There are not many things which have generated more argument than the theory of evolution.

Science is a system for understanding the world through observable facts and evidence. Science does not form an opinion of it's own. It is human beings that form opinion based on what they observe and depending on their level of logic and objectivity.

The evolution theory of Charles Darwin attempted to explain the origin of things/life by arguing that living things evolved, that is, to things changed over time, with new species of animals and plants emerging from the old. This theory was once popular, expecially among those of us who had grown disillusioned with religion.

Darwin based his opinion on some facts we can also observe. Consider the following:
1. Animals can be arranged from simple to complex. It seemed they were graduating from simpler forms to more complex forms, e g; fish-tadpole-reptiles-birds-animaks walking on four legs-human beings walking on two legs.
Human beings are the last observable stage.
2. Animals and plants can adapt to their environment.
3. Survival of the fittest. The living thing with the most ability to survive in an environment survives, while others die off.

While these are observable facts, Darwin's has no fact to support his opinions/conclusion that they are proves that things were not created by an intelligent being, but they created themselves by changing over time. Facts that disprove Darwin's conclusion include:
1. While to things can be arranged from simple to complex, there is no prove that they changed. They could therefore, have emerged in the world that way. The arrangement does not necessarily mean that they were transforming from form to the other.
2. If they transformed, there should be some forms that will serve as links. These links are missing.
3. No new specie has ever emerged from old ones, inspite of the millions of plants and animals, over thousands of years.
Adaptation, reproduction, genetic mutation are basic things of nature. They do not support evolution.

Perhaps, these are the reasons that led Darwin to renounce the evolution theory at his death bed, though this is highly contested by fans of the theory.

But whether Darwin renounced it or not, the facts remain:

1. Things did not create themselves.
2. Orderly arrangement is not the same as transformation.
3. Nothing has since evolved to prove the theory as true.

That is why many scientists do not support the theory of evolution. It is not a law. It remains a theory, even after years of its promulgation.

Nobody is perfect. Darwin probably formed his idea from what he saw in his physical world. Non of us makes perfect conclusions all the time.

butterfly777:
There are not many things which have generated more argument than the theory of evolution.

Science is a system for understanding the world through observable facts and evidence. Science does not form an opinion of it's own. It is human beings that form opinion based on what they observe and depending on their level of logic and objectivity.

The evolution theory of Charles Darwin attempted to explain the origin of things/life by arguing that living things evolved, that is, to things changed over time, with new species of animals and plants emerging from the old. This theory was once popular, expecially among those of us who had grown disillusioned with religion.

Darwin based his opinion on some facts we can also observe. Consider the following:
1. Animals can be arranged from simple to complex. It seemed they were graduating from simpler forms to more complex forms, e g; fish-tadpole-reptiles-birds-animaks walking on four legs-human beings walking on two legs.
Human beings are the last observable stage.
2. Animals and plants can adapt to their environment.
3. Survival of the fittest. The living thing with the most ability to survive in an environment survives, while others die off.

While these are observable facts, Darwin's has no fact to support his opinions/conclusion that they are proves that things were not created by an intelligent being, but they created themselves by changing over time. Facts that disprove Darwin's conclusion include:
1. While to things can be arranged from simple to complex, there is no prove that they changed. They could therefore, have emerged in the world that way. The arrangement does not necessarily mean that they were transforming from form to the other.
2. If they transformed, there should be some forms that will serve as links. These links are missing.
3. No new specie has ever emerged from old ones, inspite of the millions of plants and animals, over thousands of years.
Adaptation, reproduction, genetic mutation are basic things of nature. They do not support evolution.

Perhaps, these are the reasons that led Darwin to renounce the evolution theory at his death bed, though this is highly contested by fans of the theory.

But whether Darwin renounced it or not, the facts remain:

1. Things did not create themselves.
2. Orderly arrangement is not the same as transformation.
3. Nothing has since evolved to prove the theory as true.

That is why many scientists do not support the theory of evolution. It is not a law. It remains a theory, even after years of its promulgation.

Nobody is perfect. Darwin probably formed his idea from what he saw in his physical world. Non of us makes perfect conclusions all the time.

So much wrong information here but let's start with Darwin's so called deathbed recant of evolution, can you show us the source for that information?

LordReed:


So much wrong information here but let's start with Darwin's so called deathbed recant of evolution, can you show us the source for that information?

1. There are many sources in it online. Just google it.
2. I said there that some people do not agree that he recanted. That's also common knowledge.

But the facts remain the same. Maybe you did not read well before commenting...

butterfly777:


1. There are many sources in it online. Just google it.
2. I said there that some people do not agree that he recanted. That's also common knowledge.

But the facts remain the same. Maybe you did not read well before commenting...

You stated it as a matter of fact so is it or isn't it a fact?

Besides if there many sources which one are you basing it on? Just cite one.

LordReed:


You stated it as a matter of fact so is it or isn't it a fact?

Besides if there many sources which one are you basing it on? Just cite one.

Many things written there are common knowledge. No need telling what many people know. I didn't give source for the fact that no new specie has evolved, and the likes. These are common knowledge.

Besides, pay attention to the main facts of the discussion. History can be doctored. And whether he recanted or not does not determine the truth or falsity of the facts, which is there is no evidence or prove that evolution is true.

And I didn't want to make the post too long by quoting this and that.

butterfly777:


Many things written there are common knowledge. No need telling what many people know. I didn't give source for the fact that no new specie has evolved, and the likes. These are common knowledge.

Besides, pay attention to the main facts of the discussion. History can be doctored. And whether he recanted or not does not determine the truth or falsity of the facts, which is there is no evidence or prove that evolution is true.

All you said is total balderdash, there are literal tons of evidence for evolution. The reason why you won't quote sources is because it will expose you as posting false information.

LordReed:


All you said is total balderdash, there are literal tons of evidence for evolution. The reason why you won't quote sources is because it will expose you as posting false information.

I have put forward the clear facts. No one can beat that. You are just sidestepping the min issues.

butterfly777:


I have put forward the clear facts. No one can beat that. You are just sidestepping the min issues.

You put forward false information, facts don't exist in a vacuum. You won't list any sources because you just posted balderdash.