There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution, as originally described by Darwin, and as subsequently developed and improved by several generations of scientists. Intelligent Design is singularly undeserving of its own name.
Darwin doubted his on theories late in his life, since he could never properly explain the origin of life through his own fossil record.
You can’t tell me scientifically how life was originated, either, nor can you replicate it in a lab. I’m not a creationist, by the way. I’m an agnostic on how life was formed.
Sorry, but no. Darwinism is essentially one huge, scientifically-autistic self-contained fact space that relies on itself to reinforce itself (i.e. circular reasoning).
And don't even get me started on the absolute idiocy of believing in abiogenesis.
Two words: punctuated equilibrium
I’m able to stomach the pseudo-science of creationism/intelligent design on our side of the fence because it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
There is as much evidence of Darwin's TOE as there is evidence for man made globull warming. The TOE is stuck out in the midst of a baked lake bed with no beginning and only a mirage as their end.
Exactly how did species evolve?
“There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution..”
Is it hidden away in Algore’s lockbox?
It is a scientific fact that for mankind to continue its existence it requires one male and one female. So, working backwards from what we know today as scientific fact, describe just a few of the steps necessary to go from where we are today to where we basically “emerged from the swamp” 16 billion years ago. Going backwards from the present, you will need to include the following at a minimum:
1. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the male having testes, a penis, a prostate, sperm, and a urethra.
2. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the male being able to attain a penile erection?
3. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the female having a vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries, eggs, and a womb?
4. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the female having formed breasts in order to feed her babies?
5. What was the evolutionary step just prior to a male being physically and sexually attract to a female?
6. What was the evolutionary step just prior to multiple sperm being required to attack the egg so that one sperm can “get in” so it can fertilize the egg. (By the way, I think this is why males like team sports. :) )
7. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the fish-like, swimming sperm being propelled with a defined force from the male’s penis during ejaculation?
There are probably many more questions you should be able to answer, but these seven are probably enough at this point. Oh - and these seven questions would need to be answered for every form of life on earth that requires a male and female for procreation. Including strawberries.
Looking forward to your detailed, considerate, scientific, credible, logical, rational, convincing, and reasonable response.
Thanks.
And one more thing: no Darwinist should be a detective as they have a difficult time seeing the clues.
This is the dumbest post I’ve ever read. Please, if you’re still in college... quit... you’re an idiot and they’re taking advantage of you. The soma wagon is on its way.
Nope, sorry, there is not, not a bit of it. As a Theory, Evolution has no legs.
I think Darwin would reject Darwin if confronted with the current evidence.
There is no way that a speck of cosmic dust (which would make cosmic dust that which is eternal?) can become you or me.
It just wouldn’t happen.
How obvious the answer is contained in that simple illustration: dust to you is what we’re talking about.
It wouldn’t happen.