Whoa whoa, baby steps now...

23Skidoo, there are some that cannot and will not accept that the theory of evolution is based on reproducible evidence and not guesses or blind faith. I am getting a bit of tension from you on this one. Let it go. Pick your battles and let them use all of their energy on a prolonged battle. The longer the battle on their side, the more likely they areto make mistakes.

Many scientists especially evolutionist realize what this director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada siad. The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson Other noted scientisis agree. Here are some of their comments. “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19. The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

Here are a few more points to ponder concerning the evolution theory. No matter how plausible Darwin’s theory of evolution may appear to be in the eyes of some scientists, they must ultimately face the question, Even if we assume that forms of living things evolved by natural selection, how did life get its start? In other words, the problem lies, not in survival of the fittest, but in arrival of the fittest and the first! However, as Darwin’s remarks on the evolution of the eye indicate, he was not concerned with the problem of how life began. He wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.” French science writer Philippe Chambon wrote: “Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And today’s biologists have to humbly admit, with Prof. Jean Génermont of the University of South Paris in Orsay, that ‘the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.’” In the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, do you find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction just by chance? Do you wonder how any creatures could have survived in the battle of the survival of the fittest while they were still evolving eyes? Or while they were supposedly forming primitive fingers on a subhuman body? Do you wonder how cells survived if they existed in an incomplete and inadequate state? Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of “a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row.” That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it. Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in the same place! No meeting, no procreation! Certainly, it stretches credulity to the limit to believe that life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of millions of gambles that paid off.

As Robin Williams once said in a comic routine.... God decided to mess with Darwin's head. "Let me take a mammal, give it webbed feet and have it lay eggs. Hey Darwin! How do you like this platypus?", displaying his middle finger.

