Evolutionary Theory is a Farce

PRO SOCIAL There is no denial that Evolutionary Theory has social implications which require the ethical and skeptical review of its scientific foundations, this is unlike any other scientific theory. With out reasonable doubt Evolutionary Theory has influenced several racial political and personal views. You can not deny the social implications of the Theory. While as racial views have existed prior to the Theory, it certainly lends credit to those views rather than combating them. This is to be expected from a Theory that suggest mankind is an evolved animal sharing common ancestors with primates. The lack of caution and skepticism of this Theory is unethical on the part of many in the scientific community. Some in the scientific community certainly delight in Evolutionary Theory because it combats opposing religious views, all the while there personal religious view is that of atheism; this is bias. Regardless of religion mankind should be adamantly against Evolutionary Theory and its ugly racist propaganda. As evidence of the unethical behavior of the scientific community simply look at my opponents arguments against the social implications. He is in blatant denial of the social implications. My opponent at first suggested Darwin "race" had nothing to do with "race" and that Hitler had no influence from Evolutionary Theory. He later admits Hitler had indirect and incorrect interpretation of the Theory but remains silent on Darwin, Huxley, and others views. This is the Farce of Evolution. A correct interpretation of Evolutionary Theory says some Races are more evolved than other Races, if you subscribe to this you are a racist wither you choose to racial cleanse or not. My contention that Evolution Theory is Racism stands thus Evolution is a Farce. SCIENCE In an attempt to answer the most important question for mankind; Evolution speaks up but only as Science's premature ejaculate, figuratively speaking of course. Science is certainly capable of telling us more of our past, but we don't have enough information to CONCLUSIVELY support Evolutionary Theory. It is sold as fact, when it is still a Theory with a tarnished unscientific and racist not so distant past. I am extremely skeptical of any "new" evidence supporting Evolutionary Theory. Why? you ask. because nearly every scientific model supporting Evolutionary Theory, in the not so distant past, has been proved a fraud or wrongly interpreted. In fact my opponents friend Carl Sagan (your profile pic) even believed foolish Unscientific beliefs masquerading as science. (By the way many of the Scientist who wrote the evidence against Radiometric Dating personally knew Carl Sagan, the link was referenced in this debate. All of them where just as educated as Carl Sagan.) Carl Sagan propagated the already dead wrong recapitulation theory started by Ernst Haeckel. Ernst Haeckel was a fraud but its still taught in schools and apparently supported by Carl Sagan? take a look at the links. http://www.2think.org... http://laelaps.wordpress.com... Stephen Jay Gould: "... it has fascinated me ever since the New York City public schools taught me Haeckel's doctrine, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, fifty years after it, had been abandoned by science." (Ontogeny and phylogeny, Stephen Jay Gould, ISBN 0-674-63940-5, 1977, p1) Incorrect Horse Evolution ...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" (Fossil Horses, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL, 1994, p.27 ) George Gaylord Simpson, world's foremost evolutionary palaeontologist said, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." (George G. Simpson, Life Of The Past, p.119) When I was in high school we had to cross out about half of the pages in the Evolution section because they were simply wrong this included Ernst Haeckel and fossil record of horses. I repeatedly read articles in reputable magazines such as Nat. Geo. that jump to conclusions about fossil's then later the stance is changed but no correction is ever published. While showing you a few of the frauds and wrongly interpreted data of evolutionary theory doesn't disprove anything it does support a notion that we should be more skeptical of evidences for Evolutionary Theory. No other scientific theory has offered the world more frauds than Evolutionary Theory and I can't blame anyone for being skeptical of new "discoveries" given the deceptive past of Evolutionary Theory. Rebuttal and "Re-wording of my opponents arguments" Once again, and all modern science agrees with me, there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is not just micro evolution on a larger timescale (think: Impossible Changes [macro] are not lots of small changes [micro]). The only people who disagree are atheist who lack knowledge of even the most rudimentary scientific concepts. I fully understand your argument of micro-macro. You believe micro over long periods of time causes macro. I disagree, which is the point of this debate. We observe changes with in species and kind. We have not and will not observe changes from one kind to another. Your belief that micro leads to macro is not observable and never will be it is simply wishful thinking on your part and much of the scientific community. The debate asks the question "Is Evolution a Farce?" NOT what my theory is. I don't need to present an alternative theory. I enjoyed your light year explanation. I would like to say there is heated debate in the scientific community about light. Can it change speed? Yes some forms of light can go faster and slower sometimes but we don't know as much as we would like. There is also evidence that light may have moved much faster around the Big Bang than what it moves at now. I would hold that all the current theories of light and its speed are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries.