Dinosaurs Breathed Like Birds

[dhuusa_deer]

Mowhawk,

"According to my good doctor, evolution isn't completely denounced in Islam as it is in Christianity, some aspects of evolution is in line with Quraanic thought like creatures coming from water originally."

Evolution is not something you can nit-pick, its all encompassing theory about the origin and evolution of all living things. To my best knowledge, Islam and christianity are totally at variance with the theory of evolution.

"Muslims do not however believe man and ape (dhuuso dere's ancestors)came from the same source."

What muslims believe is irrelevant. Objective historical facts are what we are trying to discern here. Personal opinions lacking supporting documentation are as convincing as a qabiilist preaching Islamic virtues.

"What Quran do reject is that Man is from apes. Because here in matters of Mankind Islam believes in Creationism."

So you believe the earth is 6000 years old and all humans descended from adam and eve shortly after the earth was created?

"And no there is no mention in the Quraan denying the existance of Dinosaurs."

Yah, but the quran says the earth is only few thousand years old and dinosaurse lived thousands of years ago. So in-born contradiction, don't you think?

"As the Quraan had said that there were other creatures which were created before mankind."

What creatures?

"And the Quraan also acknowledges the existance of other intelligent beings other than Mankind."

Like aliens?

"In Islam, Angels' sole purpose is to serve Allah without any question and the luxury of free-will."

There is no free will in the world of omniscient and omnipotent God with free will to create ONLY those he wants.

"Allah knows Best"

Unfortunetly, what Allah knows to be 'best' is of no value to us since he doesnt tell us PERSONALLY. Its something we have to figure out by ourselves.

[dhuusa_deer]

Gamadid,

"As for debates like these with atheists, it will bear no fruits as their objective is not to gain knowledge but to prove their dogma to be superior."

Typical ignorant cop-out. But I must commend you, instead of making fool of yourself, you dropped out of race you know you have no chance of winning.

[dhuusa_deer]

Gogarad,

"unlike some of us i have a "mind" of my own and i dont follow others or bark after them all the time darling"

I'm assuming the above statement is directed at me. What do you mean by 'mind'?!?

Last time I checked, mind is the total sum of all of the brain's neurological activities. Since every living, breathing, talking being must have a 'mind', which is projection of the brian, I must have a mind. So what do you mean don't have 'mind' of my own.

Do you mean I don't have my own ideas/thoughts? If so, then provide evidence. Show how this is true. Otherwise you're making fool out of yourself by making vacuous and false statements in place of factual and substantive ones.

[dhuusa_deer]

couldublvd aka pinocchio,

Lets get somethings straight, porkchop. I will not stoop to your level and get in back and forth insult exchanges. I'm not gay, unlike you. If I got something to say to someone, I say it to them, IN THEiR FACE and not behind a computer screen. You are a fag, you ugly wanker!

I have better things to do with my time. Like argue with facts and engage in fruitful discussions. Having said that, I won't hesistate to dish out my own verbal venoms. But there is caveat in it -- when I do so, it will by my choice and not everytime you open that horizontal twat on your face you call mouth. Got it?!?!? you fuking numbnut!!!

You are a sad rent boy. You can't defend what you post, so you do the easiest trick in the book -- insult. Try harder!!!!!!!!!!! You pathetic lowlife. I have humiliated you by exposing your inadequate intellect time and AGAIN. You have been exposed to be a cheat. You are INCAPABLE of debating civilly. The only thing you can do is open your slackjaw and spew shit. You are not worth even responding to, you retarded nutfuk.

"you.....are a simply a wasted semen ,

Wasted semen?

Wasted semen = semen that failed to acheive its goal -- pro-create. The fact I'm writing to you now proves you wrong. You, permenant menstrual syndrome suffering buffoon, is this the best opening insult the total sum of your intellect can come up with?

"you probably mad cause of your dead beat cracker dad who introduced you to Kaafirsm"

Cracker?

You yoyo wannabe, you're so fuked up that I'm beginning feel sorry for you. Not only is your imitation so pathetic and lame but you're unoriginal and uncreative. Come up with something relevant to my character, you stupid git and pull up your pants. My father is somali, you fuko!!!

My father didn't introduce me to atheism. My free and far suprior mind did. But since your total IQ is the sum of all your fingers, I don't expect you to realise you believe consists of fairy tales of children story stuff. Sad!!! Keep looking in the sky, who knows maybe you may see the much talked about pink flying elephant.

