Well, personal opinion, I cannot believe in something which has
by far been just a theory. A theory needs to be proven, and it has
yet to be proven because there has been no observed evolution in
progress.
The fact is, playing with the word "theory" is really a argument
tat hold little water. The important point to note is how does the
sceintific field view theory as, not how every day men view it as.
Pay attention to the last sentence in bold in the first part of
reply in bold. Tis seems to be similar to a question tat had been
answered before in page 6. I just cut and paste it here
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a
scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary
school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of
certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do
not use the terms that way, however. According to the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a
well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested
hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law,
which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when
scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic
theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are not
expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The
NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly
confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that
organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and
compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists
cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they
verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the
particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct
observation does not make physicists' conclusions less
certain.
from page 6 too
According to biology, it is
really much a scientific fact tat much of their studies is based on
evolution. I just find it strange tat your only argument is tat
evolution is named as "theory" and insist on your definition of
"theory" instead of the definition made by the scientific
field.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a
group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been
repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena.
My question is this, why do u think the creatures have evolved
to be what they are? Why couldn't have they been the same in the
first place?
It is simply because the fossils and bones found etc tell us so.
There is evidence found tat
suggests tis phenomenon. Let me ask u back... why do u believe tat
all animals suddenly pop up within one day ? The day before
eveything is void of life then suddenly within one day *poof* all
the animals (or plants) suddenly appear. Doesn't tat sounds more
ridiculous ? It sounds more like fairy tale than science
In the perhaps about 7000 years of recorded human history, have
humans changed much? Have we evolved anything deemed useful, or
anything that would be deemed to be an improvement of the human
species? All that has changed has been genetic mutations, children
born with 2 heads, usually causing 1 child to die. Is that
evolution? More like de-evolution.
I think u get a few facts wrong in here. First evolution takes
place in million of years. Comparing 7000 years to million of years
of evolution is akin to comparing the physical changes of a growing
boy only after a few hours. U don't see any physical change in the boy
after a few hours, do u conclude he is not growing up ?
Another fact u got wrong is, mutated children, born with 2 heads
causing one to die etc is more common now than in the past ? Please
subtantiate your stand on why do u say tat in the past the
percentage of population had lesser "children with 2 heads"
compared with now
Another observed fact is that humans are no longer as smart as
they were. Another sign of de-evolution rather than evolution. I
believe that the people of the past were definitely much smarter
than us today. They still hold the key to many secrets that we are
still guessing. How was the pyramid built? How much mathematical
knowledge do the ancient egyptians really have access to?
Tat is again another strange phenomenon which I do not agree.
How do u know tat people in the past r wiser than people now ? The
pyramid built and ancient knowledge of ancient egytian is really...
well.. mythical at best. Men can easily build another pyramid now
if they want to. They even build one made by glass in france or a
30 storey one in las vegas If their mathematic knowledge is so good,
better than recent men, then they probably be building spaceship
like wat men had done now 
I don't see how u can conclude tat men is smarter in
the past than now.
For something to have evolved, some new DNA must have been
"evolved." Yet there was none. I believe i've already conceded that
there have been noted variations of DNA. But up til today, there
has been no discovery of a brand new DNA suddenly "evolving" from
nothing.
There have been cases of nature showing animals who had evolved
greatly with fundamental changes to their dna. I don't think "no
discovery of a brand new dna" etc is scientifically sound. Did
anyboday say tat evolution must come out with "brand new dna"
?
