Zelaron Gaming Forum  
Stats Arcade Portal Forum FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Zelaron Gaming Forum > The Zelaron Nexus > General Discussion > Opinion and Debate

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

 
Thumbs up Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed
Reply
Posted 2006-06-11, 08:58 PM
Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

Ken Schalfley, Midland Daily News
06/04/2006

There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?

I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."

Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.

Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.

Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?

http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.... 472539&rfi=6
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
~JESUS~
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-11, 11:16 PM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
Are you actually diehard Christian, or just being a dumb internet-character?
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Grav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow
 
 
Grav
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-12, 03:36 AM in reply to Grav's post starting "Are you actually diehard Christian, or..."
The Galapagos Islands: Approximately 600 miles away from any other land, meaning they are completely surrounded by water for around 600 miles.

Diving Iguanas that dive and can stay underwater for around 45 minutes are the only type of iguanas that can swim, found ONLY in the Galapagos islands. There is no other type of iguanas anywhere in the world that can do this.

So why don't the iguanas found in African jungles swim, huh? Explain THAT, Jesus boy. Animals evolve according to their habitat. Thats why animals around the world that live in their habitat can survive in them. You don't see penguins living in the desert.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
kaos is an uncelestial body of masskaos is an uncelestial body of masskaos is an uncelestial body of mass
 
 
kaos
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-12, 07:04 AM in reply to kaos's post starting "The Galapagos Islands: Approximately..."
kaos said:
The Galapagos Islands: Approximately 600 miles away from any other land, meaning they are completely surrounded by water for around 600 miles.

Diving Iguanas that dive and can stay underwater for around 45 minutes are the only type of iguanas that can swim, found ONLY in the Galapagos islands. There is no other type of iguanas anywhere in the world that can do this.

So why don't the iguanas found in African jungles swim, huh? Explain THAT, Jesus boy. Animals evolve according to their habitat. Thats why animals around the world that live in their habitat can survive in them. You don't see penguins living in the desert.
Thats not evolution...they are still iguanas. All kinds of animals are designed to adapt, not change into other kinds. A dog is a beagle is a wolf...its still a kind of animal..it will never change into an iguana., no matter who many make believe millions of years you throw on it, or what environment it lives in.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
~JESUS~
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-12, 07:25 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post starting "Thats not evolution...they are still..."
In fact, it IS evolution.

Quote:
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.

2. a) The process of developing.
2. b) Gradual development.

Biology.
3. a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
3. b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
In scientific terms, evolution is when a species changes - not into a completely different species, but within itself -- adaptation is a big part of evolution. It IS evolution.

The first organisms adapted to their environments - and evolved. Some lived in water, other lived on land, some went mad and decided to fly. Eventually, that one original single-celled organism evolved into every living creature we see today.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Lenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
Lenny
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-12, 08:01 AM in reply to Lenny's post starting "In fact, it IS evolution. In..."
Lenny said:
In fact, it IS evolution.

In scientific terms, evolution is when a species changes - not into a completely different species, but within itself -- adaptation is a big part of evolution. It IS evolution.

The first organisms adapted to their environments - and evolved. Some lived in water, other lived on land, some went mad and decided to fly. Eventually, that one original single-celled organism evolved into every living creature we see today.
No it isnt. You cant have best of both worlds. Even though you HAVe to...

Lets take Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution

Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal (or even downward)” change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. [micro + time ≠ macro]

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities, increasing complexity, that results from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.

Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with hundreds of thousands of intermediates! None are found!

Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed.

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.a

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis.b However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life only comes from life.

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are LIMITS to such variation. Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc also confirm these boundaries.

Natural Selection

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. THIS IS THE HOAX! Actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost ALL observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal! No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors!!!

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.a Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.

Codes, Programs, and Information

In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease.a It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.

Life contains matter, energy, and informationd. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.e Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

* Macroevolution cannot occur.
* Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
* Life could not result from a “big bang.”

