Evolutions Deniers - Please Explain

How about your faith-based responses? Do they qualify? Leavert: Choice 1 - Nobody did it (no intelligent agent) Choice 2 - Somebody did it (intelligent agent) Choice 3 - ___________??? Fargale: "A different more refined evolution theory, that we will have 5 years from now as our discoveries continue."

Scientific theories are ALWAYS being reexamined, refined and improved based on the new discoveries and research that are always being made. You should know that.

Meanwhile, you cling to faith,not evidence

Which do you think is more likely? -A theory with a hole in it, but is otherwise a sturdy theory. -A story which claims that a single entity created everything that exists in 6 days, with out any substantiating proof.

There are two problems with your statement. The first is that no one has said man evolved from apes so there can be no link between man and apes. The current thinking is that man and apes are separate branches on the evolutionary tree and that we share a conmen ancestor. The other problem is your bringing up the old straw man that the theory of evolution is not 100% proven. It is the nature of theories that they are not 100% proven. If they are they become laws. That being said, The theory of evolution is supported with enough evidence that only a fool can reject it as fact. The story of creation is just that, a story with no supporting facts.

Wrong. In Science, proven theories are still called theories. Laws are very rare, in fact. The theory of gravity is still just a theory. Do you doubt it too?

You're absolutely right that macroevolution has not been proven but that's not why it's not considered a law. Dogmatic evolutionists erroneously think "science" must be always based on naturalistic, materialistic philosophy: they think that to admit that evolution might not be a fact would weaken their whole belief system, so they compensate by claiming the theory is fact. There is a growing number of objective scientists who no longer place confidence in the evolutionary theory. Their views don't receive the same publicity and media attention as evolutionists advocates, even though the evolutionists have less in the way of empirical support for what they say. Under these circumstances , their insistence that evolution is a fact, has become ludicrous, yet because of their boldness, their false claim is unwittingly believed by many. Most people think that science follows the evidence wherever it leads. But it is impossible to avoid letting our world view color our interpretation of the facts. Naturalists often pretend that they don't operate from any philosophical basis. As you can clearly see the constant attention and long hours that these psters devote to this topic isn't exactly because they have a thing for science. In fact you'd be amazed given their bold statements at how little science thy actually know! Just the other day this guy was telling some supposed faith-minded believer that Carbon14 was used to date rocks! In all fairness, he did do some quick research and later retract his statement. But like us they're learning as they go along. Let's hope for their sake Talk Origin doesn't shut down on them.(lol)

I think the guy's name who I spoke of was called Fargale or something like that.