Thanks for that. I don't deny evolution because of a creationist belief,
because evolution still does not deny God. However, I think it falls
short indeed and should not be called a fact. There are faults with it
which includes the genetic info. problem at the core. There is NO KNOWN
PROCESS WHICH ADDS NEW INFO TO THE GENETIC CODE. Genetic changes can only
be blamed on chemical or nuclear influences which are only known to
damage the genetic code. This is why i say that the explanation of
variation within species is a better explanation because species evolving
into other species is NOT a fact, it is an unproven hypothesis with some
definite holes in it. And for something to be proven it can't have such
holes in it. It is an accepted theory by  many scientist and I will not
just trust that they are not morons or satanic(I don't beleive in satan
like that) because they could have the own agenda indeed. They are human
beings just like the rest of us.

Godbless,
Anwar


 Gary Orlando wrote:
>
> But it's "JUST a THEORY"
>
>
>      This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a
> page of it's own.  This
>      comment is born out of misuse of the word theory.  People who make
> statements like: "But
>      it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not
> a fact," don't really know
>      the meanings of the words their using.
>
>      Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis.  A theory does
> not change into a
>      scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence.  A
> theory will always be a
>      theory, a law will always be a law.  A theory will never become a law,
> and a law never was a
>      theory.
>
>      The following definitions, based on information from the National
> Academy of Sciences,
>      should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
>
>      A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.  Kepler's
> Laws of Planetary
>      Motion are a good example.  Those laws describe the motions of
> planets.  But they do not
>      explain why they are that way.  If all scientists ever did was to
> formulate scientific laws, then
>      the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and
> very mysterious.
>
>      A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon.
> Unlike laws, theories
>      actually explain why things are the way they are.  Theories are what
> science is for.  If, then, a
>      theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask
> yourself this: "What part of
>      that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?"  The answer is
> nothing!  There is no
>      reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
>
>      For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel.
> It is a fact that you
>      can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall
> towards the center.  Then
>      there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of
> gravity, based on
>      observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's
> General Theory of Relativity
>      replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which
> was the first complete
>      mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
>
>      There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a
> synthesis of many scientific
>      fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology,
> geology, zoology,
>      microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced
> lamarckism, which
>      replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather),
> which expanded the ideas
>      of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification
> of Karl von Linne.
>      (see also:  Darwin's Precursors and Influences)
>
>      So there is the theory of evolution.  Then there is the FACT of
> evolution.  Species change--
>      there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable
> range of genetic variation in
>      a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations.
> Creationists readily admit that a
>      "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different
> species (i.e. a dog
>      "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of
> domestic dogs) but they insist
>      that it must stop there.  They never give any reason for this
> fabricated limitation-- they just
>      deny that it can happen.  They just can't accept macroevolution,
> because it contradicts the
>      "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the
> degree that a species can change.
>      Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a
> amphibian-like species, an
>      amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a
> reptilian-like species can
>      evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can
> evolve into the modern
>      human species.
>
>      The process (simply stated) involves the genetic potential of many
> different types of
>      individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual
> organisms, and the deaths of
>      those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the
> total environment as other
>      individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited
> individuals allows for the
>      increased reproduction of the better suited ones, which initiates a
> shift in the appearance and
>      function of the species. Without limitation.  There is more genetic
> stuff to it than that, but that
>      is basically how it works.
>
>      Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all
> species alive today have
>      descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We
> know it happens
>      because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for
> longer lived species there is
>      genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other
> scientific explanation for
>      the diversity of living species.  Evolution is a very well established
> scientific concept with a
>      massive amount of physical evidence for support.  It is not a guess.
> Evolution is the basis of
>      modern biology, and  universities and laboratories across the world
> are engaged in research
>      that explores evolution.
>
>      You don't have to 'believe' in evolution. You can trust that the
> thousands of scientists who
>      study this phenomenon aren't morons, or Satanists. You can accept the
> general idea that life
>      propagates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to
> improved survival, and
>      that as those modifications are passed over time, many modifications
> can lead to a species
>      that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to
> accept?
>
>      I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra,
> chemistry or astronomy).
>      Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used
> to substantiate it.
>      Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence,
> molecular experimentation, and
>      it goes hand in hand with geology.
>
>      Some people can say "Well, scientists weren't there... they don't know
> what happened.  It's
>      still faith."   But that is mere blind objectionism, like an ostrich
> hiding its head in the sand.
>      There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past.
> My favorite analogy is
>      forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and
> scientists can
>      reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty
> person-- with such accuracy
>      as to cause that man to receive the death penalty.  For example, most
> Americans are
>      convinced of O.J. Simpson's guilt... even though no one was there to
> see him do it.   The
>      situation with evolution is much the same-- reconstructing the past
> through examination of the
>      evidence.  It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time
> and goes on to be
>      considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but
> evolution is one that has.
>
>      See also:  Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
>
>      This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:
>
>                 Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
>                 The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has
> changed. In
>                 scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch"
> as it does
>                 in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of
> natural
>                 phenomena built up logically from testable observations and
>                 hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific
> explanation we
>                 have for the enormous range of observations about the
> living world.
>                 Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an
> observation.
>                 But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has
> been
>                 tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a
> compelling
>                 reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The
> occurrence of
>                 evolution in this sense is a fact.  Scientists no longer
> question whether
>                 descent with modification occurred because the evidence
> supporting
>                 the idea is so strong.
>
>                 Why isn't evolution called a law?
>                 Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas
> theories
>                 explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics
>                 describe what will happen under certain circumstances;
>                 thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.
> Laws, like
>                 facts and theories, can change with better data. But
> theories do not
>                 develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence.
> Rather, theories
>                 are the goal of science.
>