[John H K]

What "gargantuan" evidence? Evolution is and always has been a theory.

Oh, I don't know, the tens of thousands of fossils with clear transitions from species to species in universities and colleges all over the world?

And I suggest you look up the definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" as used in science.

The general public commonly thinks of theories the way scientists think of hypotheses.

[whereasandsoforth]

What "gargantuan" evidence? Evolution is and always has been a theory.

"Oh, I don't know, the tens of thousands of fossils with clear transitions from species to species in universities and colleges all over the world?"

Really? One species to another? How fascinating, if it were true in the true sense. No species has ever morphed into a completely different order. Man didn't evolve from apes. If that were true, all apes would be something else by now.

"And I suggest you look up the definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" as used in science."

I don't have to look it up. I have been using the english language for years. True to form, a "hypothesis" is merely and unproved theory. Maybe those terms used in science need to be more honest.

"The general public commonly thinks of theories the way scientists think of hypotheses."

This gives me hope for the common public.

[Southack]

"Oh, I don't know, the tens of thousands of fossils with clear transitions from species to species in universities and colleges all over the world?"

You can go to any junkyard and dig up the fossil-equivilents of species after species of automobiles, too, but that doesn't mean that cars evolved themselves from one model to the next.

The only theory that accurately explains different automobile model "fossils" is that of Intelligent Intervention, as in, Man made the models different, even though some of the "transitions" between models are occassionaly very subtle.

[mdmathis6]

"And I suggest you look up the definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" as used in science.


"The general public commonly thinks of theories the way scientists think of hypotheses."

Both have essentially the same sense meanings, it just that if one is a secular elitist it becomes a "Hypothesis"(to be pronounced with the proper air/nose mixture with the nares angled approximately 15 degrees upward so that one can look down on the generally unwashed trailer park religious fanatics who might really believe in a God).
To the rest of us "hold muh beer" bums, its all "theory" and essentially unproven!
And to think I used to look down my-self at the "King of the Hill", types....

[Radix]

As I remember the book of Genesis, there was no mention of a childhood for Adam. I believe that he was according to the book, created as an adult.

Would you, could you rationally argue that an omnipotent being would not be capable of creating a World fully formed and mature?

Some people sure do seem to be willing to limit omnipotence!

[Smokin' Joe]

Oh, I don't know, the tens of thousands of fossils with clear transitions from species to species in universities and colleges all over the world?

Jeez, in a year of paleontology courses, most of the fundamental transitional forms were represented by dotted lines. They still are. Hypothetical ancestral stocks abound, but most species appear in the fossil record fully developed, even in the midst of an adaptive radiation, with a dearth of transitional forms.

The more you know, the shakier it gets, especially outside of any particular Genus. The chief factor involved at that level is the taxonomic (morphological) definition of a species, based upon fragmented skeletal (or other hard-part remains), not interbreeding viability (used with non-extinct organisms).

I also have problems with the way evolution is taught, especially when it is taught as occuring as a result of the will of individual members of a species causing morphological changes which are passed on genetically to descendants.

The entire theory depends on a genetic crapshoot in which the losers do not get to breed, causing changes in the gene pool, but rarely, (if ever) giving rise to viable, mutated offspring which will affect the genetic component of subsequent generations.

These would have to form a population of viable (capable of producing their own breeding offspring), mutated offspring in order to be a separate (new) species, and yet be a group which would be incapable of breeding with the members of the 'ancestral' species and producing viable offspring.

I am a scientist, and I remain unconvinced.

[Quix]

"CLEAR" transitions from species to species?

You must be joking.

That's about like Shrillery Hellery calling Dillbo the most honorable husband she knows because he smiles so sweetly on camera.