[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Not so 'intelligent': humans' bad backs, appendix; panda's reappearing thumb; that there are errors in DNA replication; hormonal imbalances...

This is not a "unintelligent" I think the word you are looking for is imperfections.
And FYI in case you do not keep up with modern science... science has now discovered the appendix does have a function.
Read this Scientists discover true function of appendix organ - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

There is no credible, evidence against the theory of evolution. It is as accepted a "fact" as the one that states the Earth revolves around the Sun or that gravity is what makes you fall down.

The THOERY of evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that is "generally accepted" however, just because it is generally accepted does not mean it is a fact. It was generally accepted at one point that the earth was flat.. so big deal.
There is an insurmountable amount of evidence against evolution, problems, inconsitancies and an embarrassing lack of fossil record.
So if you believe Macro evolution is a fact, it is by FAITH that you believe it.

[WVHiflyer]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

The THOERY of evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that is "generally accepted" however, just because it is generally accepted does not mean it is a fact. It was generally accepted at one point that the earth was flat.. so big deal.
There is an insurmountable amount of evidence against evolution, problems, inconsitancies and an embarrassing lack of fossil record.
So if you believe Macro evolution is a fact, it is by FAITH that you believe it.

So you don't think the Earth revolving around the Sun is a "fact"? (The idea that the Earth was flat was conjecture due to ignorance and not based on any scientific investigation. Using that as part of you argument is a bit self-defeating.)

There is absolutely no insurmountable evidence against evolution. And while the fossil record is no where as complete as scientists would like, there is hardly "an embarrassing lack." A full evolutionary progression is available for many species and their forebears. I have no "Faith" in science. I don't need it. It would be counterproductive. You have apparently proven that to be a fact...

[sassyT]

[Q[QUOTE]UOTE=WVHiflyer]

So you don't think the Earth revolving around the Sun is a "fact"? (The idea that the Earth was flat was conjecture due to ignorance and not based on any scientific investigation. Using that as part of you argument is a bit self-defeating.)

I think you are don't know fundamental difference between a scientific fact and a theory. The earth revolving around the sun is a proven scientific fact and is also an observable fact. The theory that all biological life forms came from a one cell creature that crawled out of mythical soup and morphed into plants, trees, fish, humans, bears fruit flies etc, I'm afraid is NOT a proven scientific fact.

There is absolutely no insurmountable evidence against evolution. And while the fossil record is no where as complete as scientists would like, there is hardly "an embarrassing lack." A full evolutionary progression is available for many species and their forebears. I have no "Faith" in science. I don't need it. It would be counterproductive. You have apparently proven that to be a fact...

That is the problem, there is NO progressive fossil record to prove evolution is true. Evolutionist themselves admit to the fact that when fossils are found they are all fully developed species and there are no transitional forms of life in fossil record.
Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist. This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists.

This is what evolutionists themselves have said about the fossil record...

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

So I'm afraid the bottom line is your belief in evolution does require FAITH because there is no fossil evidence to prove it true.

[WVHiflyer]

[QUOTE=sassyT][Q

UOTE=WVHiflyer]

I think you are don't know fundamental difference between a scientific fact and a theory. The earth revolving around the sun is a proven scientific fact and is also an observable fact. The theory that all biological life forms came from a one cell creature that crawled out of mythical soup and morphed into plants, trees, fish, humans, bears fruit flies etc, I'm afraid is NOT a proven scientific fact.



That is the problem, there is NO progressive fossil record to prove evolution is true. Evolutionist themselves admit to the fact that when fossils are found they are all fully developed species and there are no transitional forms of life in fossil record.
Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist. This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists.

This is what evolutionists themselves have said about the fossil record...

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

So I'm afraid the bottom line is your belief in evolution does require FAITH because there is no fossil evidence to prove it true.

It was the same Stephen Gould you quote who said that evolution was as much a fact as the Earth going around the Sun. And your use of that quote of his is disingenuous - he was talking about the difference between gradual evo and his ideas on punctuated evo (some changes occur rapidly).

I'm unfamiliar with Dr Kitts, but I suspect if I search the Discovery Institute site I'll find mention of him.

While I do not have the references readily availably, there are a large number of species for which a progression between "then" and "now" exist. I admit a number are for extinct species, but that doesn't detract from validity. If you are willing to test this, see if there is a paleontologist in their topic who can refer you. Checking these transitional forms for marine species should result in quite a number of hits. You apparently make the common mistake of expecting a fish in one geo layer and a sort of fish with fully formed limbs and toes in the next. This implies to me that you have not really studied evolution at all, but merely searched for the non-existent evidence against it.

If you want to reasonably argue evolution, argue the mechanisms (as S Gould did) and not that it didn't occur - and, by the way, still is...

[sassyT]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=WVHiflyer]

[Q


It was the same Stephen Gould you quote who said that evolution was as much a fact as the Earth going around the Sun. And your use of that quote of his is disingenuous - he was talking about the difference between gradual evo and his ideas on punctuated evo (some changes occur rapidly).

Gould had to come up with theory of punctuated equilibrium because the fossil record to prove evolution is non-existant. So convieniently he had to come up with something to save the dying theory.

I'm unfamiliar with Dr Kitts, but I suspect if I search the Discovery Institute site I'll find mention of him.

More eminant scientists have admitted the same fact.

Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man.
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
We have not observed such claims made by evolution in the fossil record so in my opinion evolution is not even science.

Bottom line there is no solid evidence to prove the outragous claims of evolution. But that where your faith comes in.

[firmbeliever]

I would just like to say that as a believer my belief in science has not diminished. I believe in the universe having a beginning and an end in the future.

Big bang theory makes sense to me,but my thoughts include the Almighty as the Creator,the process could be as scientific research shows or it could be a little different.Either way I believe in my beliefs and believe in scientific research too.

Although I believe in my beliefs to be truth I understand that some do not see it that way.Some need the exact data of the whole process written in black and white to believe in things.
I believe in some things without the exact data,with fuzzy details and maybe something's unexplainable or incomprehensible to human minds.

Science explains to me the how's of the living natural world.I find answers in my beliefs regarding all that I need to live a good balanced life.

Some feel that humans do not need guidance or moral outlines for them to live righteous lives,I see it differently.I believe not all humans have moral character believer or unbeliever and my belief shows me where I could go wrong so I avoid them.And it also shows me where I can be the best in everyway and I follow them as much as I can.

I am not perfect and I don't claim to know it all,but all that I do know makes me who I am and all that I know makes me follow what I believe.