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences18.html
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
~JESUS~
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-12, 06:31 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
Either you ARE a diehard Christian, or the alternative as put forwrad by Grav. So how would you feel if your government was Hindu, and in the schools they forced everyone to learn the Hindu beliefs about creationism?

Evolution is based on scientific fact, and is currently the accepted 'version of events' for life on earth. Creationism is an idea.

Science is the medium between everyone - Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Jedi's, whatever religion. Their beliefs on how everything came about are different, but Science stays the same.

As it is, I believe your government to be made up of the world's greatest idiots. Not only do they try to use religion as an answer to things like the war in Iraq ("God came to me in a vision and told me, George, you have to invade Iraq"), but they then try and force it on EVERYONE in your country.

If someone wants to learn creationism, then they should go to a Christian school that will have nothing to do with anythig that the Bible says is wrong. Normal schools cater for a lot of faiths, and so cannot teach everyone ONE religions views and expect them to take that as the truth. Sure, maybe if they taught all the views of the major religions, but not just Christianity.

If that was happening here in England, there'd be murder. Especially up here.

---

Btw, we've already got a Resident Jesus... Black Jesus, in fact.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Lenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
Lenny
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-12, 07:25 AM in reply to Lenny's post starting "Either you ARE a diehard Christian, or..."
Lenny said:
Either you ARE a diehard Christian, or the alternative as put forwrad by Grav. So how would you feel if your government was Hindu, and in the schools they forced everyone to learn the Hindu beliefs about creationism?

Evolution is based on scientific fact, and is currently the accepted 'version of events' for life on earth. Creationism is an idea.

Science is the medium between everyone - Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Jedi's, whatever religion. Their beliefs on how everything came about are different, but Science stays the same.

As it is, I believe your government to be made up of the world's greatest idiots. Not only do they try to use religion as an answer to things like the war in Iraq ("God came to me in a vision and told me, George, you have to invade Iraq"), but they then try and force it on EVERYONE in your country.

If someone wants to learn creationism, then they should go to a Christian school that will have nothing to do with anythig that the Bible says is wrong. Normal schools cater for a lot of faiths, and so cannot teach everyone ONE religions views and expect them to take that as the truth. Sure, maybe if they taught all the views of the major religions, but not just Christianity.

If that was happening here in England, there'd be murder. Especially up here.

---

Btw, we've already got a Resident Jesus... Black Jesus, in fact.
Evolution is not based on scientific fact.

It was a THEORY proposed by a wife beating racist failed preacher 150 years ago and used by the controling elite to shape your young fragile mind ever since.

Science does not stay the same. Gods word does. Science can not prove evolution. Actually, it proves DESIGN and creation. Do your homework and try to use what God gave you in your head. Either everything is random and chaotic, and all you see just so happend to be perfect as we speak through random unguided mutations!...or EXTREMELY precisly designed...everything in the world obviously points to the later. Do some research on who Charlie Darwin was and what he really said. He says in "Orgins" that a whale evolved from a bear that jumped into the water to get fish over millions of years!

Schools are controlled now by a small group who want the human race in bondage. If you are taught that the world is an accident, then you think YOU are an accident..hence Columbine High School.

Does the world around you look chaotic?

If you know REAL PROVABLE science, then you know about design and creation.

here are some films to watch, if you really want to learn the truth...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...miracle+planet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...racle+ planet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...igent+ design

Last edited by ~JESUS~; 2006-06-12 at 10:06 PM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
~JESUS~
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-13, 07:01 PM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
Are they allowed to teach made up stuff? I always thought only shit that has been proven and only mention shit that is just theory

Evolution is the way we were made....
XBL: GreatThanatos69
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Great-Thanatos is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenGreat-Thanatos is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
Great-Thanatos
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-15, 09:49 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.

~JESUS~ said:
Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

Ken Schalfley, Midland Daily News
06/04/2006

There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed, and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.