"No Somali man leaves his kid to be a fuccin "Godless" Idiot"

What do you know about somali men. You are gay, black wannabe and a coward. I wish I could meet you in real life, becuz I would rip off your spine and give you a new one. You fuktard!

"I don't blame you though, I blame your mother for laying down for the cracker that you call father"

Sorry, I don't insult mothers. That is for low life sissies like you.

[dhuusa_deer]

Aiman,

"Because those so called "point of view" or "opinion" contain vulgar and profanity and they are nothing but Irrelevant and we don't tolerate such."

You pathetic liar!!!!!!!!!

Oh, wait a minute, are you Al-Taqiyah-ing?!? Is that what you are doing, lying for the sake of Islam.

You make an accusation, back it up. Provide your evidence showing where the 'irrelevants', 'kuffars', 'atheists' FIRST started hurling insults and profanities against the good muslims of this site. In this thread.

I'm waiting.

[Globetrotter-]

Dhuuso, a theory is not neccessarily correct and stands to be refuted. Of all the theories that have been generated "evolution" theory remains to be the most contested. It has been challenged by great scientists/philosophers for their fallibility and the lack of replicability. Do not get me wrong, I am not alien to the explanations of science in contrast to faith based stories.

But I am for emprical evidence- Of all the philosophers of science, I am a student of Karl Popper and according to him evolution theory, Marx's theory and Freud's theory are not scientific theories.- convince me

But truth claiming should be avoided by scientists. Religious beliefs are dogma prone, which is actually what differentiates them from science- Truth claiming as regards the theory of evolution or any other theory for that matter is not science.

If you look at many of the theories developed to explain the human race, you may note that there is the presence of a religious element- those who devised the theories, the sources used to discern or validate are in most cases religious sources.

For instance, the man whose name appears on the lips of many evolutionists (including moi) Charles Darwin never declared himself an atheist-in fact, he has never drawn a parallel line between his beliefs and his anthropoligical observations in the Galagapos islands- He and his french counterpart (Lamax?) differed on this point.

The history of dinosaurs, their habitat, how they evolved has recently come under fire from a range of scientists who claim it is based on fairy tales- or pseudo science.

[dhuusa_deer]

Globetrotter,

"Dhuuso, a theory is not neccessarily correct and stands to be refuted."

What does 'correct' mean? I agree every theory stands to be refuted.

"Of all the theories that have been generated "evolution" theory remains to be the most contested. It has been challenged by great scientists/philosophers for their fallibility and the lack of replicability."

Actually, that is not true.

The most contested theory or the discipline of science where there is most contraversy and dispute is in physics. In physics there are two competing theories -- Einstien's theory of relativity and Quantum theory. Both offer totally different explanation of the physical world. Both have been tested and shown to be accurate; that is why they are accepted. But the two explanations offered by both theories have not YET been reconciled into a unified theory. So this leaves the physics world in a state of uncertainty, with NO central theory that completely and harmoniously describes the physical world. That IS the biggest and most pressing issue facing science today, NOT evolution theory.

Evolution theory is strengthed each day with more evidences gathered and experiments complementing its predictions. It is totally accepted by the entire science community. When a theory reaches the this stage of acceptance, passed the stage of speculation, you can almost conclude it with near 100% certainty that it is accurate. You will not find, and I challenge to find one, wide spread dissenting vioces among scientists in PEER-REVIEWED science journals and periodicals.

And remember all that is needed to discredict evolution theory is to show one wrong predicted experimental result or one hard evidence contradicting it. But since we have yet found any evidence against it, we have no choice but to accept it. That is if you are persuaded by evidence and hard facts.

"But I am for emprical evidence- Of all the philosophers of science, I am a student of Karl Popper and according to him evolution theory, Marx's theory and Freud's theory are not scientific theories.- convince me"

You misunderstood karl popper. He never said evolution theory was not a scientific theory. In fact, he was evolutionist. He said for a theory to be accepted as scientific theory, it must be falsifiable or self-refutable or have testable prediction. All these terms are interchangable.

The theory evolution is falsifiable becuz it can be attempted to be 'falsified' by testing one of its predictions. In other words, a scientific theory must be daring and bold enough to make predictions that anyone can test to see if they agree with hard facts. And evolution has those predictions. For example, bacterial treatment with antibiotics.

