You can be refuted with Newton's own words, "If I have seen a little farther than others, it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants". Science advances by building on the efforts of those who went before. Newton and numerous other brilliant scientists prior to 1800 had no opportunity to formulate the Theory of Evolution because science and our knowledge of the world had not advanced to that point.
Remember, you are the one who claims to be a descendant of an ape.
The time-honoured response of the creationist who has lost the argument
I must also comment on your confusion between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is the basis on which theories are constucted. You and I have the exact same evidence, yet we each come up with different theories. I see the Grand Canyon and see a gigantic dam burst.
But in that case we don't have the same evidence. No-one with the slightest knowledge of how water and rock interact in a dam burst would see such a phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.
... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill
The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.
. I see aquatic fossils on mountain peaks and say "Noah's Flood", you look at the exact same evidence and come up with laughable theories of how mountains rose up from no where, for no know reason, and did this magically without disturbing the fossil record on top.
So now plate tectonics, an observed and well understood phenomenon is completely wrong too. Continental drift has been tracked and measured. If you wish to show that plate tectonics is "laughable" then you need to discredit the ample evidence for it.
Yet despite the fact that your interpretation of the evidence leads you to make outrageous unsuportable claims, you have the gaul to say "Creationists are so silly" because for thousands of years we stick with the exact same theory that is consistant with the evidence rather than invent new ones only to be replaced by new ones when a different person interprets the same evidence differently (again).
Yes, it is silly to stick to a set of bronze-age religious beliefs that have been shown in numerous ways to conflict with the evidence. You have not substantiated your repeated assertions that mainstream science is in conflict with the evidence.
Also, it seems that you are sticking to the debate tactics of fellow evolutionist Joseph Goebbels...
Fallacy that because a bad person believed the theory it must be tainted
...in repeating a big lie often enough by somehow suggesting that only evolutionary thinking allows a person to invent the internet.
The science behind the technology of the internet is the same science that you reject. The fact that the growth of the internet has shown some interesting analogies to evolutionary behaviour is a separate issue that you appear to be confusing with the science and technology involved.
Just because you are a Christophobe isn't proof that evolution is science. Evolution is just the ramblings of God haters looking for any reason to call an ape "Daddy" .
More empty rhetoric. Incidentally, I am an ape too (like everyone else).
What are you saying? That prior to Darwin there weren't any fossils? There weren't layers of dirt holding different kinds of rocks? What kind of unique scientific technology did Darwin haul out with him to the Galápagos Islands that was crucial in the formation of his so-called "theory"? So new and cutting edge that man had to wait until the 19th century before he could possibly have a grasp on his origins?
Come on, you're really a troll aren't you... (you can admit it)
But in that case we don't have the same evidence. No-one with the slightest knowledge of how water and rock interact in a dam burst would see such a phenomenon in the Grand Canyon.
OK, I see the required gratuitous insult, but I am searching... and I don't see your explanation or an attempt of a refutation (I guess "science" only requires insults)
... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill
The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.
Yes, but the if you look carefully at a topographical map, you will see that the headwaters of the Colorado river are several thousand feet lower than the Kaibob uplift. I much prefer to hear your theories about "how water and rock interact" in such a way where a creek that is at lower elevation than the rock it is supposed to chew a mile's depth through accomplishes what it did. I am also intrigued by your theories in hydrodynamics of how these remnant tributaries break from the river, not lead to it. Don't rivers usually join not separate?
But no, you must scoff at the Creationist as you ignore the maps, ignore the fact that a huge basin lies to the north of the Grand Canyon, and that how the "rock" would break apart isn't so hard to understand when one considers the type of rock and the Creationist's simple and consistent with the evidence explanation of how not-yet-solidified "rock" would break apart when saturated with water.
LOL!!! Do you stand-up work? Let me guess how you perceive the existence of the internet. (oh, this is priceless)
Billions and billions of years ago there was nothing.
One day, out of a chaos of random elements (that evolutionists conveniently exempt themselves from describing how it got there) copper and silicon molecules bonded together in extraordinary ways, all without any intelligent input whatsoever. These copper and silicon molecules, bonded with plastics gold and other synthetic materials (one of the missing links here) and organized themselves into routers, switches, computers, modems, wires and power supplies. There were countless beneficial mutations of the power supplies as one formed out of the chaos that supplied one million volts of power and blew up the entire primeval internet, but because there were billions and billions of years, and 10^80 molecules all working synergistically for a common goal it was able to rebuild itself and "learn" from the mistakes of a million years ago. One day, a scientist on contract for DARPA went to the Galápgos islands and saw a variety of modems, some DSL, other cable, and he found the "fossil" ancestor of the cable modem called the ISDN, buried in layers of earth below this, he was even able to spot a Radio Shack 300 Baud plug-in modem (whose parents were US Robotics). So excitedly he returned to his native homeland deep inside a government bureaucracy and drew gill slits on the embryonic modem, which after full gestation turned into a Cisco Router. He proved that all elements of the internet had a common ancestor in the telegraph. A single transistor, with the cathode missing was found buried in a sanitary landfill, miles away, a broken RJ13 cable connector was discovered, and soon museums and libraries around the world had taken these two "fossils" and constructed an elaborate display of what is now AOL....
Then Al Gore came along, and said that He was the Creator of the Internet. After that claim, millions of unthinking myrmidons who readily accepted the Words of the Creator Al Gore soon wanted to worship him as a President over all. Others looked at the internet and said "Surely this had to come about by intelligent design" yet they looked at Al Gore and didn't see intelligence there, and went on New Age theories and syncretisms of evolution and catastrophism. Maybe Al Gore sort of put the elements together and through evolved design over six "ages" finally became what it is today. Then there are people like you, who look at the Internet and say, that it all came about by itself with absolutely no intelligent design at all.
Please don't project your the lack of intelligence in your posts by saying that there is a lack of intelligence put into the internet.