How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

[Gnizmo]

Aquietguy said:
Everyone wants some evidence on ID. Understandable since most haven't heard any before. But here is an example of how science supports ID more. I was debating someone else on anther MB about the same thing. I said that "are we supposed to believe that we come from a fish that swam on a beach". He responded by saying "and we supposed to believe that we were just poofed out of no where". My IP addresses banded before I could respond. Go figure! I guess academia isn't the only place that can't tolerate outside the box thinking.

Any way, some of us have heard of the relationship between matter and energy. That energy and matter are the same and are just in different states. But energy can be turned into matter and matter can be turned into energy. This has already been done in laboratories but only at the atomic level. This is what the replicators on Star Trek The Next Generation was based off of. Those Star Trek writers really did their homework. They were able to create food by turning energy into matter. Something that is obvious beyond what we can do. But for how long? Also their was an episode where Commander Riker was beamed up from an away mission. He made it back to the ship but some kind of way his transporter signature was reflected back and another Riker materialized on the planet. So there were two of them. Of which they found the other Riker years later. I know that this is a TV show, but we know that the relationship between energy and matter is real. How long before we have transporter or replication ability?

If you can create an object using energy, then is it safe to say that you can also create life or a life? No you can't poof life into existence but you can use energy to create life if you had the know how. So in a sense you can say that it is possible for some higher power to just poof us into existence. So their is a valid view for creation.

Where are the valid view of evolution? Where is the observation, which is part of the scientific method? Where is the evidence that cell mutation has benefited the cell? All the evidence that I have seen show that mutation harms and destroys the cell.

 I tried to make your post semi-readable. I hope you don't mind. My response is going to be a simple two words and hopefully you will respond with something relevant. Testable Hypotesis. Without it you have no theory, you have little to no evidence, and you cannot enter it into a serious scientific debate. This is not a conspiracy against "outside the box" thinkers. This is a request made to everyone who attempts to replace a currently accepted theory. If you cannot provide one, then youe hypothesis is not scientifically sound.

 Evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly. Antibiotics are limited in use, and cycled because bacteria will evolve and become resistant to it. Various insects become immune to pesticides. The only thing we have yet to prove experimentally is a change from one species to another, but there is other evidence that helps support the arguement on that front. None of it comes from a mid-90s SciFi show based on a ficitional (and extremely improbable) future.