Who cares? I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings. What an ignoramus you are.
We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today. However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan. He was the beholder. If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today. What would have happened? It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again. Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis. You dare to compare known fiction with known history. While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory. The genetic evidence shows it.
"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
"Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
"Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides. Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths. I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says. Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating. Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda. Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
Who cares? I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings. What an ignoramus you are.
We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today. However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan. He was the beholder. If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today. What would have happened? It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again. Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis. You dare to compare known fiction with known history. While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory. The genetic evidence shows it.
"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
"Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
"Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides. Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths. I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says. Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating. Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda. Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
Enough is enough. I admit you can't distinguish between ID and creation science. They're different philosophies and different groups.
You also have it reversed. What you miss is that creation science was there at the beginning of science. Evolution nor uniformitarianism was made up to be anti-creation.
Who cares? I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings. What an ignoramus you are.
We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today. However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan. He was the beholder. If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today. What would have happened? It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again. Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis. You dare to compare known fiction with known history. While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory. The genetic evidence shows it.
"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
"Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
"Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides. Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths. I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says. Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating. Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda. Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
Enough is enough. I admit you can't distinguish between ID and creation science. They're different philosophies and different groups.
You also have it reversed. What you miss is that creation science was there at the beginning of science. Evolution nor uniformitarianism was made up to be anti-creation.
I believe you’re angry at being held to an identifiable standard. I’ve delineated before where ID is simply a derivative of creationism, both of which were failed attempts by fundamentalists to impose religion into the public schools.
What you call creation science was not “there at the beginning”. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between two scientists disagreeing on mechanisms of evolution, versus the Catholic church taking 500+ years to remove Galileo from their list of "criminals". The "grounding" of religion is its assertions, and my contention is that undemonstrated assertion itself is where lies the problem. So no, I would object as fallacious the idea that religious dogma is a "grounding". It is precisely what it is-- an inflexible dogma.
When practitioners of religion try to extend the reach of their holy books beyond the spiritual, it tends toward a backward society. We've got a big old stretch across the center of the U.S. where literal interpretation of their Bibles is the norm. It's called the "Bible Belt." The people are backward; they exult in their ignorance of science; they despise education. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable. The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. And when religionists proclaim they've found a verse in a holy book that contradicts them, they're wrong because they've read into the verse something beyond its spiritual intent.
You might want to take a closer look at your 'charts'. Do you know what 'split' means? Those charts indicate that some of the descendants of a common ancestor split from the ancestor and developed one way. Other's split and developed another. Yet others split off and went in another direction. Because they come from a common progenitor, they will have traits in common ... that is why they are categorized as hominids or hylobates, and others. Those charts, even as simplified as they are, don't indicate that apes turned into humans. They show that they have a common ancestry as they developed.
The bottom picture, so widely known and often parodied, implies transition, but it really is just showing the genetic similarities between different branches of the same common trunk.
.
Who cares? I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings. What an ignoramus you are.
We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today. However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan. He was the beholder. If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today. What would have happened? It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again. Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis. You dare to compare known fiction with known history. While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory. The genetic evidence shows it.
"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
"Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
"Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides. Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths. I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says. Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating. Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda. Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
Enough is enough. I admit you can't distinguish between ID and creation science. They're different philosophies and different groups.
You also have it reversed. What you miss is that creation science was there at the beginning of science. Evolution nor uniformitarianism was made up to be anti-creation.
I believe you’re angry at being held to an identifiable standard. I’ve delineated before where ID is simply a derivative of creationism, both of which were failed attempts by fundamentalists to impose religion into the public schools.
What you call creation science was not “there at the beginning”. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between two scientists disagreeing on mechanisms of evolution, versus the Catholic church taking 500+ years to remove Galileo from their list of "criminals". The "grounding" of religion is its assertions, and my contention is that undemonstrated assertion itself is where lies the problem. So no, I would object as fallacious the idea that religious dogma is a "grounding". It is precisely what it is-- an inflexible dogma.
