"Observable fact: Galileo Galilei is closer to the lowly garden snail than to the great apes." Observable fact: Ted cannot prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution anymore than believers can prove the existence of God. He has "faith" in evolution like believers have "faith" in creationism. On that note, I depart for better things.

/

I am not USC, whoever that is. I'm new here. What's a "Denographic"? Is that some kind of Townhall jargon?

Obama caves...once again.

Chris, Can you prove the theory of evolution? Creationists cannot prove Intelligent Design anymore than you can prove evolution; yet, your faith is considered science and the beliefs of the faithful are considered to be on par with the Man in the Moon. Darwinists cannot prove evolution. Global warmists continue to claim that the Earth is warming (it isn't nor has it since 1998), sea levels are rising (they aren't - they are falling), polar bears are dying (they aren't) and that man is the primary cause due to CO2; yet, CERN and CLOUD prove that the sun is the primary cause of the Earth's climate. Global warmists call skeptics deniers on par with Ahmadinejad, but who is really the group worshiping sky pixies and junk science?

.

Bottom line: the easiest verse in the Bible to believe is the very first one of all: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147511115

So honest Darwinians will tell you that evolution — by which we mean the transition of one species into another — has never, not ever, been observed by anyone at any time. In other words, they believe in something that nobody has ever seen. Hmmm. And they accuse us of a blind leap of faith! It turns out that creationists are the ones who “believe in science,” to borrow the phrase from the pushy Mom who prompted her kid to ask Gov. Perry about the issue in New Hampshire. In fact, it’s clear that creationists believe in science and evolutionists do not. If they did, they wouldn’t be evolutionists, now, would they?

And if it's never been observed in the simplest of all organisms, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it's never been observed with more complex forms. Says Linton, "There is no evidence for evolution throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." (Note: "no evidence" means "no evidence, nada, zilch, zippo.")

And we come finally to: GENES The only mechanism — don't miss this — the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants. The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism. Rather than improve an organism's capacity to survive, they invariably weaken it. That's why the phrase we most often use to refer to genetic mutations is "birth defects." If scientists are some day able to engineer beneficial genetic mutations in the lab, that will simply prove our point: we told you it takes intelligence and design.