Evolution: Scientific proof or religious belief?

Question

Evolution: Scientific proof or religious belief?

Answer 1

Well, you may have never said or printed the words "Science is a religion" other than to deny them, but you did say that you believe evolution is a religion. As Evolution is science, you believe that part of science is a religion. I seriously doubt that you've read "On the Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin; let alone with an open mind. Most all of the elements that fundamentalist try to claim as unproved or impossible in Evolution were addressed by this book, yet the same old arguments abound; complex organs and such. The truth is that Evolution is a science that has been studied for a great deal of time, with evidence abounding. The fact that religous folk wish to dismiss the evidence, coming up with creative yet illogical refutations does not diminisht the science. Genetics can show progressions of species. I recall when fundamentalists hailed a scientific finding that showed that all humans are related genetically, suggesting a common ancestor, but they never mention that the same science that showed that is used to show how humans are related to other animals. You simply can't have part without the whole. Either you take science or leave it. If you wish to refute an area of science, do yourself the dignity of discovering the facts of that which you wish to refute.

Answer 2

The Law of Universal Gravitation was a term for an axiom, not a fact. Newton did not test gravity throughout the universe. He postulated that all objects are attracted to each other proportionally to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square of their masses. No mechanism of gravity -- the graviton or gravity waves -- has ever been demonstrated. Quantum gravity is a total scientific failure. Shouting does not change facts.



On the other hand, the mechanism of evolution -- mutations at the molecular level have been demonstrated. Extensive fossil evidence and the examination of life itself are scientific. Evolution is science.



You don't have to pay your taxes. Since you can "prove" evolution is religion, you can defend yourself in court on First Amendment grounds. Maybe you can share a cell with Dr. Dino's wife. The couple are awaiting sentencing on tax evasion.

Answer 3

Evolution is a scientific theory (don't start on that "not fact" argument now, gravity is also "only a theory"). Nothing in biology will make any sense without evolution. The Earth IS over 4 billion years old. You seem to have a very limited understanding of the theory of evolution, an a very adamant mindset, so I see no point in you asking this question, since you only expect one type of answer anyway.

Answer 4

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with faith. It is the necessary conclusion that is to be drawn on thousands of pieces of scientific evidence, and absolutely no counter-evidence at all. I recommend you read the Origin of Species by Darwin, or some Richard Dawkins books. They will make it more clear and you will realize that it has nothing to do with religion or faith. If you call gravity faith you can feel free to call evolution faith.

Answer 5

Evolution is a theory, which is based of facts. People dig up things in the ground and put them together to form a history of life on this planet. Creationism is based on no facts other than something written in a book by someone, who may well have been high on magic mushrooms, a couple of thousand years ago.



The real question should be why you even ask this question since I believe you won't change anyone's mind. Don't believe me? Take it on faith...

Answer 6

Here's the difference. When new evidence comes to light, the theory is updated or removed. Religion is about unchanging blind belief without evidence. Science is about continuously updated explanations based only upon evidence.



Further, evolution *has* been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. You can actually watch it happen with fruit flies, drug-resistant bacteria, and so on. You can observe it in fossil records.



If you don't understand the difference between science and faith, I fear you have been under-served by our education system.



Regarding your $250,000 "reward": That's like saying, "prove that gravity exists to my satisfaction and I'll write you a blank check". Who is this board that will review the evidence? If the board is biologists from any major university, then the board would vote that evolution is undisputed scientific fact, and he would lose. If the board is a bunch of religious fundamentalists, which it would have to be, then the reward is pointless. Can't you see that?



Look, I'm not a biologist. I write computer programs. But if someone came up to me and said that computers didn't exist, I wouldn't really pay much attention to them. The same is true for biologists -- if creationism is scientific, why is it completely and totally rejected by the scientific community?

Answer 7

I believe evolution is science. But there are a lot of theories about how life evolved on earth. But there is no perfect evidence that suggests that life evolved from one unicellular organism. There are only theories. These theories seek to explain something. I like to believe tht life that we see now evolved from various organisms. Why because various organisms got "formed".



Although there are no evidences these theories explain a lot of things. I suggest you read the history of earth that explains all these things beautifully.



Evolution is just a theory. It just happens to explain most of the phenomena on earth.

Answer 8

If evolution was an indisputable fact then it would no longer be called a "theory" which it most DEFINITELY is!



