What would it take to make the Theory of Evolution the Principle of Evolution?

We know that carbon dating is based on many assumptions and the biggest one is that the earth has always been the way it is now. That is simply not true based on many things we now know. If you look at bubble of amber excavated from ancient digs it has been found that the air inside contains 31% oxygen as opposed to 21% in today's world. The dinosaurs nostrils were small and this has puzzled anyone studying evolution because they could not survive in 21% oxygen. We know that reptiles continue to grow larger throughout their lives, so in an environment with lots more oxygen, it's reasonable to see larger animals and also man.

The reason evolution is a theory is that the evidence that has been uncovered is loaded with bad science and assumptions. There are many examples that have been used to prove evolution extends beyond speciation and since we cannot use good scientific methods such as observation, it is impossible to prove evolution from facts.

Evolution is really a religion not science. A good example is the circular reasoning used to date fossils and layers of earth. They use fossils to prove the age of the layers of earth and then they use the layers of earth to date the fossils.

Carbon dating does not work. When they took samples of the lava from Mt. St. Helens, they dated it at about 25 million years old. Wooly mamoths have had their bones dated at 15 million years and their hair at 8 million years. There are many problems with this type of dating. To assume the deterioration rate is the same today as it was thousand of years ago is simply bad science.

Evolution is a religion because it is based on beliefs and assumptions, not facts. How can anyone find a skeleton of bones and then how do you prove it had children? You can't.

All of the so called missing links have been debunked, including Lucy, Nebraska man (they found a tooth and constructed a whole scenario around this guy), Peking man was a farce. There is simply NO proof that we can from a rock that had water pouring over it in some premordial soup. That takes a lot of faith and a lot more than any modern religion could ever dream up. Evolution is a religion, not science.

The whole argument boils down to a simple issue. If GOD created man and the universe, then people would have to accept that he is in control. If someone can figure out a way that we came from primoridal soup and evolution is a fact then man is in control and we can create our own ideas of what should be, proving that GOD is not in control.

The more research that is going on today is pointing very strongly against the evolution theory that extends beyond speciation where an acient dog begat many forms of dogs, but they are still dogs. There is no evidence that dogs became monkeys and monkeys became humans. Many experiments have been performed trying to take the 48 chromosomes of monkeys and mix them with the 46 chromosomes on humans to make a missing link. It just doesn't work.

There is a web site that is offering $250,000 to anyone that can show proof that evolution is a fact. That offer has been open for 11 years now. No one has been able to do that.

There are a lot of unanswered questions that put evolution in a bad light. The moon is moving away from the earth at about 5 feet per day. The magnetism of earth is getting less each year. If you calculate the distance the moon would have been just a few thousand years ago, it would be way too close to the earth and if you consider it being millions of years, the moon would have been touching the earth. No desert on earth has been found to be more than about 4,500 years old max. Why? When looking at the Grand Canyon and the elevations of the canyon, there is no way the river could have created that. So how did it form? How did 40,000 woolly mammoths instantly freeze in 5 hours in the northern hemisphere from about Kansas northward. They still had food in their mouths and were standing up. The temperature had to be about 300 degrees below zero for this to happen?

If you have a belief we evolved from a rock in primordial soup, then where is the proof? Great concept, but there is no proof. Evolution is a religion and should not be taught as fact in any school. All the debunked beliefs should be removed from text books and only factual things put in there. Once that is done, then we can determine what is real and what is fantasy theories. Anyone is free to believe anything they want, but when you look at facts, don't mix facts with fantasy theories. When someone says there are thousands of facts that prove evolution, they are naive and delusional. When Leaky found a human skull below a fossil that had been estimated at millions of years old, he and the people that dated the fossil immediately changed their estimate. Was that good science that dated the original fossil? lol.

Haeckel created a series of embryo's that showed how lower forms of life progressively developed into a human embryo and is still in text books today. In the late 1800's Haeckel was found to be a liar and falsified the drawings and his own university found him to be a fraud, yet these drawings are still being used to demonstrate evolution. It's a farce. The knee joint in Lucy that was used to say she was not an ape, but human was bogus. The bent joint was typical of tree climbing monkeys and clearly does not demonstrate she had any human characteristics. Here skull was completely crushed. Where are any children from her? Theories are good to think up, but without facts to back them up and using bogus things to prove the theory is not science.

Einstein theorized that he could stop or slow down light in an Einstein boze device, but did not have the ability to make it in his day. It was used to slow down and even stop light for an instant. We also know that light has been sped up to 300 times it's known speed of today. Light is NOT a constant. So how can anyone with any intelligence use light to prove something that was millions of years old? How can anyone explain a tree 300 feet tall that is upside down embedded 10,000 feet below the permafrost standing vertical in the Tundra? Oil drillers find these things all the time. Artifacts that are man made in deep layers of coal? Facts are being ignored and instead of trying to prove evolution happened where we all came from some soup, let's examine the real facts and find real answers to these problems.

