raeanna74

Ok since you refuse to simply admit that evolution is a theory alone and not fact but only supported by certain interpretations of fact then I will offer evidence to argue some of your claims.

First off the Archaeopteryx: There were several articles which appeared in the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues) declaring Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax. These articles were authored by some of the leading scientists in England at the time: Fred Hoyle, R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner.

Hoyle, Watkins, and others decided that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but that the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) were carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.

Next in regards to the moths and goats beards. This is called Microevolution. "Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur.

Microevolution is only a portion of the predetermined DNA code becoming predominant by "natural selection". The basic code is already there and it has not changed. It is that way with the cold and flu virus. It is that which happened with the moths and the goats beards. The code was there to begin with. Which code was predominating was determined by the environment.

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Huxley, Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission that follows.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

And last but not least:
"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."—*T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).

This states so well what you have been doing here. By simply refusing to admit that Evolution is a theory and thus changeable you are claiming it as your religion.

All of the quotes above were either from credible scientific scientific sources which are predominately evolutionistic or they are quoted from respected scientists who are evolutionists themselves.

I have not once in my previous posts tried to disprove evolution because we cannot even debate the two theories until both sides agree that both Evolution and Creation are theories. Now you have information that refutes your so called "proof". At the very least admit it is a theory.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.