The sad part is that when our kids are taught this in school the "theory" part tends to be left out and our kids are taught this as truth with no other option given.



I'm sick of my tax dollars being wasted on people lying to my kids. School vouchers & NOW! Why should I have to pay twice for my childrens' education simply because I want them to learn the truth?

Answer 9

Evolution is not mere religious belief. It is backed my solid physical evidence and proof. In fact, you can see the effects of evolution right now on Earth. Why is it that people have different skin colours? No, it's not because of race as there's no such thing as race. It's because humans have evolved to adapt to their surroundings and climate. There are hundreds of other examples I can give. So yes the concept of evolution should be taught in schools so that children do not grow up to be ignorant as some adults are as we've seen here on Yahoo Ans.

Answer 10

evolution has NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt anymore than the easter bunny has people who say creationism is not based on any facts has never actually looked into creationism. most people who argue against creationism or in favor of evolution actually know nothing about either. they just believe what there biology teacher tells them with out actally verifying it. wait! theres a word for believing things without evidence its called faith! when you ask a evolutionist what his proof is he/she either cant come up with any or they use evidence that even actual evolutionary scientists dont use!



p.s. if you are a creationist dont say that evolution is just a theory as this is because of a misunderstanding in what theory actually means it does NOT mean a guess or a mere explanation. evolution is wrong because it has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Answer 11

I don't hate EVOLUTIONISTS

I Just do not like the TEACHING



They will tell you "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING AGAINST RELIGION, so WHY DOES RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DISLIKE EVOLUTION?"



One day a 12 year old Child will go to CHURCH and his PASTOR will tell him "Kids, If you add up all the dates in the Bible you will find that the EARTH was created around 7,000 years ago."



Yet, the SAME CHILD will go to school and open up a book that reads "Dinosaurs existed 5 BILLION years ago..."



What?



Which is it?



Question: Why is the oldest living tree dated at 400 years old - why not millions of years old? hmmm



A man by the name of KENT HOVIND has a LONG TIME STANDING OFFER of ONE MILLION DOLLARS to the FIRST person who has ANY REAL EVIDANCE for EVOLUTION... FOR YEARS NO ONE HAS TAKEN THIS OFFER AND NO ONE WILL BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT--Yet its being taught as fact:



They ask the kids questions:



1. How long do you think it took for humans to evolve?



this is INDOCTRINATION...



the question ASSUMES that evolution ALREADY TOOK PLACE...

Maybe Evolution NEVER HAPPENED? BUT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION HERE IS IT...



its the same kind of question as this one: "how oftin do you beat your wife?"



WHO SAID THAT I BEAT MY WIFE? and WHO SAID THAT EVOLUTION EVER HAPPENED?



THIS IS CALLED SOVIET STYLE INDOCTRINATION



MACRO EVOLUTION IS A LIE...



STELLAR EVOUTION IS A LIE...



CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS A LIE...



COSMIC EVOLUTION IS A LIE...



YOU CANT PROVE IT.. NEVER HAPPENED.. ITS A LIE IN THE TEXT BOOK...



------



The kids will open up thier SCIENCE BOOKS and see these definitions for evolution...



Definition #1

Evolution: "a change over time"



we agree



Definition #2

Evolution: "a change in SPECIES over a period of time"



(Bait and switch) you already know the first is true

so then you are SUCKERED into believing that the SECOND IS ALSO TRUE...



This is PURE PROPAGANDA...



They are making ASUMPTIONS and BRAIN WASHING THE KIDS INTO BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION...



The scientific METHOD means it must be observable, testable and under labritory conditions---EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE



however, Kids ALL OVER THE WORLD will be taught that we came from a COSMIC BURP or a ROCK 6 BILLION years ago...



that SOMTHING came from NOTHING ---> THATS A BELIEF, FAITH, RELIGION... NOT SCIENCE...



YET KIDS ALL OVER THE WORLD WILL LOOSE THEIR FAITH BECAUSE SOME TEACHER WILL TELL THEM THAT WE CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE...





Darwinian Evolution is RACIST -- Look inside the INSIDE FRONT COVER OF HIS BOOK AND READ THE ENTIRE TITLE... I will talk a little bit about that in a few minutes just keep reading...



Where are the transitional stages? THERE ARE NONE--THE WHOLE CHAIN IS MISSING...



