Viceroy63 wrote: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.
 Evolution is taught and accepted as factual evidence when in fact there is no factual evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is not taught as fact. It is taught as a scientific theory, which does have a LOT of factual evidence to support it, though it is true there is not 100% definitive proof.
Viceroy63 wrote:The theory of Evolution purposes that life evolved gradually over millions if not billions of years from single cell organisms to the complex life that exist today on the planet. But where is the evidence in the rocks to support this.
All around the Earth. Look particularly in any sedimentary rock formation. Not all contain fossils, but many do. Or you could just visit a few museums, many of which have fossils on display -- along with (if it is a good museum) a bit about where and how the fossil was collected and/or what is known about it. (museums have all that, but highlight specific bits for various displays )
Viceroy63 wrote: Evidence "in the rocks" or fossils (fossilized remains), is what is used to explain evolution and the diversity of life on the planet. Yet there is a problem with the fossil records. There are no intermediate species depicting this. You would think that if the fossil records is what is used to teach evolution as fact and reason for the origin of life on the planet that the fossil records would be without question. Yet there remains great gaps or holes in the records in the rocks for evolution to be taught as fact. And yet it is.
I see, so if I say 1,2, ?, 4,5,6, ?,7 you cannot possibly figure out what the missing numbers are because there are gaps?
We know that life differing a great deal from what we see around us existed earlier. We can see that some forms more like what we see, including some that are identical to what we see today (horseshoe crabs, the nautilus are all ancient types) and we see some that seem to represent something like what a transition species might be -- Ceolocanths, for example.
Also, there is no other theory that explains the evidence we have... period. There just isn't.
Viceroy63 wrote: The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "walla," evolution, see!
Why? The processes to form fossils are very specific and tricky. Its actually pretty amazing that we have as many fossils as we have.
Besides.. the fact is that fossils exist and no one has come up with a better explanation than evolution. That IS fact.
Viceroy63 wrote: One could argue, "but how?" and the debate would go something like this; "Don't you see the similarities in the bone structures of the arms of the dinosaur and the wings of the bird? Why they are practically identical!" But what about the intermediate species that evolved between the dinosaur and the bird? well it turns out that the fossil records is not perfect or that we have yet to find them? Then why is evolution taught as fact in schools everywhere when it is not a proven fact?
Ironically enough, several bird transition species have been found. Ironically enough, even the T-rex is one... or were you not aware of that?
Viceroy63 wrote: Charles Darwin, who wrote, "The Origin of Species," devoted an entire chapter explaining the problem with evolution or as we would say today, debunking his own work.
Not quite.. but go ahead.
Viceroy63 wrote: The Origin of Species:
by Charles Darwin
Chapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)
Darwin thought, nay make that "assumed", because its closer to the truth, that the Earth was far younger than it is today. Also, if you were to continue, you would find his answers to the above.. along with those of many other people.
This is actually called "countering the opposition". You try to think of any objection others might have.. and then deal with it, or acknowledge it as a problem yet to be solved.
Darwin did not know what we do about genetics, plate techtonic -- or many other things.
Viceroy63 wrote: Darwin saw the fault in his own theory yet he blamed the rocks for not being adequate record keepers. LOL.
 "The faults lie not in our stars but with ourselves."
 He believed in his theory at the time, except for the fact that the fossil records did not support his theory. At least not yet. But perhaps one day all those intermediate species would be found, some how? At least that is what was hoped for. Yet he could not understand why there were not any found at the time when there should be as many intermediate fossils as there are fossils of anything else.
You are proving nothing, not really saying anything here. Tehre are gaps.. so what?
There was life before, there is life now.. and while there is not a full and complete set of transitions for every single line of species, there are plenty of transitions and lines evidenced in the fossil record.
And.. again, no other theory has been presented that better answers the data we have. This is significant. Its one thing to say that evolution might not be true.. fine, few will disagree. But for it to matter, you have to present a competing theory that equally answers ALL the evidence. Just saying "we cannot fully prove evolution right now" isn't enough.
Viceroy63 wrote: 140 years later Professor Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s "Origin of Species" in 1999, the fossil records still posed the same problems and gaps.
Not quite. Some gaps still exist, but a multitude of gaps and answers were found between Darwin's publication and 1999.
Viceroy63 wrote:"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.”
(Professor Steve Jones, Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)
Yeah, Darwin thought change should be constant and gradual. We know differently now. Try reading up on modern evolution not just what was thought at the turn of the century.
Viceroy63 wrote: Notice how in 1999, Professor Steve Jones called it a "Theory of Evolution." He stated that creatures seemed to be coming into existence almost as if they were "Created" (supernaturally, although he does not use that word, I do) from nothing but the earth. They just came into existence, lived, danced, laughed and then just died out and never even left a forwarding address. LOL.
He shows nothing against evolution. Sorry, but he doesn't. Natural selecton creates species that are highly adapted. There is no reason to change unless the environment around changes. It more complicated that that, of course, but the fossil record shows long periods of relative stasis, relatively little change.. then cateclysms happen causing massive die-offs and new sets of species (along with some unchanged species) appear.
It makes sense if you think about what happens --- something kills off most of the species, leaving just a few to reproduce. If the environment is changing again quickly, then the same thing might happen again.. and again. However, note that this "relatively quick" time period is thousands of years in length.
You just have to look around us today to see such a period of massiv die-offs. In fact, the die-offs seen today are essentially unriveled in Earth's history.
Or, you can study up on what happens when people use antibiotics, particularly incorrectly.
Viceroy63 wrote: [large segment deleted]
To Be Concluded...
I could only deal with the first bit now. When I have time, I can go back and go over the rest of your claims.
Then again, you might just review one of these threads:viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&hilit=creation+versusviewtopic.php?f=8&t=29535&p=2152183&hilit=creation+versus#p2152183viewtopic.php?f=8&t=87553&p=2043214&hilit=creation+versus#p2043214
or a few others.