[razzle]

The Ben Stien reference was in the American Spectator in one of his monthly Ben Stien's diary last few years. Also, my "claims" are only "non-sensical" to a person who "believes" in darwinism first and later looks for scientific justification. I have seen none, just made up eveidence that is either disproved or proved as fake from the start. If its your religion, thats OK, but its not a scientific theory, please.

[balrog666]

The Ben Stien reference was in the American Spectator in one of his monthly Ben Stien's diary last few years. [snip]

Oh, come on, quit embarrassing yourself!

Can't you at least learn to spell his name correctly!

[Coyoteman]

Also, my "claims" are only "non-sensical" to a person who "believes" in darwinism first and later looks for scientific justification. I have seen none, just made up eveidence that is either disproved or proved as fake from the start. If its your religion, thats OK, but its not a scientific theory, please.

You are wrong.

I challenge you to cite five examples of "made up eveidence that is either disproved or proved as fake from the start."

That should be easy, if, as you claim, all the evidence falls into that category.

(By the way, don't rely too much on creationist websites in your research; they are filled with distortions and outright lies. They are doing apologetics, not science.)

[Dimensio]

The Ben Stien reference was in the American Spectator in one of his monthly Ben Stien's diary last few years.

Which issue, and why is the claim -- if Mr Stein actually said such a thing -- accurate?

Also, my "claims" are only "non-sensical" to a person who "believes" in darwinism first and later looks for scientific justification.

No, your claims are nonsensical because you refer to "darwinism" as a religion when it is not and you suggest that there is "no proof" when, while no scientific field deals in "proofs", there is a significant volume of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

I have seen none, just made up eveidence that is either disproved or proved as fake from the start.

Please give specific examples.

If its your religion, thats OK, but its not a scientific theory, please.

It meets the requirements to be termed a theory, and it is not honest to label in a "religion".

[Virginia-American]

...who "believes" in darwinism first and later looks for scientific justification. I have seen none, just made up eveidence that is either disproved or proved as fake from the start...

Please provide references that disprove

1) Some baby marsupials have egg teeth, but no marsupial ever has any use for them.

2) Baby platypuses have teeth in their jaws that never erupt.

3) Fetal whales have hindlimb buds that are usually reabsorbed, but that sometimes aren't giving rise to whales with vestigial hind legs.

4) All embryonic mammals, including people, have earbones that migrate from the jaw to the middle ear, just like in the fossil sequence from reptile to mammal.

5) Professional creationists disagree about whether Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, Homo Erectus, H. habilis, H. ergaster, et al, are "people" or "apes".

6) The Noah's Flood hypothesis predicts that fish bones should be found in all marine fossil assemblages, whereas the ToE predicts that before a certain age, no fish existed. No bone of any sort has ever been found in the Burgess shale or any other mid Cambrian or earlier stratum.

7) Some birds have been experimentally induced to grow teeth. Very early birds, like Archeopteryx, had teeth.

All of these facts are confirmatory of standard biology. Under the ID or creationism hypothesis they can be "explained" as the hypothetical designer's "whim", or "will", but so can anything. Many of them make no sense from an engineering point of view; I mean, why have genes for teeth in birds, platypuses, whales, etc, when they never have or use the teeth?

Are you seriously claiming all of these facts are incorrect?!