Look at the Dogs for a second. There are BIG DOGS, LITTLE DOGS, GREAT DANES, and TINY ANKLE BITING DOGS--THEY ALL LOOK DIFFERENT BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT VARIETY---



Variety = Variations in the gene pool... THATS ALL



but... stand back and look at the Dogs, THEY ARE STILL JUST A DOG--Ask a THIRD GRADER the difference between a Wolf, a coyote and a Bananna... EVERY TIME the THIRD GRADER would say "The bananna is different..."



Yet a School teacher will tell his/her class that "Dogs evolved from a bananna MILLIONS of years ago..."



I AGREE THAT THE WOLF AND THE COYOTE HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR - BUT IT WAS A DOG...



Probably Man had a common ancestor- BUT IT WAS A MAN; Probably Adam... NOT A MONKEY 6 MILLION YEARS AGO



Charles Darwin studied finches during his visit to the Galápagos Islands and concluded that these finches must have a common ancestor... I BET YOUR RIGHT CHARLIE, IT WAS A BIRD...



There are MANY VARIETIES of BIRDS -- But stand back and look at them all-- ITS STLL JUST A BIRD...



AND THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL STAGES FROM A BIRD INTO A DOG -- OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL FOR THAT MATTER...



-------



They say "LUCY" is EVIDENCE for a TRANSITIONAL CHANGE between HUMAN AND APE...



LUCY IS A LIE IN THE TEXT BOOK...



Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape...



YET THEY SAY THAT THIS IS EVIDENCE ITS A HOAX...



They say "Look kids at the Nebraska man constructed by this TOOTH"--The picture showed an Ape like Man hunched over...]



The once so-called Nebraska man was later re-analyzed and found to be Nebraska Pig. The piece of evidence found was lacking in integrity as only one tooth was found. Later, more of the skeleton was found and it was indeed the skeleton of a pig.



They say that "The Neanderthal man" is Proof for Evolution...



"KIDS LOOK AT THIS, This is a HARRY MAN BENT OVER LIKE AN APE WITH APE LIKE FEATURES"



This was NOT AN APE -- THIS WAS A MAN WITH ARTHRITIS!

Mr. Neander was an Actual Man who created HYMNS that they sang at CHURCH... there are a few Hymns still in the church today... He was NOT an APE...



The list goes on however, NO ACTUAL PROOF FOR A MISSING LINK... THERE IS NO MISSING LINK... THE WHOLE CHAIN IS MISSING...



--------





1st of all THERE IS NOT PROOF WHAT SO EVER FOR MACRO EVOLUTION...



IT IS A FAIRY TAIL... DOESN't EXIST...



Yes there are SIMULARITIES but that ONLY PROVES A COMMON DESIGNER MADE EVERYTHING... NOT THAT WE EVOLVED FROM A CHIMP MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO...



Honda builds different model cars--the parts are interchangeable and very simular--"Yes boys and girls that proves that we evolved from a FORD 6 billion years ago"

MAYBE THE SAME MANUFACTURER MADE THEM SIMULAR FOR A REASON



MAYBE THE SAME GOD CREATED EVERYTHING--THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS....



Evolutionists want you to think that you had OLD information at one time and CHANGED into something NEW over the period of MILLIONS OF YEARS...



natural selection ONLY SELECTS--IT DOES NOT CHANGE YOU INTO SOMETHING NEW...



Mutations only mutate the EXISTING DATA--A cow can have 5 COW LEGS, however A cow can NEVER MUTATE NEW WINGS and FLY... NO NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED... only EXISTING information is mutated... NOTHING NEW...



Why don't we see half monkeys and half humans?



THEY WILL TELL YOU "we are ONLY 1 chromosome off from a Chimp" -- yes AND? what does that prove? That does NOT prove that we came from a CHIMP BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO...



A TOBACCO PLANT IS ONLY 2 CHROMOSOMES OFF FROM HUMANS... does that prove that we evolved from a tobacco plant 6 billion years ago? NO IT DOES NOT...



I think that if we were NOT SIMULAR to the Cows, Chickens, Plants, then we would not be able to EAT THEM... we would either STARVE to death or EAT EACH OTHER...



