Evolution a theory? That's right

[JCRoberts]

Since material from this newspaper cannot be used here, follow the link to this editorial about how dumb the paper thinks "creationists" are.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050122/OPINION03/501220316/1110

[JCRoberts]

How convenient to pick and choose what theories to use as examples for your post.

It will not change the fact that evolution is a theory. It is not provable fact. Anyone who tries to pretend it is is not being realistic.

[microgood]

Yep, just a theory. Like the... oh, say, Theory of Gravity.

Evolutionary theory is closer to Global Warming Theory than Gravity. Gravity can be tested and verified. On the other hand, speciation has never been observed and cannot be tested. You just have to accept it on faith.

[cyborg]

I believe in creation, and I'm not stupid. Well okay my mom says I have no common sense.

[Stellar Dendrite]

Evolution is a fraud. Certain proteins are expressed in the developmental stages of human embryos (or any animal). These proteins induce the formation of organs. However, if these proteins are continually expressed, cells will become cancerous. I would like for the evolutionists to explain how THAT process "evolved". If evolution is "fact", then the embryo would initially ONLY produce these signaling proteins. Therefore, you could NEVER evolve because all forms of life would become extinct due to the constant upregulation of these proteins (cancer). They would NEVER have the chance to "evolve" and put the 'brakes' on these proteins after initial development (as they currently do). Also, if evolution is "fact" then how did Insulin and Insulin Receptors "evolve"? EVERYONE NEEDS INSULIN!! Was the insulin produced first with nowhere to bind? Was the IR produced first? The insulin signaling pathway (shown below) is too complex and too well organized to have just "evolved". This is just one example....think of the many, many, many other receptors in the human body as well.....how did they "evolve"? Any way you boil it down, signaling pathways in the human body are too complex to be explained by a stupid and outmoded theory such as evolution. The belief in evolution is in reality it's own religion, many use it to explain that there is no god. I'm not particularly religious, I definitely believe in God but don't accept Creationism in a literal sense. I sure as hell know that evolution is a fraud. I know the history behind the Scopes Monkey trial, the ACLU and how they used it to push evolution into the classroom around the early twenties. The founder of the ACLU stated that America would never knowingly allow socialism to take over. The ACLU needs to be locked up in Guantanamo bay with their terrorist brethren.

[Alacarte]

"Perhpas not, but it sure is amusing."

I second that, the posters here sure are making the DMR articles argument for him!

[Alacarte]

"Evolutionary theory is closer to Global Warming Theory than Gravity. Gravity can be tested and verified. On the other hand, speciation has never been observed and cannot be tested. You just have to accept it on faith."

Funny, that's not what the scientific community thinks.

---

http://www.nationalacademies.org/attic/evolution/
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives.shtml
http://genetics.faseb.org/genetics/g-gsa/statement_on_evolution.shtml
http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php
http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position1.htm
http://www.nsta.org/evresources
http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSfN1/Guidlines/evolution.html
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/evolution.htm
http://www.unc.edu/depts/msen/statement/evolution.html
http://www.science.org.au/reports/creation.htm
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9522_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp

---

But then what do they know about science compared to you...

[R. Scott]

I will simply believe God created the theory of evolution…

Only Creationists and others who do not keep up with science have used the term “Theory of Evolution”. The proper term is “evolutionary science”.

[js1138]

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

First definition of "theory". From your post. This is as close as science ever gets to a statement that something is true. There is no higher category, even in physics and chemistry.

Scientific "laws" are not statements of principles.

[R. Scott]

Einstein also hoped that some of his own work would be proven wrong, notably in the area of quantum physics. He is reputed to have said that God doesn’t roll dice.

[R. Scott]

Yes, of course 19th Century science had all the answers.

[microgood]

Funny, that's not what the scientific community thinks.

Thiry years ago, the scientific community believed we were going into an ice age. Now the scientific community believes man is causing global warming. What is the truth? I guess it is what 51% of the scientific community believes at any given moment.

[Alacarte]

"He is reputed to have said that God doesn’t roll dice."

From the AiG website:

"Albert Einstein was not a Christian. He had no concept of the God of the Bible or trust in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. His views on religion and 'God' were evolutionary and pantheistic. "

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/einstein.asp

[R. Scott]

No, Einstein was not – and I don’t believe I claimed he was – a born again evangelical Christian. He did have a God concept, as the First Cause.

[Alacarte]

"Thiry years ago, the scientific community believed we were going into an ice age."

Really? Then there should be a trail of retracted papers on such an important subject... but there isn't. What you refer to is NOT what the scientific community thought, it is how NEW discoveries get misinterpreted and blown out of proportion by the media.

"I guess it is what 51% of the scientific community believes at any given moment."

Science is NOT a democracy, it is dictated by the facts. Evolution is an integral part of the life sciences, from genetics to biochemistry. Scientists do not vote on what is science. THey collect data and make hypotheses and they test them and publish their findings for other people to build on. And it is not 51% of scientists, you can't find one science institution that questions evolution the way those links I posted support it.

The scientific community is wrong sometimes, but who discovers the errors and corects them? They do, as is its self-correcting nature. But you're right, what has the scientific community ever done for us, other than space travel, and the polio vaccine, the steam engine, antibiotics, water purification, computing...

[microgood]

But you're right, what has the scientific community ever done for us, other than space travel, and the polio vaccine, the steam engine, antibiotics, water purification, computing...

Science, when used for the right purposes, has done phenomenal things for the world. And microbiologists have also done tremendous good for mankind. I have no problem with microevolution either.

Macroevolutionary theory, on the other hand, has done virtually nothing except cause conflict. Macroevolution is a misapplication of the scientific method as are the global warming theories.

The problem I have is when people equate macroevolutionary theories with the kind of science that has done the great things for mankind that you just described.

[jjmcgo]

Which prehistoric lizard has the same DNA as humans? Where do you find the beach sand with the same DNA as that lizard and humans?

Like begets like.

Life begets life.

As to your other point: Pasteur came after Darwin. So, who's stuck with old science -- you!



Evolution is the "creation" of those who deny God's handiwork and existence.

[R. Scott]

Yes, of course this is much easier to believe:

[Strategerist]

Its also the only way evolutionists can explain how they believe living things were created, the idea that nonliving things can somehow produce living things.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how nonliving things produce living things.

[Junior]

The first one listed:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

[LiteKeeper]

read later - Survive