I like this site, even though it's a little heavy on ID it's the most unbiased that I've come across so far and they have an excellent archive.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

The finest examination of the confusion between evolution fact and theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

A previous post questioned how the theory of evolution has ever been tested.

The answer is clear- anytime we find a fossil, and identify it's place in the anthropological scheme, we have a potential test of evolution.

If we were to find a fossil that was an intermediate between two previously known species, with clear linkages showing the difference from the previous and following species, this gives us a chance to test evolution. When we date the new fossil, either through radioisotopic means, or through stratum, it should clearly place itself in the timeline between the two previously known species.

To put it another way, we shouldn't find a fossilized rabbit 320 million years old...

So far, not a single anomalous species has ever been found. This is a strong and unquestionable proof of evolution.

LOON Paul for president.

"... the Creator that I know ..."

Ooops. So much for Ron Paul.

STOP DUMBING DOWN AMERICA

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/hadEnough.jpg

I wonder about the Paul-Tards, will they support another Repig, not vote, or expect DOKTOR CRACKPOT to run as a Libertaria­n..(if Libertarians will take him?)

Ron Beats Rudy?
Wall Street Journal
December 29, 2007; Page A10

Manchester, N.H.

[...] Mr. Paul, an obstetrician from Lake Jackson, Texas, could pull off a stunner on Jan. 8 and place third in New Hampshire's Republican primary. If he does, he would embarrass Rudy Giuliani and steal media limelight from John McCain and Mitt Romney, who are battling for first place.

Many Republican operatives in New Hampshire, even those affiliated with other campaigns, think Mr. Paul is headed for an impressive, double-digit performance. That he has been polling in the high single digits for months is discounted, because the polls may be missing the depth of his support.

Why? For starters, he appears to be drawing new voters. Polls that screen for "likely" voters might screen out many Paul supporters who haven't voted often, or at all, before. Many of Mr. Paul's supporters appear to be first-time voters. They will be able to cast their ballots because New Hampshire allows them to register and vote on the day of an election.
[...]
There is another reason to discount the polls on Mr. Paul. The one thing that unites his supporters is a desire to be left alone, not only by government, but by irritating marketers and meddling pollsters, too. Mr. Paul's supporters might well be screening their calls and not-so-ina­dvertently screening out pollsters.
[...]
But everyone agrees that Mr. Paul draws an unusual mix of libertarians, fiscally conservative Democrats, conservative Republicans, home-schoolers, vegans, gambling aficionados, anti-abortion activists and others who want the government to butt out of some aspect of their lives.

But will they get out to vote on primary day?

"I've never seen a group of people that are this energetic about a candidate," Mr. Murphy said. "It's something else."
[...]
National attention is focused on the horse races between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and between Messrs. McCain and Romney. But the shy obstetrician from Texas could be the surprise story of the New Hampshire primary.
Logged in as cognate (Not you? Log out)

The video was doctored.

Ron Paul believes in evolution. I saw him confirm it during the Iowa Republican debate.

The out of context editing in that video is obvious, the cuts are crude, the quality poor!! Braydin is a liar with photo-shop

You are a moron.

what is amazing is that some people posting here believe that the theory of evolution tries to explain the oigin of the universe. It doesn't.

Ron Paul please run as a 3rd party candidate. You know you want to. Please split the GOP vote.

Mankinds arrogance never fails to amaze me. We occupy an infintesimal part of the universe, in a tiny solar system, in a remote area of a galactic arm, in a huge spiral galaxy, among billions of galaxies and we profess to have the corner on knowledge as it pertains to creation of the universe? There is room for a little humility within both our religious and scientific communities. Fact is, the Beagle hasn't been put to mothballs that long ago and there is likely a possibility that there is considerable room for scientific advancement. Every generation thinks they have all the answers and it is precisely that dogmatic way of thinking that impedes real progress. We are what we are taught in school and we tend to accept things at truths because science says they are true. I suspect there are more than a few ardent supporters of Big Bang Theory who have, in a quiet moment staring at the night stars, considered the absurdity of such a theory. No, just like religion, some of our most scientific theories require a good dose of faith. If, in the far distant future, mankind ever truly understands the nature of the universe and how it began, the ideas of today's generations will undoubtedly seem silly, uneducated and simplistic. But until then there will be enough dogma and inflexible thinking in both the religious and scientific camps to ensure that future generations perceptions of us are true. Now I must go. I just finished my book on Global Cooling and I must start writing on Global Warming.

Be It Resolved Feb 6th

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/RonPaulResolutionJPG.jpg

Buh Hahahahaha