Again, maybe we should start teaching that gravity (which is also a scientific theory) is not "100% fact" despite all the evidence that supports it.

Why not? It is a fact. It happens. It exists.

Micro-evolution exist, macro-evolution is not proven at all with no "links" (species halfway mutated from another species) found. Even Charles Darwin said his ideas were just a theory... In fact he died believing in divine creation and is buried in Westminster Abbey for christ sake! I have personally seen his tombstone.

[quote]macro-evolution is not proven at all with no "links" (species halfway mutated from another species) found.[/quote] Either you're trolling, or you need to learn how to actually research and understand what you're criticizing before you open your mouth.

I wish this site still outlawed these discussions... Withdrew my post because these discussions never go well on the internets. I was not trolling by the way.

These discussions mustn't go well for [i]you,[/i] obviously, because you just asserted something [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils]that is blatantly false.[/url] And what makes me even more concerned for you is that you assumed evolution is not based on substantiated observations, which is also an assumption brought about by your own ignorance of evolution, clearly.

If it was based on "substantiated observations" it would not be a -blam!-ING THEORY. There is a reason why many of the worlds smartest men do not believe in it... Fine, if you think you are a glorified monkey, cool. I am a entirely different creature vastly superior to any monkey, hand crafted by a creator. I am not convincing you, you are not convincing me, this is a -blam!-ing game website and I really hope they get rid of political/religious threads soon...

So clearly you've demonstrated that you don't know what a scientific theory is, nor are you aware that simply because an explanation for a phenomenon is based on "substantiated observations" doesn't mean you can put little-to-zero effort into understanding it and expect it to make sense, because that's what I'm getting from your visibly poor understanding of evolution. While evolution is based on enormous amounts of empirical evidence, your alternative is based on nothing. Literally, nothing. And do you know what that evidence is? No, clearly not, because you don't understand it. Again, you should read things before opening your mouth in attempts to criticize it. Don't attempt to dumb-down evolutionary biology by assuming I'm a "glorified monkey," because humans didn't evolve from modern monkeys (Further demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about). You're stubborn as a mule, and you, again, need to keep your mouth closed about things you don't know anything about. Provide a logical counterargument and then perhaps I'll listen.

K.

I see why you don't want these discussions to be allowed, because you likely fear the inevitable slaughter that'll rain down on you.

You have no grasp on what evolution or a scientific theory is. First off, we aren't 'glorified monkeys', we just share a common ancestor with them. Secondly, it is a theory [b]because[/b] it has strong evidence and observations backing it. Seriously, understand what you're arguing about before you open your mouth.

k.

Your reply really shows your intelligence level.

For every 'link' that is found, creationists demand a link between the link and the two previously-known species. This is why nobody takes creationists seriously, except themselves, because they are obviously in enormous denial. As for Darwin, yes, he was afraid of what his theories meant for Christianity. Does fear of a fact mean the fact isn't true?