Why is this important? Becuz science relies on inductive reasoning. In inductive reasoning, you dont accept your conclusion until the overwhelming evidence/data confirms the accuracy of your premise.

"But truth claiming should be avoided by scientists."

Scientists never claim truth becuz truth is for mathematics and logic. Truth = 100% certainty and science is not about certainty but the incremental and accruement of facts and knowledge getting closer to the truth. Although ultimate truth is unattainable.

"If you look at many of the theories developed to explain the human race, you may note that there is the presence of a religious element- those who devised the theories, the sources used to discern or validate are in most cases religious sources."

But theories developed to explain 'human race' are NOT scientifically accepted theories. Find me on.

"For instance, the man whose name appears on the lips of many evolutionists (including moi) Charles Darwin never declared himself an atheist-in fact, he has never drawn a parallel line between his beliefs and his anthropoligical observations in the Galagapos islands- He and his french counterpart (Lamax?) differed on this point."

The personal believes of scientists are non-issue. Most scientists have 'scientifically inclined' personality, meaning they firmly believe in the principals of science. Rarely do you see personal believes of scientists interfering with their science work. That doesn't mean there hasn't been cases to the contrary.

"The history of dinosaurs, their habitat, how they evolved has recently come under fire from a range of scientists who claim it is based on fairy tales- or pseudo science."

This is not true, globe. Find me the science literature, especially from peer-reviewed ones, that say that. You won't find one. Where did you read this?

[Globetrotter-]

DD: What does 'correct' mean?

GT: correct =truth

As long as there are competing theories to explain a phenomenon, “correctness” is absent



DD: “The most contested theory or the discipline of science where there is most contraversy and dispute is in physics. In physics there are two competing theories -- Einstien's theory of relativity and Quantum theory. Both offer totally different explanation of the physical world. Both have been tested and shown to be accurate; that is why they are accepted. But the two explanations offered by both theories have not YET been reconciled into a unified theory. So this leaves the physics world in a state of uncertainty, with NO central theory that completely and harmoniously describes the physical world. That IS the biggest and most pressing issue facing science today, NOT evolution theory.”

GT: Nope, evolution theory (theories) is the most contested because it is being used by students of social/behavioural and natural sciences- Relativity and quantum theories on the other hand has a limited scope as far as society is concerned. You wouldn’t find an economist, a sociologist or a psychologist use the theory of relativity.

DD.” Evolution theory is strengthed each day with more evidences gathered and experiments complementing its predictions. It is totally accepted by the entire science community. When a theory reaches the this stage of acceptance, passed the stage of speculation, you can almost conclude it with near 100% certainty that it is accurate. You will not find, and I challenge to find one, wide spread dissenting vioces among scientists in PEER-REVIEWED science journals and periodicals”

GT: Evolution theory has been challenged already in the 19th century by leading Darwinists including : Lamark, Haekel, Huxley, de vries, Morgan etc . Even Darwin would turn in his grave had he known that his theory on the evolution of birds is used to describe walks of society.

DD: You misunderstood karl popper. He never said evolution theory was not a scientific theory. In fact, he was evolutionist. He said for a theory to be accepted as scientific theory, it must be falsifiable or self-refutable or have testable prediction. All these terms are interchangable.

GT- indeed Popper was an evolutionist scientist – (there is a difference between being an evolutionary scientist and one who subscribes to the theory of evolution ala darwinsm- DON*t YOU think? this, however does not necessarily mean he was a fan of Evolutionism to explain human evolution. Popper was an evolutionist philosopher- there is a huge difference between the two. My guess is that there are a few on this forum who have studied Popper more than I did – True: He said a theory should pass the litmus test of “self-refutable or have testable prediction” AND YOUR THEORY ON DINOSAURs does not pass any of them. We can’t for instance make an experiment on them because we can’t find them- the whole issue is built upon conjectures

If you read Popper’s works, you may have noted that his strongest attacks were towards “social2 darwinists, Marx and Freud because it is difficult to falsify their theories.

DD- . “ The theory evolution is falsifiable becuz it can be attempted to be 'falsified' by testing one of its predictions. In other words, a scientific theory must be daring and bold enough to make predictions that anyone can test to see if they agree with hard facts. And evolution has those predictions. For example, bacterial treatment with antibiotics.”

