Call creationism a theory if you like, but it still doesn’t negate the fact that evolution is a theory. You can’t push evolution as the one truth when it is still not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Beautiful Feet you have no idea what you’re talking about. Theory in general terms and theory in scientific terms are two different things. Creationism is not a theory in the same way Evolution is. Creationism is just a conjecture, an unscientific idea that hasn’t got a shred of evidence to back it up. Whereas Evolution has tons of evidence backing it up in many different scientific fields.

The Theory of Evolution is as much a fact as the Theory of Gravity and yes they do call it The Theory of Gravity. Will you then deny that gravity is not true?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Madz3000 Evolution is no more a scientific theory than creationism. It can neither be proven or disproven that one living thing has ever moved past micro evolution. There is not one solid piece of evidence showing that a fish turned into a reptile which turned into a mammal which turned into a man. And yes, theory has but one meaning. A theory can be proven or disproven. So yes, while gravity is a “theory”, I can grab a rock, drop it, and prove gravity exists. Why don’t you grab a rock and prove evolution?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hahaha I can’t believe you just said Evolution is no more a scientific theory than creationism. This is Project Reason right? I’m on the correct website aren’t I?

Your comment shows you don’t understand how Evolution works at all. Natural Selection is a theory but that we are descended from lesser creatures is an undeniable fact. The proof is in the genes and the fossils. Have you read the Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins?

“There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.”
Hermann J. Muller - Geneticist, Educator, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’d love the see the particular fossil you’re talking about. I’m aware of thousands of fossils that scientists use as an argument for evolution, and even a few “smoking gun” fossils of reptilianisc birds, but no true evidence of evolution. Nothing exists proving that one species ever evolved into another. There are also thousands of predinosaur species that scientists have simply added to the evolutionary ladder with no more that a jawbone or a vertebrate to build an enitre skeleton with. In my opinion, evolution works like this: if the square peg won’t fit in the round whole, make it fit, and when anyone questions these tactics, degrade and marginalize them. I don’t mind though, the lesser argument always devolves into insult.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Look i’m not going to waste my time arguing with someone who rejects scientific evidence and I don’t care to convince you. I often find the ones who deny evolution are the ones who resort to childish tactics and name calling and so far you haven’t even made a sufficient argument against evolution i’m afraid.

If you are sincere and want to genuinely know why evolution is a fact, then i’ll just leave you with these links to read. Take it or leave but don’t waste my time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Well, I do care to convince you because ignorance breeds ignorance. That said, I didn’t realize I was wasting your time seeing as how I never asked for your input. As far as I’m concerned the only person wasting your time is you, when you look to Wikipedia for scientific facts. Let me leave you with some references of my own:

http://www.discovery.org
http://intelligentdesign.org

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Bahaha you use the website intelligentdesign as your reference. You cannot get much more of a circular logic stance than that. Answersingenesis.com, and I would assume Intelligentdesign.org, uses biased non objective science to prove their points. They go out searching for results that prove what they want; when they don’t get the results they want, they throw them out. That is not science. Science performs an experiment and looks at the trend to say what is happening; not deciding on a trend and finding an experiment to fit it. When you use circular logic to prove your point, you cannot logically think that calling someone else ignorant has any grounds to stand upon.
Also Wikipedia has been proven to a 96% accuracy, due to the thousands of experts who watch their articles; to ensure they are not tampered with. 96% accuracy is also the same accuracy as nearly all encyclopedias.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Is bahaha the generic evolutionist opening word? Anyway, if you’d like to see circular logic, just look to evolutionists who refuse to change or alter schoolbooks, even years after the smallest error is found, in fears that it will lead to the questioning of their religion, evolution. Their are far more scientists believing in intelligent design, or atleast grossly in disagreemnent with evolution than you’ld be led to believe. Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled”  lays out in shameful detail the thuggish tactics used by evolutionists to hold on to power. Lastly, both of the references I left are frequented by and posted on by many peer reviewed scientists in agreement with intelligent design.Given, many of their works on intelligent design or not peer reviewed, it’s hard to leave a peer review when you think it could cost you your career. Again, I’d urge you to watch Stein’s documentary. Lasty, whether you’d write a thesis with the help of Wikipedia (I don’t recommend it) or not, I’ve never heard any professional in any field reference Wikipedia.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Trey
Actually you use wikipedia the same as an encyclopedia which is to get a very simplistic understanding of a subject. No professional would reference wikipedia the same as they would not reference Encyclopedia Britannica.

Your comment “There is not one solid piece of evidence showing that a fish turned into a reptile which turned into a mammal which turned into a man” (*sigh*) is a tired old piece of misinformation. It would be beneficial to you to stop saying that in public. It tells everyone that you don’t even have a basic understanding of the theory which is why Madz3000 linked to the articles. Not as proof but to get you up to speed. Once you get a basic understanding then research the rest. After that, then you can make better arguments. 

*sigh* again. Do yourself a favor and look up the word theory in a dictionary or wikipedia so you no longer embarrass yourself. It has more than one meaning.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Call creationism a theory if you like…”

Thanks for the offer, but I don’t like. No one who understands what the word “theory” means would ever call creationism a theory. It is far too high a compliment to pay to the claim that “god did it!”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I am a malacologist who works with specimens (opalized) of animals who lived about 100 Ma. Descendents of these animals (to the level of genus) are currently extant, and show the changes in characteristics that you would expect over a period of this nature. All of these changes support evolution which, in my own scientific background, has never been referred to as ‘a theory’ by anyboy I have known. Evolution is exactly that, and to challenge it indicates a puerile problem with the challenger.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Robert Hamilton-Bruce FTW!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You’ve never known anyone who has referred to evolution as a theory?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Trey, and “Feet”.  You should see the science they’re doing over at Inst. for Creationist Research…you’d like that too…also the the Creationist Science article on this newsfeed…  Also you’d do well to note that “Expelled” has been debunked due to its misrepresentation to the interviewee…for one thing, as well as the lies told about why the scientists in the movie were “Expelled”.  Their real life bio’s show they were not doing real science…there is no conspiricy, its just crappy, non/psuedo-science…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.