What sort of backward thinking do you have.That's like saying the religious thought of Islam has contributed nothing to science. Of course it has not! Evolution just like creationism is a way to look at the same science.
No, it is not. Creationism is based on a religious belief, and evolution is a scientific theory.
It's a thought process, a religion and seen by some(myself) as more of a cult way of thinking of distorting the facts to fit the "evolution" agenda.
What "evolution agenda" are you referring to? Is it the same as the E.A.C. (THe Evil Atheist Conspiracy)?
Let me straighten you out on WHAT evolution is. Please read carefully. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. That is ALL it is.
This is what Evolution is:
1. Change in gene frequencies in a population over time.
2. Descent with modification.
I know of no one who posts in this forum that accepts evolution as an excuse for "social darwinism" or any other philosophy.
Science is science even outside of the "label's" we give science including, creation science, evolutionary science, ect. I could even emphasis my point by saying something crazy like cartoon network science. One of my points is that both scientists, those that believe in evolution and those that believe in a literal creation are still reputable scientists.
Many people who call themselves "creationists" do good research and are reputatble scientists. The point we are making is that NONE of them use "scientific creationism" to do their research. It is therefore useless in terms of science. On the other hand, scientists who do research in evolutionary biology DO make use of the theory of evolution in their research. If you do not believe me, go to PubMed and do a search for research papers using the keyword "evolution" and see how many hits you get. Now... do you see the difference?
Science is science and often times the facts are scewed and false statements are given to fit ones own personal bias and hidden agenda.
We certainly see that with "creation scientists" quite often. Here is another difference for you to think about. When a real scientist gets caught making skewed and false statements in his research publications, he is punished and ostrasized by his university and his peers. Often, his career is ruined. On the other hand, if a "creation scientist" publishes skewed and false statements about "evolutionists" or "darwinists," he is praised by his creationist peers and cited by them. See the difference?
I dare one person give me any animal that exists today and we can debate how it has evolved or not from it's distant past to now with clear examples of it's entire evolutionary process.
The modern horse and modern whales certainly fit this picture. Though I am not clear what you mean by its "entire" evolutionary process. I suspect you want to see every single intermediate species from the earliest ungulate ancestor to the modern Humpback whale. Otherwise you will pretend you are not "satisfied" with the evidence.
If someone can give me no shadow of a doubt clear evidence of this animals evolution through out the ages of time I will give them all major props.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes or providing proof beyond a "shadow of a doubt." This is what religious beliefs like creationism provide (yet another example of how evolution is NOT a religion). We provide proof beyond a "reasonable doubt." Much like the judicial system.
I contend that with common reasoning this animals evolution can easily be disputed.
What "common reasoning" is that. How about "I don't see how, therefore it is wrong?" That is an example of "common reasoning." How about lsitening to what the
experts in their field say about the evidence they examine themselves, rather than asking for "common reasoning" based on heresay, beliefs, and "gut" feelings.
