Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is not a shred of emphirical evidence that chemical evolution .. that is macro evolution (or particles to humans) ever occured or could. It is the surest impossibility ever calculated by ATHEIST Evolutionists themselves including Dr. Francis Crick , Prof. Fred Hoyle, and Prof. Chandra Wickramaghe. If you knew what had to go into even the most simplest of life forms, you would be astonished. It is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on societies around the world and fits in perfectly with a lifestyle unemcumbered by moral laws . Even world famous Alduous Huxley, a staunch Evolutionist, while being interviewed declared that the reason for Darwins Book success was because 'it freed us up to practice our sexual mores' (immoral ones of course) . If you truly want to see how much silly faith it requires to be an atheist/evolutionists, then get the best selling book called 'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' by Dr. Norman Geisler . Its my all time favorite .
It might help to understand what evolution actually is before you try to argue against it.
Seriously, though -- are humans just really far ahead for some unknown reason, or do we differ from the rest of life on earth -- in our ability to reason, communicate, and apprehend phenomena independent of their tangible existence -- because of something not scientifically demonstrable?
Non-human animals also display reasoning, cognition, communication and other qualities. We are learning ever newer things about this all the time. Moreover, many non-human animals can apprehend things humans cannot - includng sight, sound, smell, touch and taste.
Non-human animals also display reasoning, cognition, communication and other qualities. We are learning ever newer things about this all the time. Moreover, many non-human animals can apprehend things humans cannot - includng sight, sound, smell, touch and taste.
You're talking sensory response and instinct. I'm talking about abstract reasoning and imagination. Many animals can smell and hear better than we humans, but we keep them in zoos and laboratories for study and observation, using the results to generalize and theorize.
Keep in mind that Darwin's work on the Beagle has not been duplicated by any other species that we are aware of.
Should evolution be thought in public schools in the U.S.? I think it should. Tell what your honest opinion is.
Yes it should. On the other hand a better question would be "why wouldn't it?" No scientific alternative has yet to be presented that explains what we see any better. So for now, it is all we have. Fortunately, this direction has been taken by my own state in not allowing ID material to spread into the state's science education curriculum.
Keep in mind that Darwin's work on the Beagle has not been duplicated by any other species that we are aware of.
Well comparatively speaking neither have the overwhelming majority of humans. As for other species perhaps they have better things to do.
Quote:
I'm talking about abstract reasoning and imagination.
You should check into recent research on non-human self-awareness experiments, the learned use of tools, and evidence of strategic planning and cooperation to complete tasks.
Yeah, after all Gravity is only a theory too. and Relativity is another theory, Quantum Mechanics is only a theory as well........To be considered a "Theory" in scientific circles is a fairly big deal, those things that don't make the grade are called "crackpot notions"
Those eager to point out that 'evolution is only one theory' should take comfort from the fact that school and college education can only cover so much, and the fact that something is excluded from these does not mean it lacks all merit. One example would be that of what in the UK are called 'Information and Computer Technology' classes; these usually focus on teaching software made by companies like Microsoft and Adobe, but I've been told that this doesn't mean that my own HUBARD2011 suite of utilities couldn't be of real use to somebody, one day.
You mean there are schools which do not teach Evolution ?!?!?!?!?! Wow. Can you really call a creationist school an educational establishment ?
Myth as reality and truth. The mind boggles.
Yes. In fact, my home state of Mississippi is not allowed to teach evolution in the classroom. Nor is it allowed to teach Creationism/Intelligent Design. Of course, it should go without mentioning that Mississippi ranks near the very bottom of the list in terms of states with the best public education.
By not teaching evolution, we deprive our children of the fundamental right to understand the basic tenet of all of biology. So many people forget that theory means a wide incorporation of laws, other theories, and a broad range of factual knowledge.
It is like saying that electronic theory is only a theory while Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's Law are far superior when, in fact, the two laws merely comprise a small part of the entirety of electronic theory.
It is so frustrating to watch people propagate misinformation and lies or claim that because another idea exists (Creationism/ID) that it should be taught alongside evolution. Sadly, it is so American in nature to think that a popular idea makes a good or accurate idea rather than believe what the evidence actually shows. It says a lot when astrology, natural remedies, and homeopathy are still pop culture focal points in this country.
When people say "all theories should be taught", do they really mean all, or do they really mean teach Christian creationism alongside evolution? The reason I ask is because it is not feasible to teach all, because, believe it or not, there are other religions practiced in the US outside of Christianity. Teaching the creation story of every single religion is better suited for a religious studies course rather than a science course.
My opinion is that science should be taught in science classes and religion should be taught in church and religious study courses. Maybe the parents that want their children to be taught creationism should take some time to sit down with their children and teach it to them themselves rather than relying on the school system to do it for them?
Ya know,???? it is still referred to as "Newtons' theory of gravitation" it is still referred to as "Einsteins' theory of relativity", it is still a theory that force = mass X acceleration. To be considered a bona fide "Theory" in scientific circles is a big deal! They still refer to at least one study as "Wave theory". So.....I guess that since it is "just a theory" it has no relevance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
