Question Evolution!

Exactly!Here is another attempt:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

​

From Wiki: Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.

You came to our debate site, you debate here.We can show you where you are wrong, but only if you stick around.

Sorry, they have lied to you.As you must be gathering by now, if you have read any of the responses, your "15 questions" are not the magic bullets to slay evolution that you hoped they would be. They lied to you and to thousands of others. That's all they have, as they can't come up with meaningful questions to oppose the theory of evolution.Let me guess: you are young, just starting out in the real world after an upbringing which was steeped in fundamentalism. You are trying out your early learning in the real world of ideas--of all kind--where those ideas have to compete with one another. And you are finding out that some of what you were taught does not compute... Some of what you were taught is flatly contradicted by empirical evidence.You can try to hide in the cover of CMI's "campaign to refute the falsehoods of evolution" or you can judge the evidence for yourself, after folks out there (and here) have provided some of it to you. If what CMI has been telling you is correct you should have no problem defending it here. It it is incorrect you might actually learn something useful. In either case, you might just stick around here and see what happens. Nice propaganda, but can you back any of that up with real-world evidence? If you want to keep up with the theory of evolution and closely related fields, the place to start is your local library--if it is large enough. Here are the research articles in the latest issue of American Journal of Physical Anthropology:

Population genetic structure of Guizhou snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus brelichi) as inferred from mitochondrial control region sequences, and comparison with R. roxellana and R. bieti

​

Growth and the development of sexual size dimorphism in lorises and galagos

​

Evaluating ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) from southwestern Madagascar for a genetic population bottleneck

​

Association of the FTO rs9939609 polymorphism with obesity in Roma/Gypsy population

​

Mitochondrial haplogroup C4c: A rare lineage entering America through the ice-free corridor?

​

Maxillary changes and occlusal traits in crania with artificial fronto-occipital deformation

​

From parasite encounter to infection: Multiple-scale drivers of parasite richness in a wild social primate population

​

Lumbar lordosis of extinct hominins

​

A melting pot of multicontinental mtDNA lineages in admixed Venezuelans

​

A new pliopithecid genus (primates: pliopithecoidea) from castell de barber (valls-peneds basin, catalonia, spain)

​

The use of biocultural data in interpreting sex differences in body proportions among rural Amazonians

Are you prepared to debate any of those topics? Or even to read and understand them?A lot of these articles are free at this link:Just a moment...Give it a try. You might actually learn something.And you should also consider that a number of us here at this site are familiar with this journal, and many others like it. (I first started subscribing to it about 30 years ago.)To impress us you will have to do a bit of studying and stop relying on creationist websites that are lying to you.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Except that creationists are forced to deny or misrepresent a lot of that evidence, as it otherwise contradicts rather than supports creationism. There is an example of denying evidence. There are lots of transitional fossils. This is well documented in the Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200. Here is one of the examples: Unfortunately you'd have to do some research and study to understand this example, so most likely you'll resort to the standard creationist tactic of denying the evidence, or misrepresenting it somehow. When there are competing ideas, empirical evidence is used to test them. Creation "theory" has been tested and found to be contradicted by that evidence. There are transitionals, and there was no global flood during human times. There certainly was no ice age within the past 6,000 years. And there is good evidence for evolution rather than a common designer--there is simply no evidence at all for supernatural critters. That is a religious belief, not something that has been supported by evidence.

It seems I omitted one important creationist tactic: ignoring the evidence.It has been well over a day and there has been no response to the evidence I presented on transitionals...

Another bump for Chuck77.

Paging Chuck. Paging Chuck77.

​

Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.