Viceroy63 wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Faith is not blind but based on observable facts. But one must first be willing to open their eyes to the truth. That is why I can observe, with my open eyes the fact that Evolution is a lie and should not be taught in schools and universities, as Fact.
There is a big difference between saying that Evolution is not proven, which is correct, and saying "Evolution is a lie".
What evidence do you claim shows evolution is false?
Also, do you really know how much evidence is required for something to be considered fully proven in science?
I personally determine something to be a lie when it is pawned off as genuine or taught as fact. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether people can come to grips with this or not, evolution has been taught as a scientific fact. It always has been.
No, but unfortunately a lot of people don't bother to read the fine print and claim that is true.
The facts SUPPORTING evolution are taught as facts, because they are. Show me any textbook that says that it is fact.
Please keep in mind that the evolution of the horse was the best exampled evidence of evolutionist and it turns out to be a hoax.
Whoever told you that knew nothing of evolution. Among other issues horses are a very modern group.
Please provide references so I can see to what you are referring.
I am deeply disappointed that supposedly open and intelligent minds can't see this for what it is, Thus the title of this thread, "The Rise of Ignorance." The same has been shown with all other works and displays that evolutionist have used to prove that evolution is a fact and not a theory.
You have yet to provide any real criticism. Most of what you have said just shows that you have never really read evolutionary theory.. in fact, most of what you say is found only in false explanations provided by young earth creationists. That you think you can attack that which you don't even understand is very sad, indeed.
"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."
—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.
UH... 1944??? REALLY???? I can remember a textbook from the late 60's that said man cannot go to the moon. We could not when it was published. Things change.
A LOT of things thought true in 1940 are now known to be entirely false in many realms of science.
The Myth of Horse Evolution
One important subject in the origin of mammals is the myth of the "evolution of the horse," also a topic to which evolutionist publications have devoted a considerable amount of space for a long time. This is a myth, because it is based on imagination rather than scientific findings.
Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution.
Again, this is just not true. Its funny how young earthers concentrate on areas of error and then promote them as being the "most valid evidence".. while ignoring whole reams of truly valid and real evidence. (they also make the claim of whales, though whale phylogeny is tricky, claim that a bird/reptile combination that WAS a hoax is the "only" transition known.. and other false information). The lie is not from evolutionists, sorry.
As I said, start with fish...
Today, however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:
(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural ... _2_12.html
"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.
Thank you for showing how real science works. People put forward evidence and try to explain them with ideas. Then everyone goes out and tries to disprove the theories, evidence. Sometimes information is left stand, sometimes errors are found and occasionally it is found that someone flat out committed fraud.
But what does that have to do with disproving the entire theory of evolution and all lines of evidence we have for the fact that species change over time (note my phrasing, please. Evolution is a theory.. but that species change over time is actually a proven fact).
Viceroy63 wrote:For crying out loud people, If you can't trust the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 edition) then who the hell can you trust?
The 2012 Encyclopedia Britannica edition, for one...
Viceroy63 wrote:People who claim that the Theory of Evolution has some type of foundation should post that evidence rather than say it does. Just post all your evidence for the Theory of Evolution in this thread.
Well, see, that's not how science works. To prove something means that you have to disprove each and every other possibility. In many cases, we don't even really know what all possibilities there are, which is why so many ideas remain scientific theory despite reams of evidence. Your question is part of why I said above that you don't seem to really understand what it actually takes for something to be proven as scientific fact.
Things like Evolutionary theory (or the Theory of Gravity -- that is, how gravity actually works) are unlikely to ever be anything but theory because its essentially impossible for people to directly observe the results or to utterly disprove each and every alternative.
BUT.. even so, you want evidence poste.. fine, its done and I already posted several of the links.
However, given that we are talking about several hundred PAGES, reposting them in this site is just not practical.
but here they are again: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
There are some others, a lot of that came up in the "is God logical?" thread, for example. However, those are some of the most comprehensive and longest standing threads on the subject of evolution.