Replies

"what are more certain than "theory"?"

How about FACTS? Provable, demonstratable, reproducable, observable, FACTS!

Before the theory of evolution is taught in our public school systems it should either be proven factual, or the students should be warned, CLEARLY, that what they are studying is a highly disputed THEORY in the scientific community, it is neither considered as 'fact' nor as a universally accepted hypothesis.

Evolution has never been observed, and these evolutionist fraud's try to counter that insurmountable problem by divertng attention to adaptation, claiming it equals evolution, which is absurd in itself.

Living organisms can adapt to things such as climate changes, over time, but they remain what they originally were, only in an adapted form. An ape may develop more or less hair according to climate, a cheetah may gradually develop a sleeker body and more speed for survival, but the ape remains an ape and the cheetah remains a cheetah. There may be a million other adaptations as well, but the original species do not change species and become man or some other species of life.

The theory of evolution claims that life originated by random chance, out of nothingness, and evolution 'proceeds'. This is a proposition that cannot ever possibly be proven, displayed, observed or recreated. Sadly, this impossible to demonstrate, whimsical theory is given far too much weight and credence by being taught in every public school in America. They know if the beat the 'evolution' drum long and hard enough it will become American dogma inspite of its gross lack of true scientific confirmation. (Though this is not surprising today, this seems to be the age of programmable dupes and media-washed idiots).

There are a lot of other very sound arguments against the theory of evolution, both scientific and rational. Perhaps the greatest detractor of the theory of evolution are the scientists themselves----they simply have no concensus on this hypothesis and the scientific community is about as widely divided on this issue as can possibly be. In fact, so many ligitimate, brilliant scientists view the whole argument as something utterly silly because they realize the quantum leaps of faith that take place in the theory, and that it's pure junk science to them.

Of course, my biggest problem with 'evolution' is that a lot of people believe in it who are in power and position to shove their ridiculous hypothesis down the throats of our children as though they're teaching a universally accepted belief, which it most certainly is NOT.

How about FACTS? Provable, demonstratable, reproducable, observable, FACTS!

"Facts" are simple statements of single events. Theories are encompassing explanations behind FACTS.

Before the theory of evolution is taught in our public school systems it should either be proven factual,

That's an interesting standard. Since absolutely no theory in science has ever been or ever can be "proven factual" -- because theories are much more than a single statement of "FACT" -- then you seem to be suggesting that no scientific theory of any kind, including atomic theory, germ theory, gravitational theory (aka relativity theory), etc, should ever at any time be taught in our public schools. Why is this?

or the students should be warned, CLEARLY, that what they are studying is a highly disputed THEORY in the scientific community,

But it isn't "highly disputed" in the scientific community. The vast majority of biologists (the opinions of physicists don't really matter in the field of biology) accept the theory as the best explanation for all given evidence and observations.

Evolution has never been observed,

This statement is false.

and these evolutionist fraud's

1) LEARN TO USE APOSTROPHES!!!

2) What frauds? Be specific.

try to counter that insurmountable problem by divertng attention to adaptation, claiming it equals evolution, which is absurd in itself.

What is the insurmountable problem, and why is it insurmountable? And why is adaptation not evolution?

Living organisms can adapt to things such as climate changes, over time, but they remain what they originally were, only in an adapted form.

But then they aren't exactly what they originally were. You're trying to play semantic games, and you're doing it badly.

An ape may develop more or less hair according to climate, a cheetah may gradually develop a sleeker body and more speed for survival, but the ape remains an ape and the cheetah remains a cheetah.

So what barrier prevents and ape from becoming a non-ape or a cheetah from becoming a non-cheetah? And why are you comparing a Family with a Genus? Are you saying that adaptations can never change an organism beyond its Family classification or its Genus classification? Or is it organism-dependent? While a Cheetah stays a Cheetah, could an ape of one Genus become an ape of another Genus?

There may be a million other adaptations as well, but the original species do not change species and become man or some other species of life.

Why not? Be specific.

The theory of evolution claims that life originated by random chance, out of nothingness,

I'll stop here. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about how life originated. Please learn what the theory of evolution actually states, because if you can't even get that much right, you aren't qualified to explain what might be "wrong" with the theory.