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.
Some rather obscure character from the modern technological miracle period of the 1800's ? A guy, whose peers at the time also ridiculed his ideas, with news paper articles depicting Darwin's head on a monkey's body?
I am guessing you're not familiar with the law of large numbers and the size of the universe and the atoms.
As a matter of law, yes it does settle it. No "creationism" in public schools.
We all know when the king speaks, it is truth. Why we only need to look back to Henry the VIII to understand how such rulings are as a matter of fact, set in stone and the solidification of truth. All hail the law, for it has spoken... and we must serve the law, for it commands us!
My stance is that neither evolution or creationism should be taught in public schools.
Schools should teach natural history(biology without evolution) and leave the controversial stuff for elective courses of study(college).
I think it is fine to discuss the supposition of both, though... they key would be that both are suppositions. None fear the teachings of science when such teachings actually attend to science itself, rather it is when such teachings serve bias to which we should object and make a stance as such practice serves neither science, nor the expansion of knowledge.
There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory, along with creation as a theory. Neither should be taught as proven fact, because both are unproveable.
Good lord. Science belongs in schools and mystical tales of magical Jewish zombies, telepathy and talking snakes belongs either in Church or a Rob Zombie movie.
I really don't get why this is so difficult for some people.
The same questions go unanswered about what caused the big bang, what existed before it that caused it. So if people make fun, and ask where did god come from, they are throwing stones in a glass house.
It's not the same at all. Matter is not "created" nor "destroyed." We simply find it impossible to conceive of matter not having a beginning or end. This is why the conception of God that most of you subscribe to was invented in the first place.
Understand, I'm not declaring there is a God or there isn't a God, I'm simply pointing out the utter ridiculousness and the glaring contradictions in the version of God so many of you buy.
Good lord. Science belongs in schools and mystical tales of magical Jewish zombies, telepathy and talking snakes belongs either in Church or a Rob Zombie movie.
I really don't get why this is so difficult for some people.
No, it has a place. It has a place in philosophy classes and in world history classes. It has absolutely no place in science classes. Creationism is not science.
Some rather obscure character from the modern technological miracle period of the 1800's ? A guy, whose peers at the time also ridiculed his ideas, with news paper articles depicting Darwin's head on a monkey's body?
As opposed to the invisible old white haired man in the sky sitting at a drawing board? Okay, that makes me a believer.
I believe your point was that new species never develop. The fruit flies are an example of species evolving. If they evolve to the point that they do not interbreed, then they become separate species. Q.E.D.
No, my point is that not one shred of evidence exists to show that one species has ever mutated into an entirely different species. Many species have numerous members within their species which show significant differences and variations, none of which constitutes a different species. For example, the Shih Tzu and a Saint Bernard have very obvious and very significant differences between them, yet they are both canines, and not separate species. I might also point out the fact that you won't find them interbreeding, and that doesn't make them different species either.
Of course, like the term evolution, the term species can be more "liberally" interpreted to cover a much broader scope as one might find convenient to fit a chosen narrative, such as the case with that earlier stuff you posted about the apple maggot being an example of species change. That one, and many others of similar nature is the typical tactic which stretches and contorts like a master yoga practitioner to mold something to fit the evolution narrative .... though we've seen many other cases which constituted not just that type of distortion, but actual fraud, by literally manufacturing phony evidence ... LUCY ... PILTDOWN MAN .. etc. And this really speaks volumes to the legitimacy of Darwinian evolution, because even Darwin himself remarked about how plentiful transitional fossils should be, and that the absence of them would destroy his theory. Fact is, we should be hip deep in them, but that's just not the case. And the fabrication of such evidence is also evidence of it's absence. If they existed, no one would need to fabricate. Waving fruit flies around changes none of that.