Quote:
Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Are you looking in the right textbooks? When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window. The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?
This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless, and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).

Quote:
Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link. It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds, and is still not fully understood. However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?
The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed. There is argument on both sides of the debate, not just one, and it is not the only demonstration of the principle (polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).

Quote:
Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?
Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process), but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest (a more short term process, where genetic mutation is not paramount to its success, merely an already present difference). Also, the meaning of this paragraph is somewhat vague, and could do with some clarification of what it's getting at precisely, for instance when you use the term "net evolution".

Quote:
Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.

Quote:
Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found. They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.

Quote:
Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?
Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven, and is used as a substitute phrase for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". It is not believed by the scientific community, which oversees what is protrayed as "scientific fact" that the current theory of evolution (not exactly the same as Darwin's original) that the theory is based on misrepresentation of "the facts". Any fact in science is up for disproof; that's what the scientific method is about, I'm afraid.

Quote:
I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."
"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported. Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true, so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.

Quote:
Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.
THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them, but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny, and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness. Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept. Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact, not as a religious concept, however "religious" its beginnings. By saying "other concepts such as creationism", you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned. Overgeneralisation spring to mind?

Quote:
Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.
Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law. People are looking for the evidence, and it appears that "Icons of Evolution:..." would be a rather biased source; Jonathan Wells has not been without criticism. Namedropping a book such as this in an argument is a rather unsteady way to support your claims. There has been much less "evidence" (I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)

Quote:
Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?
We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more. However, by using this conclusion with such unsteady evidence as above, you discredit yourself as a serious debator. Think it through yourself next time, okay?

Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Bat-Melon is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenBat-Melon is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
Bat-Melon
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-15, 09:57 AM in reply to Bat-Melon's post starting "I know. Let's take this to bits,..."
You've just ripped an article by some other bloke to pieces here. Nothing in the post is any of ~JESUS~' own words.

Classy first post though. And now I understand why you started raving about fruit bats.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Lenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basicsLenny simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
Lenny
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-15, 12:57 PM in reply to Lenny's post starting "You've just ripped an article by some..."
Lenny said:
You've just ripped an article by some other bloke to pieces here. Nothing in the post is any of ~JESUS~' own words.

Classy first post though. And now I understand why you started raving about fruit bats.
Lenny if I "rip" and article by someone else, I post a link. Nothing I said today was stolen.

Fruit bats? You need to get off the computer. Go get some exercise. It does the body and mind wonders!
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
~JESUS~
 



 
Reply
Posted 2006-06-15, 01:54 PM in reply to Bat-Melon's post starting "I know. Let's take this to bits,..."
Bat-Melon said:
I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.



The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed,

no it cant. Proteins are formed by combinations of amino acids, precise combinations dicated by information only...and environmental factors that select from present genes to survive.

Bat-Melon said:
and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.

proof of concept? lol

Bat-Melon said:
Are you looking in the right textbooks?

There are alot of them out there!

Bat-Melon said:
When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window.

When it was discovered, scientist thought the earth was no longer then 10,000 years old. There are no intermediates! Bats are found fperfectly complete with sonar hearing and fully extended bat wings! There are no intermediates! there should be hundreds of thousands if not millions! what a lucky time to be alive I guess, nothing is evolving anymore I guess...

Bat-Melon said:
The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.

Nor will they ever! But they do try to...

Bat-Melon said:
This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless,

dude, there are thousands of textbooks written over the last 150 years! Are you joking? Get some like every 20 years and you will laugh!

Bat-Melon said:
and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).

...again another opinion with no foundation. Lets debate facts and not discuss what people would or wouldnt do...

Bat-Melon said:
The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link.

oh but it is. My nephew has it in his textbook!

Bat-Melon said:
It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds,

Oh yeah? where are the rest?

Bat-Melon said:
and is still not fully understood.
..and it wont be, iits been proven a hoax!

Bat-Melon said:
However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.

..oh is that it, hence? lol...yes that MUST be the reason. Such an exact science!