 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. This is a statement from the Bible(Heb3:4)which makes sense and is logical.When we examine the human body we see clear evidence of design. The following reasoning and pure logic helps sincere ones to see that the creation account of the Bible describes the origin of life. You have probably heard of the Italian painter and sculptor Michelangelo. Though you may never have seen the original of any of his masterpieces, you most likely agree with the art historian who called the Italian genius a “marvellous and incomparable artist.” Michelangelo’s talents cannot be denied. Who would try to separate appreciation for Michelangelo’s art from acknowledgment of him as an outstanding artist? Now think of the mind-boggling complexity and diversity of life that thrives around us on earth. Appropriately, The New York Times quoted one professor of biological sciences as stating: “The physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology.” He added: “Life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.” Is it intellectually honest to admire the design without acknowledging the designer? The apostle Paul, a keen observer of things around him, spoke of those who “honoured and served the creature more than him who had created it.” (Romans 1:25, Darby) Affected by pervasive evolutionary ideas, some refuse or fail to recognize that design certainly points to a designer. But does the theory of evolution represent true science at its best? Note the conclusion that Christoph Schönborn, Catholic archbishop of Vienna, presented in The New York Times: “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” There are, however, those who feel that accepting the position that there is evidence of a Creator would “stifle research.” An article in the magazine New Scientist expressed such fears, asserting that “science as an open-ended pursuit would come to an end, halted by an impenetrable barrier labelled ‘the designer did it.’” Is that fear well-founded? Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true. Why? To accept blind chance and subsequent evolution as the cause of our universe and life on earth would actually be to abandon any attempt to get a meaningful explanation. On the other hand, accepting that an intelligent Creator is behind what we see around us can lead us to investigate the nature and application of his intelligence manifested in the physical universe. Consider this: Knowing that Leonardo da Vinci painted the “Mona Lisa” has not stopped art historians from investigating his technique and the materials he used. Similarly, accepting that there is a Designer should not discourage us from inquiring into the details and complexity of his designs and creations. Rather than stifling further research, the Bible encourages the search for answers to both scientific and spiritual questions. Ancient King David reflected on the physical makeup of his masterfully formed body. As a result, he said: “In a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware.” (Psalm 139:14) In fact, the Bible presents the Creator as asking the patriarch Job: “Have you intelligently considered the broad spaces of the earth?” (Job 38:18) That certainly does not suggest any stifling of inquiry and investigation. On the contrary, the Master Designer here invited a study of his handiwork. Consider, too, the invitation penned by the prophet Isaiah that directs us to increase our understanding of the One responsible for the creation around us: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things?” Indeed, Isaiah 40:26 then brings up a fact consistent with Einstein’s well-known formula E=mc2. That fact is that the universe was produced by a source of dynamic energy and power. Granted, answers to questions regarding creation are not always readily available. In part, this is because our powers of understanding are limited and our grasp of the world in which we live is incomplete. Job understood this. He extolled the Creator, under whose direction our globe hangs on nothing visible in space and water-laden clouds are suspended above the earth. (Job 26:7-9) Yet, Job realized that such wonders ‘are but the fringes of the Creator’s ways.’ (Job 26:14) Job undoubtedly wanted to learn more about the world around him. And David admitted his limitations, writing: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. It is so high up that I cannot attain to it.”—Psalm 139:6. Acceptance of the existence of a Creator does not hinder scientific progress. The quest for more comprehensive knowledge in both physical and spiritual matters is indeed open-ended and eternal. An ancient king noted for his broad knowledge humbly wrote: “He has put thoughts of the forever in man’s mind, yet man cannot understand the work God has done from the beginning to the end.”—Ecclesiastes 3:11, Holy Bible—New Life Version. Some object that God is arbitrarily inserted “as an explanatory fix” wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. In other words, the claim is that such a divine Designer becomes the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if “God” were a magic word to use whenever men cannot figure things out. But what are the gaps referred to here? Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution. They are fundamental breaches in aspects of biology that the theory of evolution has been incapable of bridging. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.” The Creator presented in the Bible is no “God-of-the-gaps.” Rather, his activity covers all phases, aspects, and details of creation. The psalmist emphasized the all-encompassing creative activity of Jehovah: “You are the source of all life, and because of your light we see the light.” (Psalm 36:9, Today’s English Version) He is well described as the One “who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them.” (Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24) For good reason, a first-century teacher wrote that God “created all things.”—Ephesians 3:9. In addition, God established “the statutes of the heavens,” the physical laws that govern matter and energy, which laws scientists are still studying. (Job 38:33) His design is comprehensive and purposeful, achieving his objective to form the earth to be inhabited by a staggering diversity of living things. Finally, we need to consider the question of common sense. Commenting in general on the validity of various scientific theories, science writer John Horgan observed: “When the evidence is tentative, we should not be embarrassed to call on common sense for guidance.” Does it really make sense to claim that life came about simply by chance or through blind forces? Despite the widespread popularity of the theory of evolution, many intelligent people, including scientists, are convinced that there is an intelligent Creator. A science professor notes that the general public “overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed.” Why so? Most people will readily agree with the apostle Paul’s statement: “Every house is constructed by someone.” (Hebrews 3:4) Then Paul continues with the logical conclusion: “He that constructed all things is God.” From the Bible’s viewpoint, it simply does not make sense to acknowledge that a house needs a designer and builder and at the same time claim that a complicated cell accidentally sprang into existence. The Bible makes an observation regarding those who reject the existence of a Designer and Creator: “The senseless one has said in his heart: ‘There is no Jehovah.’” (Psalm 14:1) Here, the psalmist reproves those who have yet to be convinced. A person might be guided by personal opinion rather than by pure objectivity. On the other hand, the wise, discerning person humbly acknowledges the existence of a Creator.—Isaiah 45:18. For many thinking individuals, the evidence that supports a Supreme Designer is unmistakable.

We are living at a time where we see all sorts of cruelty, wars, selfishness, and greed yet the tendency to help others, even at personal cost, is so common that some term it “humanness.” Such willingness to help even if at personal cost is seen in all races and cultures, and it argues against the claim that man evolved by the law of the jungle, “the survival of the fittest.” Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who led the U.S. government’s effort to decipher the human genome (DNA), said: “Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. . . . It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves.” He also said: “Some people sacrificially give of themselves to those who are outside their group and with whom they have absolutely nothing in common. . . . That doesn’t seem like it can be explained by a Darwinian model. The Bible describes the origin of this human trait “People of the nations that do not have [God’s] law do by nature the things of the law.”—ROMANS 2:14. We are speeking here of our God given conscience.