GT- Tell us how we could falsify the notion that human beings evolved from anything. What kind of predication could one make on bold statements?????

You can’t compare antibiotics and how it treats bacteria with how dinosaurs evolved!!!

DD: Scientists never claim truth becuz truth is for mathematics and logic. Truth = 100% certainty and science is not about certainty but the incremental and accruement of facts and knowledge getting closer to the truth. Although ultimate truth is unattainable.


GT: You wrote somewhere above that you are under graduate of science- I just hope you have taken a class on the concept of dogma and truth claiming- because my friend that is what you are liable of doing when you shrug off of other explanations of hows and whys. There is nothing like 100% certainty my friend- you are right ultimate truth is unattainable- but look at what you wrote on evolution on this medium and what you are doing is nothing short of truth claiming- and that is my point of contention- For instance, someone mentioned the Koran as a source to strengthen his view on creationism- you attempted to refute this, basing your arguments on evolution theory- Many would tell you that none of them can be falsified or verified for that matter.

[dhuusa_deer]

Globetrotter,

"As long as there are competing theories to explain a phenomenon, “correctness” is absent"

But there are NO other competing scietific theories about evolution. None. If you know any, provide them.

"Nope, evolution theory (theories) is the most contested because it is being used by students of social/behavioural and natural sciences"

Students of social/behavioural sciences have no use for evolution. Evolution theory describes how all living organisms got to where they are today. The mechanism is Natural Selection. Natural Selection means: change of gene frequency.

When you think of evolution theory, think of genes and instincs inherited from parents. When you think of societies/cultures, think of information and knowledge passed from one generation to the next.

Social/behavioural sciences do NOT use evolution theory at all.

"Relativity and quantum theories on the other hand has a limited scope as far as society is concerned."

You are mixing science and societies. Science is the persuit of knowledge. Whether this knowledge is of miniscule use to society or of great benefit to society, is of no concern to science. Science will continue to persue knowledge regardless.

"You wouldn’t find an economist, a sociologist or a psychologist use the theory of relativity."

You wouldn't find them using theory of evolution either.

"Evolution theory has been challenged already in the 19th century by leading Darwinists including : Lamark, Haekel, Huxley, de vries, Morgan"

So? The theory of evolution is still being challenged even today by scientists. This is not an indication of the weakness of evolution theory but a demonstration of how science works.

All science theories are continuously challenged, questioned and refined to make them more agreeable with facts. This is what distinquishes science from other fields. Its self-correcting. If evolution theory has gaps in it, it will be scientists who'll fill them -- not psychologists, politicians, farmers... This is why science has been of great benefit to man, becuz of its honesty, introspection and total reliance on evidence.

"indeed Popper was an evolutionist scientist – (there is a difference between being an evolutionary scientist and one who subscribes to the theory of evolution ala darwinsm- DON*t YOU think?"

Popper was philosopher. The field of evolution theory was not his expertise. His theory of falsifiability was not directed particularly at evolution theory but science theories in general. His primary concern was what was accepted as science theory. He argued that a good science theory should be falsifiable one.

Evolution and darwinism are not the same. Evolution is accepted science theory and an observed fact. Darwanism is neither a theory nor observed fact -- its description for all sorts of ideas regarding darwin and evolution.

"He said a theory should pass the litmus test of “self-refutable or have testable prediction” AND YOUR THEORY ON DINOSAURs does not pass any of them. We can’t for instance make an experiment on them because we can’t find them- the whole issue is built upon conjectures"

Of course we can't observe the evolution of Dinosaurs, it take thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. There are two kinds of evolution : microevolution and macroevolution (some scientists consider the difference between the two arbitary and not all that important)

Microevolution is observable. Example: the formation of new anti-biotic resistant bacterial strains after treatment with antibiotics. This observable becuz it takes short time for bacteria to reproduce new resistant strains. Another: English Moth. It changed color from light in pre-industrial britian to black in post industrial period.

Macroevolution on the other hand is not observable becuz it takes long time to see its effect. From studying microevolution, we can infer that macroevolution occur via same mechanism -- namely Natural Selection. Granted, this is not solid evidence verifying macroevolution as a fact.

This is where other fields come in. These fields include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record. All these fields independently confirm that macroevolution occurs via same process as microevolution. Since we have observed microevolution with our own eyes, in our lifetime, we have sufficient evidence to conclude macroevolution is a fact of history.