Bat-Melon said:
The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed.

another played out hoax!

Bat-Melon said:
polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).

point about what? Its not evolution, its adapting to the environment! This is not evolution, you cant have the best of both worlds! The definition of evolution sure has come along way in the last 150 years, WAY more than the actual proof for the original theory! Its ALL information that had to have had a designer.

..and by the way, its still a bear!!!!

Bat-Melon said:
Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process),

yes it does, which is why its used.

Bat-Melon said:
but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest

Natural Selection actually is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest as a means of explaining "evolution"..but the definition has evolved to include it as well..with a twist of couse.

Natural selection occurs, but nothing evolves. Nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

People think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. In actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!

Bat-Melon said:
It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.

Not improvments for say... Just the goal MANS INTERVENTION deliberatley set out to accomplish by taking one gene and mixing it with others. This is FAR from explaining orgins or evolution for that matter!

amazing also that everything just so happens to be fool proof just as it is, the way God made them huh? lol

Bat-Melon said:
Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found.

Or not found, we as humans have imaginations. Plant an image, it stays. Very useful tool for proaganda.

The examples givin were proven that the people were told to make the drawings!

Bat-Melon said:
They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.
opinion and false.

Bat-Melon said:
Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven,
what? Are you joking? Are you just bending rules to fit the mold? lol

Bat-Melon said:
"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported.
Say the entire name of the book. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

..its because it HAS to be. Do research on who controls the museums, research funding, boards and everything under...

Evolution is a tool for control.

Bat-Melon said:
Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true,

Obviously.

Bat-Melon said:
so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.

Another opinion. He said and did alot of things. Big deal. Most HURT his "theory"

Bat-Melon said:
THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them,

you got that right...

Bat-Melon said:
but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny,

Another opinion that doesnt hold. Look at the scientific community then, what influence did it have compared to today? lol

Bat-Melon said:
and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness.

Useless to you. Another unfounded opinion.

Bat-Melon said:
Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept.

what something is regarded as means nothing.

Bat-Melon said:
Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact,

what something is regarded as means nothing. Facts are facts. If you teach one as ABSOLUTE when it isnt, there is a reason...

Bat-Melon said:
not as a religious concept,

yes because not being absolute it is faith based that worships time that can not be proven, how convenient!

By saying "other concepts such as creationism",

what?

Bat-Melon said:
you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned.
Lets say I actually know what you are talking about, thats not what Im implying Im sure.
Dont divert attention from the facts. One is taught as absolute without ANY regard for the other, facts, or what people believe or want! It and its concepts are constantly changing and expanding for lack of evidence and the dumbing down and unknowingly ignorant acceptence by the controlled masses. Obviously.

Bat-Melon said:
Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law.

give me a break dude..

Bat-Melon said:
(I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)

wonder why...lol

spin spin

Bat-Melon said:
We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more.
when you START with a conclusion and warp what you find to fit the mold it isnt science. Its propaganda.

Last edited by ~JESUS~; 2006-06-15 at 03:58 PM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between~JESUS~ is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
~JESUS~
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-10-21, 02:02 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
Out of sheer boredom, I've decided to reply to every one of Jesus' posts in this thread. Why? Because most of them make no sense. And I hate that. Lenny already did a hell of a job. I think I was on a temporary hiatus when all of this went down otherwise I would have been all over this. However the fact that this moron decided to copy and paste most of his shit bugs me.

Anyway. most of my replies are going to be what I like to call common sense. There's really no point reading anything I write past this point unless by some chance this guy decides to come back. I just feel like arguing with somebody, so I'll use the shit he's already posted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, we need to define what evolution is, so we can have some basic premise to build upon. In the biology community, evolution is defined as a gradual change in allele frequencies in a population. It's that simple. Macroevolution and microevolution are generally not distinguished in a biology class. They are based on the same mechanism. So-called macroevolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of microevolution.

