Hypocrisy, thy name is Boaz.

You accuse Steven of building a strawman (which he isn't) and then proceed to build a number of your own.

The argument against abiogenesis is not an argument against the evolution of species.

The argument about "dark matter" has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. Whoops.

You say fundies don't reject evolution through natural selection and proceed to tell us through nonsense statements (ie dog to mammoth) that they do. The fact that evolutionary scientists would say the same thing, ie a dog won't become a mammoth, does not support your argument, because the reasoning behind it is different.

MAAAAAATE, read some of the evolutionary texts before commenting and then respond on topic. Thanks.

Dear Steven,

When scientists speak of the "theory" of evolution, they are referring not to "whether" evolution takes place, but rather "how" the process can be explained.

Darwin's theory was perhaps best summarized by the sociologist Herbert
Spencer in his phrase "the survival of the fittest." Darwin called this process "natural selection."

Like all scientific knowledge, evolutionary theory is being continually evaluated and refined as new evidence comes to light.

Some modern theorists, for example, argue that new species sometimes form when a natural barrier, like a river or mountain range, permanently splits off part of an animal or plant population from the rest of its species. Over countless generations, minor variations in the genetic composition of the two groups may become magnified, particularly if each is subject to different environmental pressures or opportunities. Over time, the two groups may become so genetically distinct that they can no longer inter-breed - meaning that they become different species.

Some modern paleontologists, too, claim that evolution sometimes happens much faster than Darwin envisioned. The fossil evidence often shows new species evolving quite rapidly - perhaps in as few as tens or hundreds of thousands of years - and then persisting over a much longer time with only minor changes.

These evolutionary "spurts" are probably caused by relatively sudden changes in the species' environments - for example, by the spread of deserts, the shrinking of ice caps, the rise and fall of sea levels, the extinctions of old predators or food resources and the appearance of new ones, the effects of volcanos, and perhaps even catastrophic impacts of large comets or meteors on the earth's surface.

What of our own origins?

There are still long gaps in our knowledge of our own origins. Peering into our ancestral past is like peering into a landscape shrouded in mist. The mist, parts periodically to reveal the dim outlines of creatures like us yet not like us, but growing more recognizably human with the passage of time.

It would be interesting to look into our distant future and see - did we survive? And how well?

Yo! Bugsy.... who the heck were you ripping into there mate.. I thought it was me for a moment but then.. what you said didn't connect.

I did not deny 'evolution by natural selection' (meaning evolution of existing species into better adapations of that species for the environment it faces over time)

I denied that the theory can be used to project BACK to the wild faith based assumption, of spontaneous emergence of life without an intelligent Creator.

Notice Foxy's terminology "some paleantologists 'believe'"... some scientists 'claim'.... others 'think'.....

One would 'think'..if such a theory has an microgram of credibility, that at least some evidence of 'creation start ups' would have been discovered on mars.. but.. sorry.. no luck..gong...buzzz..

It was dark ENERGY..not dark matter..

I'll guarantee that if I did this :)

"I BELIEVE IN ADAPTATION OF SPECIES BY NATURAL SELECTION"
"YES..I REALLY DO..."
"SERIOUSLY.. I DO"

..... some clown among you will come back and blather:

WHYYY do you fundies 'reject evolution' ? .. what a joke :)

".....Hitler could see this but has been portrayed as a mad-man, so no one can hear his messages now.
I'll be impressed if this post is allowed."
Posted by GI_Jane, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 8:06:22 AM

Trust me dear, ANYTHING is allowed on OLO. (Unless it is a parody of Australians which I wrote and submitted; and had rejected on racist grounds. Which is what I was after. The 'parody' was a test. AFTER it was rejected;-AFTER-; I submitted another load of racist drivel on those of darker skin; same result......., not much then choice really..).

I'm sorry I misunderstood Hitler. It's so irritating when heroes like that are so terribly misjudged..

then choice?? = choice then!

"One would 'think'..if such a theory has an microgram of credibility, that at least some evidence of 'creation start ups' would have been discovered on mars.. but.. sorry.. no luck..gong...buzzz."

Why? Are you suggesting that there's a theory that if Earth has conditions amenable to life, then all the other planets in our solar system should too. If so, can you cite it? Darwin certainly said nothing of the sort and I can't believe any other credible scientist would, as it's a ludicrous theory.

In fact, there is no piece of evidence so far found in the entire universe that disproves the theory of evolution. If there were, the theory would come crashing down.

Evolution does not seek to explain the origins of the big bang. As Foxy so eloquently says, it explains the "how", not the "why". If you believe your religion does explain the "why", Boaz, good for you. You are unfortunately wrong, but I'd fight for your right to make that mistake.

Teaching kids intelligent design as part of the science curriculum would be an absolute abomination against science and reason and truth. They can, of course, safely learn all the theories in RE.