I do. I've never looked into it but from what I know and I've heard.

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support? Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution. You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’ The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions: 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. 2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species. 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals. Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact? Can Mutations Produce New Species? Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations—or random changes—in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: “Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection.” Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed. In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, who was interviewed by Awake! Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.” Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.” Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place? Does Natural Selection Lead to the Creation of New Species? Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result, evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species. As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.” In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.” However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years. Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.” Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.” Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner. Does the Fossil Record Document Macroevolutionary Changes? The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” This confident statement is quite surprising. Why? In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames” really document the process of macroevolution? What does the fossil record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.” To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.” Evolution—Fact or Myth? Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? After criticizing some of Richard Dawkins’ reasoning, influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense “because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].” If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth? [Footnotes] Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism. While the word “species” is used frequently in this article, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account. Research shows that the cell’s cytoplasm, its membranes, and other structures also play a role in shaping an organism. Lönnig’s comments in this article are his own and do not represent the opinion of the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research. Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. Lönnig deduced from this phenomenon the “law of recurrent variation.” In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than for plants, and the method was abandoned entirely. Materialism, in this sense, refers to the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process.

Scientists’ theories often seem to rely on premises that require their own kind of faith. For example, when it comes to the origin of life, most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain “doctrines.” Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution, they are in reality implying: ‘You are not responsible for your morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and physics.’ Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe ‘there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.’ To uphold such beliefs, some scientists choose to ignore the extensive research of other scientists who contradict the theoretical foundations for their theories on the origin of life. Even if we allow for billions of years of time, the accidental forming of the complex molecules required to form a functional living cell has been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. Thus, the dogmatic theories on the origin of life that appear in many textbooks must be considered invalid. Belief that life originated by blind chance demands more faith than belief in creation does. Astronomer David Block observed: “A man who does not believe in a Creator would have to have more faith than one who does. In declaring that God does not exist, a person makes a sweeping unsubstantiated statement—a postulate based on faith.” Scientific discoveries can induce a reverential attitude in some scientists. Albert Einstein admitted: “You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. . . . Religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” Yet, this does not necessarily lead scientists to believe in a Creator, a personal God.

23, I'm going to try to be as diplomatic with this answer as I can be, so please don't interpret this as being rude. You and I have had several discussions over the last three months, and each time I have read your profile, which keeps changing. Now it says that you were educated on the American East Coast and largely ignored the education. So how are we supposed to take your study of science seriously? I studied science and I got straight A's, except in Physics where I had a professor who assumed you should already know the material and didn't really teach. It wasn't for lack of trying on my part. I read and studied constantly and showed up at his office every time he had office hours, struggling to master material he wasn't teaching. All of my biology courses I aced. I aced statistics and most of my math courses. The second point is this. The first time I looked at your profile, and the first time we wrangled, you told me you were Czech. You give your age this time, and it is clear that you were born and raised under Communist Party rule. What you are quoting on Answerbag is basically the Communist Party line on religion and scientific atheism. They were trying to stamp out religious belief and practice because it gave people the strength to resist them. After fifty years, they made little headway. So I ask you, what was so good about the Communist Party that you want to accept, believe and spread their take on religion unquestioned? If it was so great to live under their rule, why are you here? If they were so great and intelligent and right in every way, why were they overthrown? And why weren't they able to overthrow the practice of religion if they were right and teaching truth and religion is a fallacy clung to by uneducated and unintelligent people? It is very easy to just accept what we are taught as kids as having been truth. To truly have an open mind, you have to look at what you were raised on critically and accept that it might be wrong. Then you have to approach alternate beliefs as though they might be right, not with the preconceived notion that they are automatically wrong. And when you approach things in that manner, you may prove that on which you were raised, or you may disprove it.