Now that definitions are not in the way, we need to look at the ideologies driving the institutes that you quote, and what drives the scientific community. The scientific community looks for the truth. As new evidence comes in, scientists tweak and modify their theories to fit the truth to the best knowledge that humanity has gathered. We may not yet have a crystal clear picture of the truth, however the detail in the picture becomes finer and finer as new evidence piles on. Your institutes are driven by religion. They come in with a pre-conceived notion of the truth, and then try to find evidence to fit that. When that fails, they twist, or outright fabricate evidence to fit their pre-conceived ideas.

Scientists may seem dogmatic about their theories. That is because the evidence is so pervasive. Evidence found so far in nature fits the evolutionary paradigm. Any evidence found contradicting that paradigm is usually unverifiable, or only seems to contradict the paradigm on the surface. This is why scientists generally don't question evolutionary theory. Now, if there was any evidence against evolution, such as a human being born to a monkey, scientists would seriously have to rethink their position. However, no such evidence exists.

The arguments that the discovery institute advocates are simply tautologies of the past 50 years that are constantly being rephrased. Over the next few days I will point out these tautologies in the posts that you have copied and pasted, and I will also attempt to show how your evidence against evolution is either fabricated, as it contradicts an enormous amount of already verified evidence, unverifiable, or how it can fit the evolutionary paradigm.

Quote:
There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.
Before the questions presented in the article that follows the above quote are answered, I would like the creationist to consider a concern of my own. You want your theory in my science class? Fine. Make it a scientific theory, and follow the process of science. Convert your tautologies into a scientific theory. Submit your theory to peer-reviewed journals. Have it gain some acceptance in an academic setting before it is taught in school. That is, after all, the process that any scientific theory must go through before it becomes rightly acknowledged. You, however, want to skip this well established process, and simply have your theory accepted and taught as fact. This is not science. It is, however, the epitome of religion.

Quote:
Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
Creationist, you are too preoccupied with the details of the experiment, which has caused you to overlook its overall significance. What the real environment of the Earth was like 4 billion years ago is not all that important. The significance of this experiment is that it shows how organic matter can rise from inorganic matter through purely natural processes. It voids the prerequisite of a supernatural cause for abiogenesis.

Quote:
Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Creationist, you are maliciously deceiving those who read your article. Most textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion at length. Furthermore, they provide viable explanations of the Cambrian explosion that entirely fit the evolutionary paradigm. Creationist, I recommend you learn about punctuated equilibrium. I also suggest that you learn some basic geology so that you may understand the process of fossil formation.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?
One person exaggerated about embryonic similarity. That is shameful. However, it is also primal human instinct to desire fame, and thus this exaggeration may have been based on that. That said, no reputable biology books show that picture anymore except to point out that at one point in time someone over-exaggerated embryonic similarities. Though not quite to the extent of the pictures you allude to, many embryonic similarities do exist. Once again, I suggest that the creationist educate himself on modern embryonic anatomy of various species.

Quote:
Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
The archaeopteryx is almost certainly an ancestor to modern birds. You are simply decreeing by fiat that there is probably no link between the two. However, morphological homologies don't lie. A link almost certainly exists.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?
Creationist, why do you cite one esoteric piece of information, and then induce that if your guesses are true about this piece of information then the entire structure of science is overthrown? As a matter of fact, what does this have to do with evolution?

Quote:
Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?
Dear creationist, you are sadly misinformed. Nobody claims that beak changes in Galapagos finches explains the origin of species by natural selection. We simply say that it is an example of natural selection. It is also an example of the common lineage of the various finches. Also, beaks did not shrink after the drought ended. You need citation for this claim. It seems absolutely bogus to me. More likely than that happening, you are employing a mischievous tactic which has you fabricating some information on an esoteric subject making it difficult for me to verify. A citation on this particular claim would help explain your case.

