” The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. “
So is gravity.
The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, it’s better than this article deserved.
“The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, its better than this article deserved.”
This is typical of the naturalist position: Squash all debate, assume a naturalistic view of the world and the universe, and attack the character of the person with the opposing view rather than discuss the evidence presented. The posted article is a prime example of this - the “striking-out” of every word the Intelligent Design position given in the article instead of dealing with the points discussed. Talk about censorship and dogmatism!
The problem with naturalistic evolutionists is that they assume that because there are demonstrable variations, or evolution, within a specie (micro-evolution) that this somehow proves that there is evolution between kinds (macro-evolution).
Micro-evolution is not the controversial issue - even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution. No one is arguing that there is never any “change” in the universe. Rather, it is the macro-evolution that is the controversy - that naturalistic evolution occurs between kinds (inorganic to organic, plant to fish, fish to mammal, etc.). Naturalistic evolutionists always assumes that because mirco-evolution occurs (which no one disputes) that this automatically proves that macro-evolution also occurs.
Naturalistic evolutionists philosophically assume a naturalist view of the universe - not because they can scientifically prove macro-evolution occurs or that matter always existed and had no beginning, but because they want to rule out the possiblity of a Creator/Designer. They claim that since the idea of the universe being created by some Being is untestable scientifically, it is therefore outside the realm of science to allow for that possibility. But the problem is, they do the very same thing in regard to naturalistic explanations of the universe - their explanations (theories) are also untestable scientifically. Yet, somehow their philosophical assumptions are “scientific”.
Believe what you want, but don’t avoid the debate.
Gravity can be repeatedly proven through experimentation.
Nope, nothing but raw faith and hoaxes since Darwin.