Replies

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.

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

Yes, and thanks for helping me make my point.

Theories are used in two ways. Some theories help explain the internal workings of universal law and facts of nature, while others, (like the theory of evolution), attempt to effectuate ends and universal laws by their very own postulations. Some centuries ago most of the world's greatest scientists believed the earth was flat. This means all theories are untrustworthy until they can become observable or recreated, which leaves 'evolution' a mere speculation and those who believe it as dogma as self deluded victims of their own pride.

You are attempting, (very unsuccessfully), to link evolution's theories with demonstratable, universally agreed upon facts. Simply because theories are what help explain universal laws does not mean that all theories are attached to universal law and truth. As I demonstrated above, theories can be used to promote false beliefs. The 'evolution' theory remains very unpersuasive because of all its scientific shortcomings, that's why it needs to be constantly defended by those who seek to indoctrinate others with its teaching. But nice try.