Originally Posted by i.beletesri

Wrong and Complete disingenuous Voodoo (which is a valid a 'theory' as Jesus or the Lightning God according to your MISdefinition).

Darwin Observed Evolution in Living creatures not from Fossils, Carbon Dating, or DNA.
Those 3 all later techniques, 'Miraculously' (if untrue) all CONFIRM his observation.

You also LEFT OUT a good portion of my reply

Can we say about God He is....

"... a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'".."

Is God a "well tested hypothesis"?

No not even Close.
God is a Voodoo Belief. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Fire God, The Pink Unicorn, and lots of other Wholly MADE UP CRAP, unlike science and evolution which put the lights on over your head/have raised mankind's standard of Living Despite the Backwards Church who's done NOTHING in that respect.

Originally Posted by TheFreeman

I don't know, you haven't provided a source with which to support your claims, so there's really nothing there to address but hearsay. Not much substance.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

Wrong and Complete disingenuous Voodoo (which is a valid a 'theory' as Jesus or the Lightning God according to your MISdefinition).

Darwin Observed Evolution in Living creatures not from Fossils, Carbon Dating, or DNA.
Those 3 all later techniques, 'Miraculously' (if untrue) all CONFIRM his observation.

Originally Posted by ToAcorn.com

Evolution cannot be proven scientifically

The recent letters stating that evolution is a theory proved beyond any doubt, that it is unquestionably "a fact" and that it's capable of being tested scientifically prove its validity is untrue.

A growing number of naturalistevolutionary scientists privately question the validity of the theory. These are scientists who do not believe in design theory or creationism; they are evolutionists. To quote a few, let's start with a personal letter written by Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London. He writes to author L. Sunderland, "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why stages should be favored by natural selection. But stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

This quote can be found in Sunderland's book "Master Books," page 89. By true science we mean it is testable.

The theory of gravity is testable simply by dropping a pen. We see it in action. Evolutionary theory is not able to be empirically proven. Paul Ehrlich, professor of biology, University of Stanford, writes "Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. Thus it is 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." This quote is found in "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, page 352.

There are a growing number of scientists who realize Darwinian-evolution is not good science (because it cannot be tested).

These two scientists believe in evolution, but they are honest enough to realize evolution is not scientific in that we can test and observe the results.

You cannot test the origin of life from nonliving matter. Yet this is the basis, this is how it all starts, (but) no one has ever seen it happen. Darwinianevolutionists (contend) that the variations we see in a species are testable and observable methods (and) proof of evolution. No one questions that variations in a species exist, but no one has observed a fish giving rise to a frog.

Richard Dawkins, an eminent Darwinian scientist, states he knows of no methodology for the genome gaining new information.

Dr. Lee Spetner, in his book "Not by Chance," states that every mutation he has seen does not add new information to the genome. It only subtracts and reduces the information in the genome. This is a big problem if we are to have descended from a simple single cell. Information had to be all contained in the cell from the beginning. Most scientists admit just getting the first living cell is a major miracle.

If you look into that issue you realize you are involved in religion

Originally Posted by TheTelescope.com

This represents my personal views, not necessarily that of co-workers, and was written in my spare time for the benefit of Telescope readers interested in the issue. This material does not relate to any courses with which I am involved. It's fun-time stuff but nevertheless of importance. Thanks for considering it:

Isaac Newton did not study philosophical questions that the scientific method could not address. But publish-or-perish now plagues journals with viewpoints rather than straight facts. Students here were ridiculed for not believing in macroevolution, as though scientists witnessed life's species all descending from a bacterium.

The billions of people on earth count for only one species, as is true for all other species of life, even fruit flies! Some thought there were 40 species of fruit flies but they all can interbreed.

For 6,000 years, there have been about 100 generations of people, 6,000 of mice, and 300,000 of fruit flies that retain their identity. Bristlecone Pines produce identical offspring today even at the age of 5,000, where a mere 1,000 generations would take 5 million years. Its enormous time to come from a bacterium is inconsistent with the believed age of the earth.

It's one thing to talk of macroevolution as theory, but to teach it as "proven" and to reprimand those who don't believe it isn't scientific. Much data refute macroevolution theory (scienceagainstevolution.org). Gregor Mendel and other 1900s biologists understood the fixity of species. Today, a paper in "Nature" revealed that the human genome has had 20,000 genes, similar to some fish. Some plants have the same chromosome number as humans. DNA quantity shows no relation to biologic talent. A gene's power is the statement it writes, not the letters it uses.

Also, the Grimke sisters during the Civil War completely disproved the notion that slavery was somehow "Biblical." Their work is expert, thorough and authoritative and destroyed this view held by some in the South at that time.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

You also LEFT OUT a good portion of my reply


Can we say about God He is....

"... a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'".."

Is God a "well tested hypothesis"?

No not even Close.
God is a Voodoo Belief. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Fire God, The Pink Unicorn, and lots of other Wholly MADE UP CRAP, unlike science and evolution which put the lights on over your head/have raised mankind's standard of Living Despite the Backwards Church who's done NOTHING in that respect.

Originally Posted by TheFreeman

What is this "theory" of gravity? I'm familiar with the law of gravity, and the fact that we cannot explain it except that it simply is.

Originally Posted by spankythewhale

when Are We Going To Get To Part 2?

Originally Posted by BillyBob

Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!