1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, and it has not even begun to be overcome. In fact, you guys have pretty much quit on this issue and tend to ignore it as though it's not relevant.
2. The fossil record is an embarrassment for Darwin's theory. Because the fossil record fails to confirm the theory (as Darwin recognized it did not but hoped in the future it would, but hasn't), evolutionists have "cheated" on the falsifiable-ness (so to speak) of common descent and instead developed alternate theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the problem. There is absolutely no evidence for punctuated equilibrium because, of course, it was developed to explain away lack of evidence.
3. Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God.
However, I won't hold my breath for a burst of honesty from that quarter.
"Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God."
The essence of evolution is that nature/environment/random mutations -- over a long period of time, may be thousands or millions of years -- shape living things.
Inserting God(or any supernatural force) into the argument and trying to explain away phenomena magically(eg. God created earth, sky, and humans, so that's that. Want evidence?! Refer to [ancient scripture] in [page#] [chapter#] [verse#])is pseudo-science, and therefore belongs in a philosophy or a religious class.
You seem to have a limited understanding of science.
Science is the study of the observable: that which we see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.
God is not observable. Ergo, science makes no statement--up or down--regarding his/her/its existence.
Since technically, the way you phrased the above, its meaning is closer to, "It is indisputably true that we non-evos want Darwinists[sic] to admit the following," I have no disagreement. I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that you didn't mean that.
1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, and it has not even begun to be overcome. In fact, you guys have pretty much quit on this issue and tend to ignore it as though it's not relevant.
It's ignored only because the Theory of Evolution is about supervision, not the beginning of life. "Life from non-life" has no more to do with the Theory of Evolution than the Theory of Gravity. Or do you have a problem with the Theory of Gravity because it doesn't address life from non-life.
2. The fossil record is an embarrassment for Darwin's theory. Because the fossil record fails to confirm the theory (as Darwin recognized it did not but hoped in the future it would, but hasn't), evolutionists have "cheated" on the falsifiable-ness (so to speak) of common descent and instead developed alternate theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the problem. There is absolutely no evidence for punctuated equilibrium because, of course, it was developed to explain away lack of evidence.
This is the best paragraph ever written by someone on the wrong side of an argument who had no knowledge of the facts or interest in obtaining them.
But feel free to reveal the cheating.
3. Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God.
The Theory of Evolution does nothing of the sort. Why would you even state such a thing? The Theory of Evolution no more "pre-supposes there is no God" than any other scientific theory does. Therefore, your "This is a choice between God and no God" is meaningless.
However, I won't hold my breath for a burst of honesty from that quarter.
I wasn't really holding my breath expecting you to hold your breath
Everything you wrote is wrong (and some of it extremely bigoted as well) but I'll concentrate on this for now.
The scientists who proposed "punctuated equilibrium" actually found evidence of it in the fossil record before they presented their idea.
Niles Eldridge found a locality which preserved a finely detailed transition between two species of trilobite that elsewhere in the fossil record appeared "abruptly" with no transition. Stephen J Gould discovered similar evidence for Caribbean snails.
This is what PE proposed: that species (or at least those with the population sizes and geographical distributions sufficient to leave a trace in the fossil record) tend to remain more or less stable for long periods of time, and that speciation events probably occur among smaller populations and in one particular place. Later when the new species spreads geographically it seems to appear "suddenly" in the fossil record.
The competing view -- phyletic gradualism -- holds that species usually change at a more or less constant rate.
If you're wondering why you have'nt heard much about debate over PE vs PG for years, its because multiple good examples of each have been found in the fossil record (it has nothing to do with your ridiculous claim that "absolutely no evidence" exists) and the general agreement is that both types of transition occur.
That's an inadvertantly smart move - you won't have any takers since all three points are not only not "indisputably true," they are ignorant bullshit.
Excellence In Posting