"Tell us how we could falsify the notion that human beings evolved from anything."

Use any of the fields mentioned above. For example: comparative biochemical and genetic studies.

We know that closely related species are morphologically similiar. Different bird species are closely related and distantly related to lions and whales. Therefore the gene sequence and make up of closely related species should be similar. This is what we find. Humans and primates (our closest relatives) share 98% of our genes. This is one but of many examples. I can provide more in the future.

"What kind of predication could one make on bold statements?????"

That the evolution of man took long time -- hundreds of thousands of years to millions. We evolved from ape-like creature. We should find fossils of many intermediates showing gradual progression from older ape-like ones to more human like ones.

This is what fossil record shows.

"You wrote somewhere above that you are under graduate of science- I just hope you have taken a class on the concept of dogma and truth claiming- because my friend that is what you are liable of doing when you shrug off of other explanations of hows and whys."

What other explanations?

I'm only interested in SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. Because I want a theory with hypothesis and testable prediction, as well as a mechanism of how the explained process occurs. Something I can work on and test against facts.

Of all the existing theories, only evolution theory fits that criteria.

"There is nothing like 100% certainty my friend"

Yes there is. 1 + 1 = 2 with 100% certainty. But not in science. Science is about evidences and facts.

"For instance, someone mentioned the Koran as a source to strengthen his view on creationism- you attempted to refute this, basing your arguments on evolution theory- Many would tell you that none of them can be falsified or verified for that matter."

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no testable predictions. Its states live began only 6000-10000 years ago, when we know bacteria has been around for billions of years. It gives no mechanism. No hypothesis. No arguements. And is claimed to be the work of unheard, unseen, unvarifiable celestial being that seemingly bent the invariant natural laws of the universe we come to know to be unbendable. This is not the picture hard facts of our world paints. Therefore, I dismiss it (creation theory) on those grounds and not out of conviction or other reasons.

[Globetrotter-]

DD

Evolution theory has been used to explain everything from technological change, economic development, human evolution, adaptedness, child development, social interactions- thus, you assertion that it is only confined to biological spheres of life is not true. Visit any social/behavioural or a class of philosophy and there is always the issue of evolution discussed/debated.

The notion that evolution theory is the only plausible mechanism that can account for the remarkable diversity of life on earth is accepted- but there are other theories (including creationism) that give other explanations. Indeed, evolution theory (biological) is the most important idea in BIOLOGY that goes far beyond science- but despite this, there is still widespread confusion about it.- This could be sourced to the fact that the fabrics of biological evolution have been used by students of other scientists.

I am sure, once you graduate and get involved in research you would be surprised to find the demarcation lines between the sciences is not that large.

The key concepts of the evolution theory (ala biology) natural selection, population thinking, finalism, variation, anagenesis, diversity, speciation etc are common concepts used to explain many aspects of society.

To be honest with you, I am beginning to doubt whether you have read Darwin’s book the evolution of species and the subsequent debate when ppl like spencer applied Darwin’s explanation of birds to coin social Darwinism.

Popper was not a biologist but a student of philosophy (knowledge of science)- thus, according to many his an evolutionary philosopher and not regarded as a darwinist- as a matter of fact, his greatest attacks were on Marx, Darwin and Freud.


A bold guess I have is that you have not illuminated yourself on what A THEORY; KNOWLEDGE and science is- because had you known then you wouldn’t have been guilty of truth claiming.

[Mowhawk]

Dhuuso dere

What proof? I got my beliefs as proof and you got your "theories", so why waste space with written words that cannot penetrate to the intended ear?
Lak diinak mister, and weliya diinii.

[dhuusa_deer]

Globetrotter,

"Evolution theory has been used to explain everything from technological change, economic development, human evolution, adaptedness, child development, social interactions- thus, you assertion that it is only confined to biological spheres of life is not true."

But this is not true. Could you provide any evidence.

The suggestion the evolution theory is used to explain technological change is laughable. How so? Evolution is strictly in the realm of biological sciences. It acts on the gene level.

"Visit any social/behavioural or a class of philosophy and there is always the issue of evolution discussed/debated."

But not to explain philosophical or social issues. If it is discussed, its usually studied from ethical or social perspective, NOT from scientific perspective.

"The notion that evolution theory is the only plausible mechanism that can account for the remarkable diversity of life on earth is accepted- but there are other theories (including creationism) that give other explanations."