When practitioners of religion try to extend the reach of their holy books beyond the spiritual, it tends toward a backward society. We've got a big old stretch across the center of the U.S. where literal interpretation of their Bibles is the norm. It's called the "Bible Belt." The people are backward; they exult in their ignorance of science; they despise education. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable. The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. And when religionists proclaim they've found a verse in a holy book that contradicts them, they're wrong because they've read into the verse something beyond its spiritual intent.
I'm not angry, but after a couple times explaining, it becomes frustrating.
ID is not a derivative of creationism. ID does not discuss God nor religion at all. They go out of their way to not infer God. I think you have been misled.
Here is what AIG states on ID:
"Background On Intelligent Design Movement
The “Intelligent Design” movement is led by scholars who argue that the design of living systems—and even the nonliving elements of the universe—suggest a Designer. While these “intelligent design” proponents have been effective in challenging evolutionary theory, we’re not sure how effective the movement will be in the long run in changing many people’s hearts.
Intelligent Design Lacks Something
The Intelligent Design fails to reference the God of the Bible and the Curse’s impact on a once-perfect world. The design of living things is compelling evidence of a Designer, but only the full biblical worldview explains the imperfections in this otherwise well-crafted universe."
Intelligent Design
Discovery Institute website
Center for Science and Culture
Furthermore, the goal of teaching creation in public schools is not to challenge church vs state. It's to teach observable, testable and falsifiable science or an alternative to evolution (historical science) that is being taught. Creation science can be taught without referencing religion.
The Catholic church is much different from Protestant churches. They have their own dogma and may not be based on the bible, i.e. sola scriptura, like Christian churches. They have much more human interpretation and intervention, so is considered different from Protestant churches. They have the Pope who holds considerable power and Christians do not think the papacy is a good system because it can be exploited. They have a formal seven sacraments. They have the Holy Eucharist, transubstantiation, praying to statues and relics and more.
I don't disagree with what happened with Pope Gregory and Galileo, but read about Pope Urban. Galileo was more free under Urban. This follows the problem that I described above with human interpretation and intervention of the papal system.
There is a whole history of creation scientists that you ignore such as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, George Washington Carver, James Joule, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, Samuel Morse and more.
Profiles of Creation Scientists
To the contrary, observablel, testable and falsifiable science has found breakthroughs in creation science that brought us to the modern era. There hasn't been as much breakthroughs with evolution, evolutionary thinking and uniformitarianism. They study mutation and consider it beneficial when it isn't. It's dangerous. Uniformitarianism is hypocrisy. They end up using catastrophism in their theories. GMO foods are not safe despite what the scientists say. I use natural selection as evidence that GMO foods are not safe. Evolution challenges GMO foods.
It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud. This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID. Creation science believes that the school argument is over separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles. ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments. Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools. It won't be based on religion. The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith. To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith. That's why it's dangerous. Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't. They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor. Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs. The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them. That's not the way I learned science. Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true. Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it. What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid. People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants. They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different. The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get. Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla. What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans. This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans. There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different. The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get. Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla. What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans. This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans. There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud. This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID. Creation science believes that the school argument is over separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles. ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments. Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools. It won't be based on religion. The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith. To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith. That's why it's dangerous. Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't. They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor. Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs. The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them. That's not the way I learned science. Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true. Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it. What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid. People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants. They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different. The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get. Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla. What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans. This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans. There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of the process of science correcting and adjusting.
You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, specifically are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different. The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get. Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla. What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans. This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans. There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
You’re kidding with Eugene McCarthy, right?
Even if you’re not kidding, lie to me and tell me you’re kidding.
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1958: Eugene M. McCarthy
Eugene M. McCarthy (no known relation) is a pseudo-evolutionary crackpot biologist famous for his completely ridiculous crackpot idea that “humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig” (known as the MFAP hypothesis). Now, McCarthy does have relevant credentials, which he knows to exploit in debates – indeed, McCarthy has made serious academic contributions on hybridization (though other academic commentators have noted even here his tendency to endorse any speculative and unsupported claim that looks like it’ll fit his hypothesis) – and his idiocy has therefore predictably attracted occasional attention from various less-than-serious news media outlets over the last decade. Scientific journals and establishments have been less impressed with his work, which is partially why the media likes to portray him as a victim. You’ll find a short and to-the-point critique of his ideas here.