----



1. PROVE MACRO EVOLUTION-- YOU CANT --ITS NOT SCIENCE



2. DO NOT SAY THAT MICRO EVOLUTION WORKS SIMULAR TO MACRO EVOLUTION -- VARIATIONS IN THE GENE POOL ARE JUST THAT, THERE ARE LIMMITS...



3. WHERE IS THE MISSING LINK? -- THE WHOLE CHAIN IS MISSING...



----



NOTHING WILL REALLY HAPPEN TO MODERN MONKEYS...



IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DEVELOP AS ANOTHER KIND OF HUMAN BEING...





WHY THEN? WHY WOULD THEY LIE?

-------------> CHECK THIS OUT READ THE FOLOWING:



PLEASE LOOK AT THE INSIDE COVER OF DARWINS BOOK AND LOOK AT THE WHOLE TITLE...



The WHOLE title of Darwins book reads: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection : The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"



Preservation of Favored Races? Sounds a lot like Ethnic Clensing to me...



Darwin was a RACIST-- Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages.



The Louisiana state Legislature casts Darwin in the same league as Hitler.



Louisiana state Rep. Sharon Broome, D-Baton Rouge, who sponsored the resolution condemning Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, said it would "shine a light on the history of racism."



"Be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others," reads the Legislature's statement, which was approved 9-5 Tuesday by the state's House Education Committee.





Darwinian Evolution is DANGERIOUS...



One of the kids who did the shooting at The Columbine High School massacre wore a tee-shirt that said "Natural Selection" on the front... THE SHOOTINGS HAPPENED ON HITLERS BIRTHDAY -- These kids wrote ESSAYS on EVOLUTION and how it EFFECTED THEIR LIVES... They were HEAVILY into the IDEOLOGY of EVOLUTION...



=-=-=-=-=-=-=



1. Vestigial structures.



evolving threw means of Natural Selection implies that you are GAINING SOMTHING NOT LOOSING... Vestigal structures is evidance for LOSS... not GAIN...



They say that "the Tail bone is PROOF for evolution"

They say that "You once had a tail bone and over a period of MILLIONS of YEARS you lost it" Um... were you there? did you see me loose my tail?



They will say "You DO NOT NEED your tail bone"

well if that is the case - go to the link at the bottom and write kent hovind - he has a long time standing offer, he states "If you say that you do not NEED your tail bone, then I WILL PAY TO HAVE YOURS REMOVED, BEND OVER"



There are some VERY IMPORTANT muscles that ancor around the bone at the end of your spine *tail bone- that if you remove that bone you will have MAJOR problems performing certain functions-



TRUST ME YOU NEED YOUR TAIL BONE... IT IS NOT VESTIGIAL



2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.



---> this is the BAIT and SWITCH....



The bait and switch arguement is this: if I were to sell you a BRAND NEW CAR for 20 dollars... yep just 20 bucks- you would RUSH down here to buy it... however, I then SWITCH up on you and say "awww, no more left but i can give you THIS other car for only 20,000 dollars." that is against the LAW



You see, THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOU TO BELIEVE SOMTHING THAT IS PROVEN ---> THEN SWITCH IT INTO SOMTHING THAT IS NOT PROVEN...



Let me explain:



MICRO is different then MACRO



Micro evolution works... *the name is misleading it should be called Variations...



Creationists will not argue with you Micro evolution is REAL it WORKs...



However, THEN THEY SAY --> IF YOU BEILEVE IN MICRO EVOLUTION THEN YOU MUST BELIEVE IN MACRO EVOLUTION...



now see that is where you go WRONG...



Just because there are VARIATIONS in the gene pool does NOT INDICATE MACRO EVOLUTION EXISTS...



you see, Macro Evolution is the CHANGE from ONE KIND of animal to ANOTHER KIND of animal. this is not SCIENCE - you can not prove this in a LAB, it is not Testable, you can not OBSERVE it, it is NOT SCIENCE.



Evolutionists will say, "Great Grandpa was a Chimp"... This has NEVER been proven - they say "We are one chromosome off from a chimp" --- yea and we are also 2 chromosomes off from a tobacco plant, does that prove that we evolved from a "TOBACCO PLANT 6 BILLION YEARS AGO?"





3. The fossil record.



SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHERE THE "geologic column" or its FOSSIL RECORD EXISTS IN ITS ORDER?