I never denied the theory of creationism. Only that it can NOT be put on equal footing with evolution theory. One is scientific theory (evolution), the other is NOT (creation). Creation theory has no hypothesis, no testable predictions and is based on a story written several thousand years ago in non-science book. Its totally unreliable and unfalsifiable.

"Indeed, evolution theory (biological) is the most important idea in BIOLOGY that goes far beyond science- but despite this, there is still widespread confusion about it.- This could be sourced to the fact that the fabrics of biological evolution have been used by students of other scientists."

The validity of the theory of evolution is not dependent of who uses it for whatever purpose. Its a theory AND a fact.

"The key concepts of the evolution theory (ala biology) natural selection, population thinking, finalism, variation, anagenesis, diversity, speciation etc are common concepts used to explain many aspects of society."

How can speciation, which is the formation of new species, be used to explain 'aspects of society'? There is only one human species, and that is Homo sapiens sapiens. You are simply in error here.

"To be honest with you, I am beginning to doubt whether you have read Darwin’s book the evolution of species and the subsequent debate when ppl like spencer applied Darwin’s explanation of birds to coin social Darwinism."

I have read Darwin's book. But evolution theory has 'evolved' alot since Darwin's book was released. And relying on his book to debate 'modern' evolution theory is like going into modern battle with WW1 weapons. Fields like genetics, population genetics didn't exist when darwin's book was released. You need to read modern evolution theory to fully grasp it. Darwin's original book is insufficient.

"Popper was not a biologist but a student of philosophy (knowledge of science)- thus, according to many his an evolutionary philosopher and not regarded as a darwinist- as a matter of fact, his greatest attacks were on Marx, Darwin and Freud."

Popper's attack on Darwinism doesn't discredit evolution theory.

"A bold guess I have is that you have not illuminated yourself on what A THEORY; KNOWLEDGE and science is- because had you known then you wouldn’t have been guilty of truth claiming."

A theory explains facts, observed facts. Science is persuit of knowledge via the scientific method. No science theory is 100% certain, I never claimed evolution theory was. So the charge 'truth claiming', assuming that to mean absolute certainty, is bogus.

[dhuusa_deer]

Mowhawk,

"What proof?"

Huh? You are asking me for proof? For what?

"I got my beliefs as proof"

Then obviously you don't have a clue what 'proof' means. Belief is an illusion.

"and you got your "theories","

With the missing caveat -- that explain observed FACTS. So these 'theories' include the theory of gravity, the one that explains why your feet remain on the ground and not in the air. You see, theories explain facts. They are not conjectures.

Theories explain facts, beliefs reinforce illusions. Off course, your are entitled to have your believes.

"so why waste space with written words that cannot penetrate to the intended ear?"

Why have parliments, debates, discussions, negeotiations...? Why not disagree and go about our own ways.

Last time I checked, the prosperous and functioning parts of this world are where ppl debate differences. And parts of the world where there are extreme poverties and disfunctional societies, are where no debates or discussions take place.

[Globetrotter-]

DD,
I have little time left before I hit bed- so , I am only going to give you a few sources- but if you are interested how evolution theory has been applied to describe all walks of society (or scientific theory) I am more than willing to provide you other sources:

Goarge Basalla (1988_), the evolution of technology
boserup (1981), population and technological change
boulding, kenneth (1981), evolutionary economics
campbwell, donald (1960), blind variation and selective retention


Creationism is a theory too- and to discern it as a source of explaination you need to understand its basic propositions.

p.s with all due respect, don't mistrust what others write on this site- and don't be flirted by your own knowledge.

[dhuusa_deer]

Globetrotter,

"Goarge Basalla (1988_), the evolution of technology
boserup (1981), population and technological change
boulding, kenneth (1981), evolutionary economics
campbwell, donald (1960), blind variation and selective retention"

I will look into these sources and get back to you in the future.

"Creationism is a theory too- and to discern it as a source of explaination you need to understand its basic propositions."

What is its 'propositions'?

"with all due respect, don't mistrust what others write on this site- and don't be flirted by your own knowledge."

My believe in the theory of evolution is not based on faith but what the historical hard evidences, collaborated by many fields of science, declares. The day it is shown to be wrong, I'll ditch it without hesitation and accept what the new evidence says is the truth. Until then, I'll continue to believe evolution theory.