Quote:
Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
Textbooks use evidence of fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence for DNA mutation because probably is DNA mutation, if again, this isn't one of your "fabricated facts." Whether or not this mutation is deleterious is irrelevant. What is significant is that it is an example of a mutation.

Quote:
Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
Because all fossil experts agree that our ancestors were primates. They simply don't agree on detail. As an analogy to explain this phenomenon, consider the following question: What did one of your ancestors look like 6 generations back? We could ask you and a sibling of yours. If you were asked to draw, their would probably be certain similarities between your drawing and that of your sibling's. For instance, we can assume that both drawings would consist of arms, legs, hair, head, and other common features. We can assume that both drawings would be a depiction of a human. However the drawings would differ in detail. This is what happens when fossil experts try and understand who our ancestors were. Make no mistake, though, everybody agrees that they were primates. Everybody agrees that modern apes and humans descended from them.

Quote:
Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?
This is simply a lie. While it is true, Darwin himself was incorrect about certain things, those have been corrected over the last 150 years. Even in Darwin's time, the theory of evolution was based off of scientific fact. It is much more so in our time.

Quote:
I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."
Creationist, I find your ignorance on scientific vernacular disturbing, especially since your are advocating your own scientific theories. In science, the term theory does not necessarily imply any uncertainty.

Also, "this quotation has been lifted completely out of context. Darwin is not stating that his theory was no better than its opposite. Quite the contrary. Examine Darwin's full statement below, which includes the sentences that directly preceded the above quotation: "This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements...I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

In context, Darwin was merely admitting that it was "impossible" for him to state his case completely, and balance it out by raising and answering all possible objections, since the Origin was merely an "abstract." For instance, elsewhere in the introduction he stated, "...it will take me many more years to complete it [my work], and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this abstract." Being merely an "abstract," he expected that people would raise questions, "adducing facts...apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived." Note his use of the word "apparently." But once "both sides of each question" had been "fully stated," Darwin was confident that a "fair result" would vindicate his theory rather than "the opposite." Darwin also stated in his introduction, "I have not been hasty in coming to a decision," a "decision" built on many years work, many more examples, and finely tuned arguments, than he could possibly fit between the covers of his little "abstract."

In fact, Darwin was so certain that a "fair result" would favor his view, that he ended his introduction with these words: "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive means of modification." Why don't the editors of The Revised Quote Book cite that summation of his introduction? Don't they want their readers to know what Darwin said in full context? Perhaps they are ignorant of it themselves."

Quote:
Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.
This is a lie propagated by Lady Hope. Even if it is not, science does not rest on the authority of one man. We have great scholars, we don't have prophets. If Darwin considered his work akin to religion, it is most certainly not that anymore as it has been tested, and empirically verified.

Quote:
Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.
There is no scientific theory with more conclusive evidence than the theory of evolution. Germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity do not come close to being nearly as conclusive as the theory of evolution. I am deeply sorry that science contradicts your holy book, dear creationist, however it is not science's job to appease you, no matter how belligerent you become. If anything deserves scientific law status, it is the fact of evolution.

Quote:
Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?
I wholeheartedly concur. Investigate. When you have a proper scientific theory, we will have something to discuss.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-10-21, 12:38 PM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
How the hell did I miss this thread? Oh wait, I was internetless...right.

You obviously never understood evolution.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
KagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed it
 
 
KagomJack
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-11-01, 01:53 AM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
~JESUS~ said:
Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?
I was perusing some websites and found a rebuttal to all these:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...11_28_2001.asp
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2007-12-12, 04:48 PM in reply to ~JESUS~'s post "Evolution shouldn't be taught in..."
Are you only posting questions or are you also providing answers? Seems to me you're just a confused school child.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
areyoudaft is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenareyoudaft is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
areyoudaft
 



 

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules [Forum Rules]
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:57 AM.
'Synthesis 2' vBulletin 3.x styles and 'x79' derivative
by WetWired the Unbound and Chruser
Copyright ©2002-2008 zelaron.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.