When someone says we have created evolution in a laboratory with fruit flies and bacteria, that is bogus. All that was proved is well accepted by most everyone including creationists, the speciation of a "kind" or the fruit fly was still a fruit fly with modifications to it's DNA, but still a fruit fly. That does not prove a horse became an elephant! lol. Additionally, the fruit flies that were changed were far less superior to the original fruit fly that was far superior in many ways to the mutants.

good luck

A scientific theory is something that has been verified to such a high degree that it's assumed to be correct as long as it explains the evidence. There is no higher accolade for evolution unless biological change becomes explained with mathematical precision, say a repeatable, measurable rate of mutation/genetic drift.

A scientific law or principle is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

Almost. According to the scientific method, hypothesis, data, and theory cannot become fact until something can be repeated in a laboratory or proven otherwise beyond a shadow of a doubt, scientifically. Since we cannot actually "repeat" evolution in a laboratory (although we have actually done it with bacteria and fruit flies....shhh), it also ends up being like the Theory of Plate Tectonics. We cannot absolutely repeat and prove it in a laboratory. Maybe if we give it a long, long time to observe that it works that way, it will become a Fact of law or principle.

So in a way, it's just semantics.

Many 'Christians' when they hear the word 'evolution' they automatically see it in their minds as Evolution vs. Creation. Atheists likewise. But did you ever stop to think that maybe they are one and the same. We have all evolved. Look up the original Hebrew in the beginning verses of the the Bible and Genesis when they talk about the days of creation. These were not 24 hour days. That same Hebrew word 'yom' has been translated elsewhere in the Bible to mean many things (as just about all biblical Hebrew words are). 'Yom' has also been translated to mean 'period of time.' In six periods of time the creation was created and I believe we are in the 7th (God's rest.) Dig deep and you will find the truth, answers others can only dream for. Ask and you will receive, knock and it will be opened unto you (quoting scripture here.)

The truth will set you free... ask me anything

A theory is an idea that makes sense and is accepted by most scientists. A principle is a fact that was tested scientifically and proven correct.

Therefore for the theory of evolution to become a principle it must be tested scientifically and proven correct.

It is not "only" a theory, it is A theory. The scientific definition of the word "theory" is that of several demonstrated laws that, working together, explain things and allow to make predictions.

In scientific terms, a theory is not an unproved conjecture or hypothesis. It is an accepted system that will be regarded as true until something comes along that disproves it.

For what it is worth, relativity is also a "theory" in the scientific terms, but scores of nuclear reactors, GPS satellites with slowly drifting atomic clocks and so on, do show it is a reliable bunch of principles (to use your word).

So, why not change the terminology, to quiet the creationists? Because it will not work. Call it a principle, and soon enough, the creationists will start chanting that evolution is "only a principle" redefining that word also.

There is an enormous amount that the research scientists don't tell you! An enormous number of questions that remain unanswered; so many more questions than when Darwin originally proposed the idea. In fact, I really doubt, if Darwin were alive today, whether he would still support evolution by natural selection.

I accuse research palaeontologists who support evolution of living in an abstract world of dillusion. I consider it pathetic that they cannot come forth with some other idea for the origin of the modern diverse flora & fauna existing today other than the outdated Darwinistic model.

It isn't widely reported that three French atheist Bio-scientsts (Professor Andrée Tétry, Dr Pierre Gavaudan & Pierre-Paul Grassé), published many papers in the 1950s & 1960s critical of Darwinistic evolution. Their criticisms are valid today having still not been answered but rather, conveniently filed away in a difficult to access location to be dealt with on some future occasion. The first link discusses these issues.

As for me, personally, I went to university some 35 years ago to take up undergraduate studies in geology. At that time, I believed in Darwinistic evolution. Once evolution was explained to me within my palaeontology lectures, I came under increasing doubt. That doubt turned into outright rejection of Darwinism which is my position to this day.

My rejection of Darwinism didn't stop me from completing my undergraduate studies in geology as I could accept nearly all other facets of the subject. Equally, it hasn't stopped me from going on to obtain my M.Sc. in an aspect of geology nor has it prevented me from working, professionally, as a geologist for 20 years.

In February last year, I wrote an account of WHY I reject Darwinism which I posted as a five part thread on the Yahoo UK Science message board. As you may see, it has been visited my many people. However NO-ONE has come forward with robust scientifically argued objections to those proposals that have been put forward.

"Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory;" it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection."

from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_a...

Calling Evolution a "theory" can be confusing, but it doesn't mean that it's not real. I recommend reading at least the intro to the aforementioned Wikipedia article. It explains it much better than I could. To quote once again from Wikipedia, "evolution is both a theory and a fact."

There is the fact of gravitation and the theory of gravitation.

There is the fact of light and the theory of light.

There is the fact of atoms and the theory of atoms.

There is the fact of society and the theory of society.

There is the fact of economics and the theory of economics.

There is the fact of genetics and the theory of genetics.

There is the fact of electromagnetism and the theory of electromagnetism.

There is the fact of electronics and the theory of electronics.

There is the fact of radioactive decay and the theory of radioactive decay.

There is the fact of waves and the theory of waves.

There is the fact of seismology and the theory of seismology.

There is the fact of relativity and the theory of relativity.

There is the fact of management and the theory of management.

There is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

It is a law, but it is not called the law of evolution. It's called THE LAW OF MONOPHYLETIC VARIATION. The Theory of evolution is the study of THE LAW OF MONOPHYLETIC VARIATION.