Science Disproves Evolution

[psychocat]

You are now missing the point my friend.

I'm not presuming anything and to be frank your response is insulting and it makes it obvious you don't understand the theory and are not equipped to discuss it beyond your own opinion of science and knowledge as a whole..

Insulting in what way ?
That comment shows a touch of arrogance.
I understand a lot more than you realise

I haven't stopped asking questions - but I have actually studied evolution (along with Genetics and Microbiology). If I had a better idea of how everything works I would have won a Nobel prize by now. Scientists would fall over themselves to prove a theory wrong - that's sort of the whole point of science.

Do you have all the answers ?
I don't think so.

Evolution is a well understood mechanism - it is beyond doubt. Science does actually have all the answers here. Everything in biology has confirmed this - nothing has disputed it. I really thing we are arguing Apples and Oranges here as I suspect your point is more a philosophical approach to human understanding rather than you diagreeing specifically with the theory of evolution - which would be a fallacy.

I disagree , science only has some of the answers , only by further investigation can we ever hope to find those missing answers.

Unanswered Questions about the Evolution of the Early Universe

psychocat Reviewed by psychocat on 09-07-2008. Science Disproves Evolution Compatible Senders and Receivers Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will Rating: 5