It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud. This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID. Creation science believes that the school argument is over separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles. ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments. Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools. It won't be based on religion. The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith. To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith. That's why it's dangerous. Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't. They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor. Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs. The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them. That's not the way I learned science. Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true. Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it. What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid. People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants. They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different. The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get. Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla. What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans. This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans. There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of the process of science correcting and adjusting.
You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, specifically are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
Heh. ToE is only accepted because the opposition has been systematically eliminated, but what I have been saying just sails over your head. Look, I pointed out that fraud had to be committed in order for people to believe in macroevolution. Both cases! Macro does not happen. How many times do I have to repeat it? The creation scientists are the ones whose evidence destroys monkeys to man and dinosaurs to birds. It's not creation scientists who made errors and committed fraud. It's the evo scientists. They've made so many errors, but you just let it slide. Talk about believing in myths and superstitions. It's no wonder that atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.
I think you can't demonstrate humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, so you keep going off the subject. There is plenty to discuss just on why humans from monkeys fails.
None of my claims are unsupported. I have provided the links to back it up. They were made by evolution scientists, too. I'm not sure what you are afraid of because anyone with an open mind would realize that evolution is BS. It just so happens that the powers that be want you to believe it so the general public's lives can be cut short.
It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud. This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID. Creation science believes that the school argument is over separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles. ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments. Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools. It won't be based on religion. The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith. To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith. That's why it's dangerous. Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't. They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor. Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs. The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them. That's not the way I learned science. Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true. Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it. What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid. People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants. They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different. The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get. Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla. What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans. This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans. There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of the process of science correcting and adjusting.
You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, specifically are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
Heh. ToE is only accepted because the opposition has been systematically eliminated, but what I have been saying just sails over your head. Look, I pointed out that fraud had to be committed in order for people to believe in macroevolution. Both cases! Macro does not happen. How many times do I have to repeat it? The creation scientists are the ones whose evidence destroys monkeys to man and dinosaurs to birds. It's not creation scientists who made errors and committed fraud. It's the evo scientists. They've made so many errors, but you just let it slide. Talk about believing in myths and superstitions. It's no wonder that atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.
I think you can't demonstrate humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, so you keep going off the subject. There is plenty to discuss just on why humans from monkeys fails.
None of my claims are unsupported. I have provided the links to back it up. They were made by evolution scientists, too. I'm not sure what you are afraid of because anyone with an open mind would realize that evolution is BS. It just so happens that the powers that be want you to believe it so the general public's lives can be cut short.
It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud. This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID. Creation science believes that the school argument is over separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles. ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments. Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools. It won't be based on religion. The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith. To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith. That's why it's dangerous. Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't. They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor. Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs. The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them. That's not the way I learned science. Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true. Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it. What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid. People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants. They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different. The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get. Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla. What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans. This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans. There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of the process of science correcting and adjusting.
You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, specifically are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
Heh. ToE is only accepted because the opposition has been systematically eliminated, but what I have been saying just sails over your head. Look, I pointed out that fraud had to be committed in order for people to believe in macroevolution. Both cases! Macro does not happen. How many times do I have to repeat it? The creation scientists are the ones whose evidence destroys monkeys to man and dinosaurs to birds. It's not creation scientists who made errors and committed fraud. It's the evo scientists. They've made so many errors, but you just let it slide. Talk about believing in myths and superstitions. It's no wonder that atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.
I think you can't demonstrate humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, so you keep going off the subject. There is plenty to discuss just on why humans from monkeys fails.
None of my claims are unsupported. I have provided the links to back it up. They were made by evolution scientists, too. I'm not sure what you are afraid of because anyone with an open mind would realize that evolution is BS. It just so happens that the powers that be want you to believe it so the general public's lives can be cut short.
The Theory of Hybidization according to Eugene McCarthy has some interesting outcomes.
