if you have need to disprove it, provide your own non-causal links. Trying to make work for me? Do some yourself.
Fact: A happened, then B happened.
Assumption: A caused B.
Let's think of some other things that have been going on in the world in the past century or so. Quantum physics was a pretty big discovery.
Quantum physics was discovered. The world is degenerate (in your opinion). This was caused by quantum physics.
Radio, then television, were invented. The world is degenerate. This was caused by radio and television.
The equal rights movement occurred. The world is degenerate. This was caused by the equal rights movement.
All of these assertions are as baseless as yours. Presumably you don't need me to point out the logical errors here.
Interesting you think so. problem is, we are currently discussing Darwin's writings and your examples do not apply.
If you would like to disagree with my opinion it's easy enough to just say so. If you are trying to be combative for no particular reason, you are doing a pretty good job of it. If you actually wanted to answer the question and prove your point, you have failed with the examples you've given in the way that you have given them. Not a very efficient way to approach things Linda. If you have an answer, provide one. If you want to just blow off some steam, please do it elsewhere.
The scientific method, at its most basic, involves looking at the available evidence without preconceived notions -- in other words, with an open mind. You formulate a hypothesis to explain the evidence. You test the hypothesis. The more tests you do with positive results, the more likely it is that your hypothesis is correct. If other scientists can replicate your results, then the truth of your hypothesis is likelier still. After many successful tests, which may include measuring the hypothesis up against new evidence, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
Darwin formulated the ToE to explain the available evidence such as the sorting of the fossil record, and variation. It has been tested successfully for almost 150 years.
Maybe you haven't noticed but we are not discussing the fossil record here.
Quite a marriage you have with that talkorigins website, Linda.
It's very confusing over there. Do you have anything more substantial?
Genetics, a brand-new scientific field unknown in Darwin's time, has verified evolution.
Maybe you haven't noticed but we are not discussing genetics in this conversation. It would be interesting though of a geneticist were to dig up Darwin's bones and trace his black lineage.
Now, would you like to explain how creationism meets these scientific standards?
You are apparently stuck on that subject aren't you, Linda? Maybe you haven't noticed but we are not even discussing creationism in this conversation.
Most current 'science' does not agree with darwin's ideas
This is untrue. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact. This is because they can see that it explains the evidence better than anything else.
Darwin may be your god of evolution Linda, but find me a scientist that bases scientific research on Darwinian ideas of evolution in regard to humankind, savages and inferior races and I will give you a medal.
there are no real scientific studies based on them in that respect
Click on the link above and you will find a few dozen.
sorry, couldn't find any. there was too much chatter trying to convince me why the so called studies were true. Real science Linda, studies, abstracts, conclusions. Period. I really am not interested in the chit chat about how to think.
The Nazis tried, but look where that got us.
They tried what? Evolution does not condone or validate eugenics, racism, sexism, or any of these things
No kidding, not today anyway, We hope not anyway. So why did Darwin?
-- see my A-is-presumed-to-cause-B example above, and also what LinearAQ and I have said about people who co-opt any theory in order to justify their behaviour.
oh, I see, that is science. I thought it was just another attempt to silence your opposition. silly me.
Hitler quoted the Bible too. He believed in God. Do you think that means we should all see the Bible and God as evil because they were supported by Hitler?
Yeah, even you have quoted the bible from time to time. Even the devil believes in God, we know this. Hitler was into mysticism he based somewhat on his knowledge of the bible, which may or may not have been accurate. You'd have to ask him yourself. Ask him why it was such a necessity for the Nazis to find the holy grail or ark of the covenant for instance. Ask him what his intentions would have been had he found what he was looking for.
Because I certainly do not have the answer.
Don't take your lessons here from CTD. If you make an assertion you need to back it up with some evidence.
Don't tell me what to do, evo mammy. It would be very nice to see you follow your own advice though.
Rest in PEACE.
