Evolution is, has, and does possess all the scientific merit and scholarship of that other "religion" curently masquerading as "science": human-caused global warming. Look at the parallels...
Human-caused global warming is not a religion, nor are either science or the study of evolution. The current hysteria over human-caused global warming is beginning, after only a few years, to yield to the evidence to the contrary. The theory of evolution is doing just find.
The adherents of both use ad hominems and various other hystrionics to shout down their opposition.
Ad hominems? Histrionics? Your post is full of both. Calling evolution a religion, for example, and calling Darwin a racist for another. Then we have "frauds, questionable research, controversial evidence, logical fallacies, contradictions, and specious arguments." Wassamatter you? You can't debate the merits of the theory so you have to resort to name calling?
When the adherents of both are not using outright frauds to prop up their respective world views, they resort to questionable research, controversial evidence, logical fallacies and contradictions and specious arguments to confuse the issues and change the subject.
Lets have a little quiz. Name five "outright frauds" perpetrated by evolutionists.
Darwin was a racist. Gould was a Marxist. Al Gore is a Socialist. The "science" was and is used to perpetuate their respective world views of man and his relationships to other men and the world around them. Neither Darwin nor Gore were qualified to write scientifically on their respective subjects.
Darwin not qualified to write scientifically on evolution? Then I suppose the fellow who invented fire was not qualified to do so either. Your ideas concerning these scientists are nonsense. (Gore is on his own; I'm not defending him.)
And while Gould was a scientist, even he questioned the mechanics of natural selection and the fossil record as "proofs" of Darwinian evolution.
Science debates matters using the scientific method, which relies on scientific evidence and well-reasoned theories. Scientists often have differences of opinions on some of the fine points of any theory. The fact that Gould saw some differences, as opposed to some other scientists, in how evolution occurred does not 1) discredit either science or the theory of evolution or 2) support creation.
Further, there are no "proofs" for evolution, nor are there proofs for any other scientific theory. It is dishonest for creationists to require "proof" of a theory before trusting in its accuracy, when they know, or should know, that science does not deal in proof. Try whiskey or mathematics.
(As an aside, creationists require the most stringent of "proof" for evolutionary theory, while accepting creation "science" -- which generally consists of numerous scientific terms strung together using the flimsiest of evidence and reasoning, along with copious quantities of apologetics, all masquerading as real science in hopes of fooling the unwary. Creation "science" makes junk science look accomplished!)
(In other words, there is hardly a consensus - even among evolutionists - just how all this evolution occured, only that - like all "true believers" - they assert it's true).
BS. How much study of the technical journals in the broad fields of evolutionary theory have you done? Any? Or did you dial up a creationist website and stay at a Holiday Inn Express?
Are you familiar with any of these? (They are only a small fraction of the literature)
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics
Both evolution and man-caused global warming exist to ensure one thing: that research grants keep flowing into university coffers. Both are big business.
The only difference between the two is that evolution as a world view has been around a lot longer. That, however, does not make it any more true than the incessant screaming lefties make about their beloved dogma, human-caused global warming.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. The hysteria over "human-caused global warming" is already coming apart because of significant evidence to the contrary.
The theory of evolution has been getting stronger for 150 years, and shows no signs of fading even in the face of increasing attacks from creationists and their latest Trojan Horse, ID.
coyoteman you are posting stuff that we are aware of from evolutionists but the problem is evolutionists dont tell the whole story, they dont show all the evidence and there procedures of science are biased, for instance in carbon dating if a date comes back that doesnt fit an evolutionists preconceived idea of how old something should supposedly be i.e. not found in the supposed date of the no evidence geologic column then what do they do? theythrow it out as a bad date. Thats junk science!
your right about the global warming stuff coyoteman but the evidence for evolution is not getting stronger as a matter of absolute fact it is getting much weaker, if it was even strong at all, only in biased universities has evolution been touted as strong.