From its beginning, notes the book Milestones of History, the evolution theory “appealed to many people because it seemed more truly scientific than the theory of special creations.” Moreover, the dogmatic statements of some evolutionists can be intimidating. For example, scientist H. S. Shelton asserts that the concept of special creation is “too foolish for serious consideration.” Biologist Richard Dawkins bluntly states: “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” Similarly, Professor René Dubos says: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.” From these statements it would seem that anyone with a measure of intelligence would readily accept evolution. After all, to do so would mean that one is “enlightened” rather than “stupid.” Yet, there are highly educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. “I found many scientists with private doubts,” writes Francis Hitching in his book The Neck of the Giraffe, “and a handful who went so far as to say that Darwinian evolutionary theory had turned out not to be a scientific theory at all.” Chandra Wickramasinghe, a highly acclaimed British scientist, takes a similar position. “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution,” he says. “It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.” T. H. Janabi investigated the arguments put forth by evolutionists. “I found that the situation is quite different from that which we are led to believe,” he says. “The evidence is too scarce and too fragmented to support such a complex theory as that of the origin of life.” Thus, those who object to the evolution theory should not simply be brushed aside as “ignorant, stupid or insane.” Regarding opinions that challenge evolution, even the staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson had to admit: “It would certainly be a mistake merely to dismiss these views with a smile or to ridicule them. Their proponents were (and are) profound and able students.” Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated. For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began. Such lack of evidence causes T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says. Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”

edit

I found the following on Google concerning this Tiklaalik fossil. Some feel that J. Wells is a buffoon, who by the way is a biologist with a PHD and he as well as others scientists have examined this so called evidence and this is what they say about it. Missing Fish Link the New Icon Jonathan Witt, quotes Icons of Evolution, has commented on the new 'missing link' Tiklaalik. Wells notes many of the similarities between this 'missing link' and Archaeoptryx. Some good quotes from his book that are relevant. Reminding us of how fossils are not a good basis for lineage.. Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature... [wrote:] "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate" ... and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." It's hard enough, with written records, to trace a human lineage back a few hundred years. When we have only a fragmentary fossil record, and we're dealing with millions of years -- what Gee calls "Deep Time" -- the job is effectively impossible... Gee concludes: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." And then of course, there is the ol Archaeoptryx claims which were announced with the same fan-fare when the fossils were first discovered... Some biology textbooks continue to present Archaeopteryx as the classic example of a missing link. Mader's 1998 Biology calls it "a transitional link between reptiles and birds," and William Schraer and Herbert Stoltze's 1999 Biology: The Study of Life tells students that "many scientists believe it represents an evolutionary link between reptiles and birds." But both sides in the current controversy over bird origins agree that modern birds are probably not descended from Archaeopteryx. And although the two factions disagree about the ancestry of Archaeopteryx, neither one has really solved the problem. Following the logic of Darwin's theory to sometimes silly extremes, cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaeopteryx were bird-like dinosaurs that do not appear in the fossil record until tens of millions of years later. Their critics look to animals that clearly lived earlier, but have not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be a good candidate. As a result, both sides are still looking for the missing link. Isn't it ironic that Archaeopteryx, which more than any other fossil persuaded people of Darwin's theory in the first place, has been dethroned largely by cladists, who more than any other biologists have taken Darwin's theory to its logical extreme? The world's most beautiful fossil, the specimen Ernst Mayr called "the almost perfect link between reptiles and birds," has been quietly shelved, and the search for missing links continues as though Archaeopteryx had never been found. Somethings never change....Evolution continues to rely on a sliding scale of evidence. Every time one evidence collapses, they find something else to prop up their rickety old theory.

Are you kidding? That may burst their bubble and make 'em face reality, never! No matter whatever happens, thy shall never face reality, ever, ever!

I dunno. I think both can be intellectually reconciled, if personal need be. No?