But my larger point really focuses on the contextual framework of this alleged common ancestor theory which is supposed to have evolved into ALL LIFE that exists now and has ever existed. This theory just doesn't pass the smell test, and your fruit flies are not going to make things smell any sweeter. I might be inclined to entertain the idea of evolution within species, or even extend that consideration to evolutionary processes applying to broader scope of like species, such as mammals being one class, with fish in another evolutionary chain. But extending that to include all of the divergent species and their fundamental structural incompatibilities, from vegetation that functions by means of photosynthesis, to aquatic life that lives in the remote depths of the planet's oceans, to the New York Stock Broker carrying a briefcase ... I'm sorry ... that story is just pure fantasy, and not at all scientific. The story about the fellow with the flowing white beard, floating amongst the clouds with that magic wand is more plausible, however so slightly.
Setting aside the basic, rather obvious problems that evolutionists have become so adept at ignoring or distorting, there is other evidence which is not generally part of the discussion that also destroys Darwinian Evolution theory. The assumption of "genetic control", which has long been the accepted model of biological life, and is still taught today in schools, from primary to the university level, is wrong .. and was proven wrong more than 40 years ago when I was in freaking school learning about how genes are hard coded and dictate biological formation, which Darwinian Evolution is wholly dependent upon. One must ask why is this information being deliberately ignored, and academia continues to teach a biological falsehood? Simple ... the truth destroys the foundation of biological science as a whole, and with it, Darwinian Evolution .. that's why.
But that's another story altogether, the details of which are not needed to understand that a monkey and a banana had two entirely separate evolutionary paths. Ooops ... did I say evolutionary path? Well yes I did ... and I'm fine with evolution as it may offer some explanations for the inter species changes and variations and adaptations that can be supported by reasonable evidence. I can buy into the saber tooth lion changing over time to reflect what we now see in a modern lion ... or the Wooly Mammoth into the modern elephant. But that does not constitute evidence of one species transforming into an entirely new and separate species.
If evolution is simply defined as change over time, then there is plenty of evidence to support it. But the moment you try to extend that to the all encompassing neo-Darwinian model, it falls flat on it's face. There is no evidence to support such nonsense. The truth is, evolutionists are every bit as dogmatic as the young earth creationists, clinging to theories that have no evidentiary foundation, and totally lacking common sense reason. That evolutionist claim to be supported by scientific facts is only true to the extent that I've just pointed out in the simple definition of evolution. But that evidence does not extend to the lengths necessary to even begin to support neo-Darwinism. This is the slight of hand game ... and the constant twisting and ducking and diversions .... one minute claiming that evolution scientifically disproves creation and intelligent design ... only to change the story a moment later to deny that evolution theory even addresses the very point it would have to address to actually do that (that being providing the proof of the origin of that original life form for which all else was supposed to have evolved from). This is the typical game played, with circular reasoning, shifting stories, diversions and false evidence (like the apple maggot), until one becomes exhausted by the shear volume of BS.
The bottom line is ... at the end of the day ... evolutionists can no more prove how life began, than the young earth creationists can. Both insist they are right ... neither can prove it. On the other hand, intelligent design theory only embraces common sense, and scientific evidence ... and finds that the scientific evidence that we have today, indicates that the complex structures which living matter exhibits could not have occurred by random chance mixing of inorganic elements. That's where the story ends. Intelligent design makes no effort to identify the nature of that intelligent designer .. be it a supernatural being, or a consciousness inherent in the natural universe. ID only contends that all of the elements suggestive of purposeful design are there and are irrefutable.
Good lord. Science belongs in schools and mystical tales of magical Jewish zombies, telepathy and talking snakes belongs either in Church or a Rob Zombie movie.
I really don't get why this is so difficult for some people.
Most of the Christians I know support teaching evolution. It's only the radical fundamentalists that oppose it.
As opposed to the invisible old white haired man in the sky sitting at a drawing board? Okay, that makes me a believer.
That seems to be your go to alternative ... not mine. You see, you people are so trapped in the left-right paradigm syndrome, it's always a choice between two false constructs.
Can you imagine for a moment that I might reject both fairy-tales? Both old white haired men .. the one in the clouds and the one who thinks a monkey is his uncle?
Try ... it's true .. I don't believe either story. And it's very telling that you seem to believe that everyone must chose one or the other.
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.