You cant because the only place you will find the geologic column is in childrens text books... this is already known and accepted by MOST SCIENTESTS - the geologic column does not exist.



Layers are formed threw what is called "Hydrologic sorting" its simple to explain - if you put sand into a glass container and shake it up you will see different particles sort out in a matter of SECONDS...



Mt St Helens is a Miniture Grand Canyon and it formed in a matter of Minutes - NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS...



They will say "Petrification takes MILLIONS OF YEARS" go to Kent Hovind's website http://www.drdino.com and see for yourself - there is a PETRIFIED BOOT with the mans LEG STILL IN IT... there are MANY EXAMPLES of Petrification happening VERY QUICKLY and not over MILLIONS OF YEARS...



question: why are there Petrified TREES STANDING IN THE UPRIGHT POSITION STANDING THREW MANY OF THE LAYERS? -- then how can the layers be MILLIONS OF YEARS?



even EVOLUTINSTs date the oldest living tree at 400 years old - why not millions of years old? hmmm



4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).



This has already been refuted so MANY TIMES-



Evolutionists will try to say "If God is the CREATOR then why did he create IMPERFECT structures?"



They use underwater sea cretures for their illustrations they say "LOOK there are blood vessels in front of the eye when it would be better if they were behind the eye"



Well, if you take a sea dwelling creature and bring em above water how long will he last before he goes BLIND?

The BLOOD VESSELS ARE DESIGNED WHERE THEY ARE TO GIVE HIM BETTER VISION UNDER WATER - HE WAS DESIGNED FOR AN UNDERWATER ENVIRONMENT AND SO HIS EYES ARE ALSO DESIGNED THAT WAY.



SAME THING FOR AN EAGLE - his eyes were made so that he could SPOT PREY from miles above the earth. and such is the same for a mammalian--- this is not POOR DESIGN... God did it this way on purpose...



5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.



Developmental biology in evolution shows stages as to how we develope threw course of time.



The embryo is a perfect example of where Evolution has poisened this field of research.



Evolutionists will say "LOOK, Gill slits are found in early embryo stages- this prooves evolution is true"



A man named Haeckel needed money really quick - so he came up with a quick idea that worked- he drew gill slits on embryos in its development stages and showed the government "Look, this proves we evolved from a fish, now give me some money to research this"- He was looking for GOVERNMENT GRANT MONEY for PERSONAL REASONS...



Haeckel's Drawings WERE TAKEN TO COURT AND PROOVED TO BE A FRAUD. HAECKEL HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE EMBRYOS DO NOT HAVE GILL SLITS AND THAT THEY WERE FRAUDULENT.



Yet this is still in text books and taught as PROOF FOR EVOLUTION.



6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.



THIS COULD BE EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN AND NOT EVOLUTION



Honda, makes Different model cars. You can take some parts off of one model and put it onto another model. "this proves that we evolved from a FORD 6 billion years ago"... um maybe it proves that we came from the same DESIGNER...



We have the same genetic make up so that - cows can eat the green grass, we can eat the cows, that make the butter, that give us yellow hair ;) lol...



Look if everything were NOT made from the same genetic makeup we would only be eating each other.



No God designed it JUST RIGHT the FIRST TIME



We are all simular because GOD made us that way. THIS IS NOT PROOF for evolution.



===========



THE BIG BANG "BIG DUD" says that "Look kids, SOMETHING came frome NOTHING" and this is taught as FACT...



If you believe in Evolution you have to believe in SPONTANIOUS GENERATION... that a ROCK POPED into existance ALL ON ITS OWN... (that dust chemicals and particles caused a chemical soup)



1. Where did the matter come from? (like the dust particles)

2. Where did the space come from? (space to put the matter)

3. Where did the time come from? (for all of this to happen)



EVOLUTIONISTS CANT TELL YOU--THEY DON'T KNOW THEMSELVES...



YOU CANT PROVE that the "Big Bang" EVER happened--You have to BELIEVE that it happen, thats a FAITH, a RELIGION...



"Look kids, ANYTHING can happen over BILLIONS of years" they say... they say that "The EARTH WAS ONCE A BALL OF HOT MOLTEN LAVA, and cooled down over a period of BILLIONS of years."



um... Excuse me, "Were you there?"



