Replies

But you have to agree that Theory of Evolution does fall into that definition, due to the limited amount of facts.

You cannot make a horse from a fish...

Nor can you get a human from an ape

But, if you catagorize evolution to the developement of adapting to the environment, hence the theory of the giraffe getting a longer neck to reach the leaves higher in the trees..(bunk theory, why haven't all leaf eating animals developed long necks for survival?)

Most evolutionists want to believe life came from one cell. Creationalist believe in all creation developed by design.

I personally do not care, Something still had to start the whole process somewhere. You can't get something from nothing. Only life can beget life.

"But you have to agree that Theory of Evolution does fall into that definition, due to the limited amount of facts."

No, I don't have to agree at all. The evidence is overwhelming and from many, many fields.

" You cannot make a horse from a fish..."

Who says you should be able to?

" Nor can you get a human from an ape."

Who says we should be able to see this happen now?

"But, if you catagorize evolution to the developement of adapting to the environment, hence the theory of the giraffe getting a longer neck to reach the leaves higher in the trees..(bunk theory, why haven't all leaf eating animals developed long necks for survival?)"

Not bunk. Some niches are already filled. Some variation just doesn't happen; some pressures don't exist.

Your straw-men examples are not very convincing.

(I personally do not care, Something still had to start the whole process somewhere. You can't get something from nothing. Only life can beget life.)

I think we see this the same way.

Evolution seems to be a very adaptable term. On the one hand, it implies the slight change, on the other hand, it is carried to quite an extreme change. What degree of change can we really show evidence for? And, do we see the evidence correctly. Metmom had a very good comparison. The fossil record is like a picture album. We see snapshots, and draw conclusions. We fill in the story to fit a theory. If the ToE had never been hypothesized, would we have come up with the same story? It's like being told the story of a family, then seeing the photo album and putting it together, as opposed to not knowing anything, and making a story from the pictures. How different would they be? Furthermore, what if you were told a bogus story of the family history before you looked at the album. Then when you did look, you drew conclusions from the pictures based on a bogus story? Hmmm?