So tell me how the "Singularity" works again, I think I was absent that day in Science Class. And that "Monkey Thing", are they still "Coming Out" of the Jungle??? John

You'd like some science? Cool! How's this? For a single living cell, (once it's come into existence), to function, requires the presence of 2,000 different proteins. What's the probability of a single molecule of simple protein, forming all by itself? (As evolutionary theory requires.) 1 chance in 10 to the 113th power. Exponential numbers can be confusing. (Makes your brain hurt!) How large a number is 10 to the 113th power? Well, a TRILLION looks like this: 1,000,000,000,000. 10 to the 113th power, looks like this: (Keep in mind each additional "0" means X 10) 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's more than the total NUMBER OF ATOMS IN THE UNIVERSE. (According to scientists' estimation.) The chances that all 2,000 formed? 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. (Ummmm,... I don't think anyone wants me to type that one out.) Mathematicians consider anything with a likelihood of less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power, to be impossible. (Thus the expression, 'mathematically impossible') REMEMBER, 1 chance in 10 to the 113th power,... is NOT the probability that LIFE formed on it's own from nonliving matter. It's the probability of a SINGLE MOLECULE of SIMPLE PROTEIN forming without design. A related evolutionary quandary? "Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." - Francis Hitching - The Neck of the Giraffe, p.66 (By the way, Hitching IS an evolutionist.) Also,... Some noted scientists HAVE rejected the theory of evolution: “Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.” Phillip E. Johnson, - University of California law professor (Hee Hee!)(Okay, he's a professor, not a scientist. I still thought his point was valid.) Now, THESE are scientists: Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.” Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who led the U.S. government’s effort to decipher the human genome (DNA), said: “Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. . . . It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves.” He also said: “Some people sacrificially give of themselves to those who are outside their group and with whom they have absolutely nothing in common. . . . That doesn’t seem like it can be explained by a Darwinian model.” (Survival of the Fittest,...remember?) Owen Gingerich, research professor of astronomy at Harvard University, wrote: “Altruism may well pose a question without . . . a scientific answer derived from observation of the animal kingdom. It just might be that the more convincing answer lies in another arena and has to do with those God-given qualities of humanness which include conscience.” For scientists to make statements like these, requires courage. (No doubt it invites ridicule from colleagues). Today, Evolution is a generally accepted belief. At one time, so was the earth being flat. I wish more individuals WOULD take the time to consider the science.

You have me baffled. Please allow me to explain. I believe in a creator, a designer, because I see evidence of design in ALL living things on earth. OK If I didn't believe in a creator,...doesn't that mean I'd believe that all things came into existence through "chance"? By "chance", I mean thru a series of random events, events that occurred without any intelligent direction or intervention. To illustrate: If I find a ring of stones, out in my yard, I could conclude that someone placed them there. If I reject that explanation,...isn't my only alternative to believe that the rocks came to form a circle by chance? Thru random, unplanned events? (I use this illus. because I DID in fact find a ring of small pebbles out in our woods. My little boy had arranged them so.) I don't see a third option. If I believe they were blown or washed into that shape by the wind or rain, the environment, ...aren't those still random occurences?

NATURAL SELECTION –noun the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. The idea of Natural Selection does not explain how life ORIGINATED. It's not meant to. Natural Selection comes into play with life that already exists. It's meant to explain how life, (once it existed), evolved from one thing to the next. I'm convinced,...that you're convinced. It's pretty clear that you're firmly set in your beliefs, and happy with them. I wish you only the best.

Because there is even greater scientific evidence that such evolutionary theories are just false.

There are those on all sides who are very closed minded. The theory of evolution does not say we came from monkeys but the religious think it does because that's what they've been told. Fortunately, I've met religious people who aren't closed-minded and look at things instead of blow them off.

The only evolution I believe in is wrote down in the Holy Bible (KJV) anyone trying to tell me different is wasting their time.

Garter snakes disprove evolution?

The phrasing of your question indicates that you have not done much reading on the subject of evolution. Perhaps the poster should take their own advice and do some reading before judging it. I mean really why believe a scientific theory for which there are physical proofs when you can believe an invisible being did it instead?

SKIDO +2 we grew up in secular schools and I believed Evolution until I was 17 and then until I was 19 I believed Theological Evolution(God started the Big Bang).