehensive.  Darwin, and his "Origin of Species" are not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory -- I've never even read it.  I'm sure that a search on Amazon.com could yield a good book on the theory and it's evidence as understood by modern science.

  Fifth;  There are many definitions of Evolution, and dictionary definitions are not always the most appropriate.  The best, most succinct definition of the Theory that I've heard is simply this: "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Sixth; I think that arguing that there are no present examples of evolution happening over the course of a human lifetime is hardly a fair critique of a theory which can only be observed over multiple generations.  It is akin to saying that there have never been ice ages because glaciers are not presently covering all of Canada and most of the U.S..

Seventh; Nevertheless, there are many examples of evolution occurring in observable time:
       A. Human beings, as a whole, have experienced an increase in average height within the historical period.  This is independent of/overlapping with the ability of people to reach fuller/greater height as a result of better nutrition, health, etc..   This is evolution.
       B. Mosquitoes and other pestillent insects develop immunities/resistances to certain pesticides over only a few generations (which are very short).  Those without a genetically inborn resistance are killed, and thus do not reproduce, leaving only those who have the resistance to procreate.  This is evolution.
       C. Viruses and bacteria may develop immunities/resistances to certain drugs/treatments/antibiotics/vaccines within days, let alone millenia.  For example, the Influenza virus mutates constantly such that new/specific vaccines are constantly in development.  Again, those viruses/bacteria without a genetically inborn resistance are killed, and thus do not reproduce, leaving only those who have the resistance to procreate. This is evolution.

Eighth; Disbelief in the fundamental theory of Evolution can be easily equated to a disbelief in Genetics.  Different genes are heritable from generation to generation.  Your child is not a clone of you or your wife, his/her genetic code is a mixture of both parents and both good and bad genetic traits can be inherited.  The accumulation of all traits in an entire population in one generation and the accumulation of all traits in a prior generation can be compared.  The difference is Evolution.

Lastly; Although Evolution does contradict a strict interpretation of Creationism, it isn't in any way incompatible with a belief in God, or with religion in general.


That's the best I can do.  Take it or leave it.

(I'm sure you'll leave it, but I hope you leave it for the right reasons)

- Eyas