[js1138]

In my view, if their is a scientific question open for debate, it should be done so in its merits, not on the position of evolutionism vs creationism.

The specific details of evolution -- everything from specific lineages, the mechanisms of mutations, and the details of selection, are, and always have been open for debate.

Evolution is a bit like the O.J. Crime scene. You can never prove a historical fact in the same sense that you can prove a mathematical theorem, but people who take the time to see the evidence come to a conclusion.

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[gore3000]

Evolution is a bit like the O.J. Crime scene. You can never prove a historical fact in the same sense that you can prove a mathematical theorem, but people who take the time to see the evidence come to a conclusion.

And what evidence is that? A bunch bones specifically selected and specifically arranged to back up their theory? That's not much evidence and even with bones and with the so called 'scientists' who dig them up being all devout evolutionists, evidence comes out which they cannot explain according to their theory.

[JavaTheHutt]

Evolution is a bit like the O.J. Crime scene. You can never prove a historical fact in the same sense that you can prove a mathematical theorem, but people who take the time to see the evidence come to a conclusion.

I've spent a great deal of time looking at the evidence. I've come to the conclusion that the reason you can't prove evolution is pretty much the same reason you can't prove that the moon is made of cheese. The facts don't support it. On the contrary, the facts prove evolution to be impossible.