What's wrong with teaching evolution in public school? (state, support, laws)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Both verses demonstrated that the Bible describes the earth as a sphere.

Both verses fail to demonstrate the sphericity of the earth. The verses you cited from Job explicitly verify its flatness. And the Bible taken as a whole is a flat earth book from cover to cover.

Originally Posted by Harrier

You ought to rename yourself RevisionistHistorianDude, because you can't even seem to get simple facts correct.

That would require the "simple facts" you assert to actually be true.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

ERV's are not proof of common ancestry.

In fact, they are absolute, objective and incontrovertible proof of common ancestry.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Robin Rossi

You should take your own suggestion.

The topic is whether the Law of Evolution should be taught in school, NOT, whether it is fact or not, yet you keep demanding proof it is fact, when science has already done that repeatedly. You reject their evidences and conclusions, but your dogma is so strong that no level of proof could ever overcome your pre-conceived notion it is false.

The validity of ToE should be the only criteria involved to determine if it should be taught in schools.

Since the theory has zero evidence to support it, it should not be part of public school curriculum.

Private schools can teach it all they want.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by Harrier

The validity of ToE should be the only criteria involved to determine if it should be taught in schools.

Since the theory has zero evidence to support it, it should not be part of public school curriculum.

Private schools can teach it all they want.

Zero? You are a funny man Harrier.

What is the evidence for evolution?

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

That's what all delusional people believe. Even those who do not speak of themselves in the third person.

By that standard, then if you claim to be non-delusional, then you must neccesarily be delusional.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

By that standard, then if you claim to be non-delusional, then you must neccesarily be delusional.

What would lead you to hallucinate that that is the standard?

[ahzzie]

As I thought...it's getting late in the afternoon and STILL not one shred of evidence has been posted here that supports creationism. Not one! If I were a betting man I'd say two or three days from now this thread will still be dominated by the likes of Harrier cleverly circumventing the issue by attempting to divert attention elsewhere. At any rate, since creationism cannot be backed up by credible evidence, it has no place in any science class.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Robin Rossi

Except the Law of Gravity, et al. Give it up.

There is no law of gravity - only a theory of gravity.

[DivineComedy]

Originally Posted by Harrier

By that standard, then if you claim to be non-delusional, then you must neccesarily be delusional.

LOL
Is this an example of your logic?

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by PanTerra

You either have an editing typo in there or you are not clear what falsifiability is. One reason the Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory is because it is falsifiable. That's the way it works with Scientific Theories.

Oops! Thanks.