There is NO WAY TO PROVE THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE -- this is taught as though it ALREADY HAPPENED... that is INDOCTRINATION...



they say "Life evolved from a very COMPLEX cosmic SOUP"

Grandpa was SOUP?



they say "cells mutating from this chemical soup happens VERY SLOW" -- thats right SO SLOW IT STOPPED... this NEVER HAPPENED -- this is a LIE that has been printed in CHILDRENS TEXT BOOKS...



Hitler created the YOUTH CORE in order that he REACH THE CHILDREN... I think that is what is happening with evolution today, they are trying to reach the children with this CRAZY theory...



A ROCK EXPLODED INTO THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND EXPANDED INTO THE UNIVERSE YOU SEE TODAY...



here is something to consider:



there is something called Angular Momentum



Angular Momentum states that: If an object is rotating clockwise - then the particles that fly off of the object must also spin clockwise...



in other words: the object spins - particles that come off the object MUST spin the same direction...



QUESTION: Why does VENUS spin the OPPOSITE direction?

QUESTION: Why are the MOONS of SATURN spinning BACKWARDS?



QUESTION: If Angular Momentum is TRUE, then WHY ARE THESE PLANETS AND MOONS SPINNING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION?



Maybe God designed it this way so that we would know that THE BIG BANG IS A BIG DUD...



THERE IS A LONG TIME STANDING OFFER FOR PROOF FOR EVOLUTION... IT IS UP TO 1 MILLION DOLLARS FOR ANY RELIABLE EVIDANCE OF EVOLUTION... NO ONE HAS, AND NO ONE WILL-- ITS A LIE... A DUD...



I have YET to see ANY evidance for the Big Bang Theroy... I have yet to see any EVIDENCE for a missing link; the WHOLE CHAIN IS MISSING...

You can say "yea but you do not have proof for GOD either" and by saying so PROVES MY POINT--Evolution is a BELIEF, FAITH, A RELIGION... YOU CAN NOT PROVE GOD NOR CAN YOU PROVE THE BIG BANG--BOTH ARE RELIGIOUS IN NATURE SO STOP CALLING IT SCIENCE AND STOP ALOWING SCHOOLS TO PUT IT INTO THE TEXT BOOK...





THERE IS MUCH MUCH MORE...

THIS IS JUST THE OPENING ARGUEMENTS...



Thank you,

Answer 12

OK can you give me one peace of evidence that shows that we all just "poofed" here



I can give you dozens of proofs that the world is billions of years old so what would that do to your beliefs?

Answer 13

'Dr.' Dino is a hack and a fraud. His PhD's are all from what are called 'degree mills', he never did anything to earn them.



Further, he has designed his challenge so that not even creationism could meet his standards. Kind of hypocritcal, don't you think?



We know that evolution is a fact. The theory of natural selection is the best understanding of how that fact functions.

Answer 14

scientific theory based around proven facts. creationism is a theory based around 0 facts. which one would you want your money going towards?

Answer 15

its not a religious belief, its a nice thought, a nice theory. until someone can turn an apple into an orange in a lab i will never be convinced that evolution is a fact of life. if they can create diamonds in labs they should be able to duplicate evolution in a lab since they try to pass it off as fact and teach it in school.. there is a fine line between adaptation and evolution...we aren't---- Pokemon!!!

Answer 16

If you had been taught what evolution really is you wouldn't even think of calling it religion. I suppose gravity is another religion (can't see it--wheres your proof?).

You really should take the time to find out the facts of why your fellow countrymen have all agreed to these 'forced' taxes.



Uhm, how do you explain D.N.A.? God's legos?

Answer 17

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.



Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.



There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.



Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?



Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)." THERE IS NO ASSUMPTION IN SAYING "COMMON DESIGN" BUT, THERE IS A HUGE ASSUMPTION IN SAYING, "COMMON ANCESTOR".



A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).



A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.



A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:



Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.



...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)



It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.

Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!



The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

Answer 18

Evolution has been proved many times over. But I guess I must be stupid, because I still argue with dumb creationists who don't care about the truth!



Interesting that you quote hoving in your additions. He has been discredited more times than I can think of.

Answer 19

I agree to a degree.



There is a great deal of philosophy behind evolution.

Answer 20

c'mon u know the answer



Don't be silly, tricks are for kids!

Answer 21

Excellent point! :)



All the evolutionists here has all the answers yet NONE can claim the $250,000 available to them. So lame! LOL!