[Coyoteman]

Darwin himself states that his theory is speculation and someone considering the same subjects could come to an opposite conclusion.

It requires faith to believe his theory, therefore it is a Religion.

Darwin was couching his language in strong qualifiers, something which creationists on these threads regularly berate evolutionists for not doing. So what is the problem?

Oh, and by the way; science has progressed for some 150 years since Darwin. Few discoveries, here and there; maybe 98% of the fossil record, DNA, a little geology here and there, maybe a stray find or two in biology, etc.

And you know, old Darwin was right all along. Pretty smart guy, eh?

[Dan(9698)]

maybe 98% of the fossil record

The fossil record does not show darwin was right.

It shows millions of years of staying the same, and then jumping to something else that stays the same for millions of years.

Darwin's theory of incremental changes over long periods of time is refuted by the fossil record.

[Logophile]

Oh, and by the way; science has progressed for some 150 years since Darwin. Few discoveries, here and there; maybe 98% of the fossil record, DNA, a little geology here and there, maybe a stray find or two in biology, etc. . . . . And you know, old Darwin was right all along. Pretty smart guy, eh?

Smart, yes; and he may very well have been "right all along." But I was not aware that Darwin predicted DNA. Did Crick and Watson credit Darwin in their work on DNA?