You are confusing "not accepted" with "not understood by Creationists".
This is what I mean by religion of Darwin. You took what I wrote and misrepresented it in order to go back to your religious mantra. It is the Darwinist that is the religious fanatic. I never used any creationism in my argument yet you bring it up automatically.
The science behind Darwin's theory is well accepted. It's just slightly too difficult* for Creationists to understand, apparently.
The current science contradicts much of the THEROY of evolution as espoused by Mr. Darwin. You still ignore the timelines involved and the science that contradicts most of the theory. The facts still stand that there are huge holes in the theory of evolution.
Professor Einstein’s theory of general relativity had huge errors in it. It is widely accepted but in this case the scientists admit that there are errors and the theory is adjusted to accommodate the mistakes made. This has not happened with the theory of evolution. You also ignored the fact that none of the data I used came from creationist but from accredited scientists that formerly accepted evolution. An example would be man made global warming. It was the accepted theory, but as scientist looked at the data it is no longer accepted because it was proven incorrect. Too many flaws in the data.
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC
As posted on JU By AldericJourdain Posted April 3 this year in the article Evolution
We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.
Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).
Leauki, it was this article that caused me to write my article. Whether it is a single species that transforms or a species that branches the change is still the same. There is still no fossil record to support this change and the timeline is short enough for man to have documented a change in the lifespan of our species. I understand the theory of how species branch out into other species and remain unconvinced because we still don’t have any transitional species to point to that support the theory. Genetic mutation might work but for it to transform into a new species you would have to have a living mating pair to continue that mutation. What is it that I am missing?
