Evolution in our schools.

SkepticOverlord,

Several books with anti-macro evolutionary evidences in them have been presented to you by another poster, have you even considered looking at what they have to say? Two important points need to be made right here and now. First, you cannot dismiss a scientific argument simply on the grounds that it might lead you to believe that God created everything. Second, in this discussion I don�t have to prove that science leads towards God only that macro-evolution is not a valid theory.

I meet the criteria I�ve set forth for myself if I can argue to you in a scientific manner one thing. That macro-evolution is unlikely to have had any impact on our current place in this world.

Was it God who created us, I�m not saying. That�s for you to decide.




Machine

In earlier posts some have asked for evidences against evolutionary theory. This is a small question with a huge answer. Now, the link I have placed here is by no means exhaustive of the subject but it does make nice, easy to read points concerning evolution. Nothing too heavy to start with just something to chew on.


bevets.com...



Machine

Kind of rambling? Is there a point you wanted us to see?

I don't get it, one has to prove Darwin's theory to be complete in order to know strict biblical Creation dogma is a crock of... ?

I especially like the link it gives to Flat Earth Fallacies www.tektonics.org... where they use scripture on the earth being a 'circle' to prove that other scripture saying the earth is flat is wrong. (USING THE BIBLE TO REFUTE THE BIBLE IS A HOOT!!!)

Or how we just don't understand the word "PILLARS", so the inspired men of the Bible weren't wrong about the nature of the Earth... we are.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well then you haven't responded to my bee post that has been posted on at least two different threads here. It isn't based on religious faith, but the claims made by the evolutionists darned sure take some faith.

It was a 42,000,000 year old bee in amber. They extracted its DNA, and then compared it to the modern bee...ALMOST IDENTICAL.

So my question still remains unanswered:

1. Either evolution takes a butt-load more time than 42,000,000 years, OR

2. We're all gonna evolve into bees, because they obviously are the bomb.

Which is it?

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by Valhall]

Why would an eco-system evolve to it's own ruin? All life would become bees? What about the ants that airate the soil to make flowers for bees? The anteaters that keep the ants from eating all the seeds. The bears that keep the bees at bay...

Ticks are the weird one. Ticks make no sense. So do Ticks support the God Design theory, or refute it?

I think Church and State for one should be seperated, Hence no more questions like these.
Furthermore, I see no problem evolution not being taught by catholic schools, but I do see a problem if it were void in publics school due to teh christian bias of creation.
This is well "simply not fair for non christians"
Religion is a very deep and touchy subject that comes from the heart, science is based on theorys and absolutes.
I for one believe in the Evolution of Relgions to meet modern day societies.
Deep

Originally posted by Machine
In earlier posts some have asked for evidences against evolutionary theory. This is a small question with a huge answer. Now, the link I have placed here is by no means exhaustive of the subject but it does make nice, easy to read points concerning evolution. Nothing too heavy to start with just something to chew on.
Machine

The problem with debating evolution and creation is that the two sides are having different discussions. The creationists are busy finding faults with the latest theories to "prove" evolution is wrong, and the scientists are oblivious to the creationists because they're busy trying to discover new knowledge.

What the creationists don't understand is that science isn't a body of knowledge or a set of ideas. It's a process of discovering knowledge and forming new ideas. Within that process theories are not monolithic doctrines that must be believed, they are working tools to aid in the search for new knowledge. As such it is expected that they will change or even be replaced as new information is discovered.

These are important distinctions to understand.

Arguments against evolution presume that if evidence can be found that contradicts any detail of the overall theory, that the entire theory is put into question. That�s not true. Scientists expect to find contradictory evidence. It�s the contradictory evidence that give the scientists clues on where and how to look for new knowledge to build new theories or to improve the old theories.

It's Dogma versus a method.

If you ascribe to one, the other is nonsense.

Again you return to God and Christianity. I only asked you to consider the many problems that macro-evolutionary theory has but you refuse to acknowledge the obvious. You�re dodging scientific criticism by diverting attention to the presenter. Argue the science and I�ll respect you, ridicule the one who presents it as your only defense and you have lost this debate.

It�s understandable, many Christians do the same thing when they cannot answer an Atheist, instead of acknowledging that they don�t know or making any attempt to answer the question they write off the question by attacking the questioner.

�Hey, you know how those Atheist are, always talking nonsense in an effort to avoid the truth.�

Both sides are guilty of this.


Machine

The trick is, because Evolution is a scientific theory, it changes and adapts to include any new data that comes to light. A page of out of context quotes from the last hundred years really isn't something that could be looked upon as 'many problems' with evolutionary theory. Even that page only proposes creation as an alternative. Weighing the evidence in favour of both, there is a clear winner. Thats why Evolutionary theory is taught in science classes.

[Edited on 18-12-2003 by Kano]

Doesn't the mere fact that dogs evolved from wolves prove macroevolution?

Or that cats, tigers and lions have the same ancestor?

Originally posted by Kano
The trick is, because Evolution is a scientific theory, it changes and adapts to include any new data that comes to light. A page of out of context quotes from the last hundred years really isn't something that could be looked upon as 'many problems' with evolutionary theory. Even that page only proposes creation as an alternative. Weighing the evidence in favour of both, there is a clear winner. Thats why Evolutionary theory is taught in science classes.

[Edited on 18-12-2003 by Kano]

But Kano, the big problem is not that the Evolution Theory is taught in classes. I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that. The big problem is HOW the Evolution Theory is taught in classes. And I'm not speaking from heresay - first hand knowledge as a substitute science teacher to middle high students. It is taught as FACT. It is taught without mention to Creationism. AND, it is taught with many alarming comments thrown in that have not a darned thing to do with the scientific theory.

The problem is that there has formed a NEW religion around these band-aided, limping, prosthetically-ambulatory theories (i.e. Evolution, Big Bang) and that religion was founded on an abandonment of the scientific theory, institutional integrity investments that won't be abandoned, and blind obsession that apparently won't be relinquished. If these theories are going to be taught as a religion, requiring faith - i.e. belief in something on a "trust us" basis, then we better start teaching ALL of the faith-based theories out there.

ValHall, why should it be thought with mention to creationism??? If you have to mention all of creationism (from all religions) you'll be still on the first chapter when it's time for midterms...

And I agree that there are schools in which evolution has become dogma.

Originally posted by Machine In earlier posts some have asked for evidences against evolutionary theory. bevets.com...

Help me here... where is the evidence in that page? I see a lot of opinion and quoting, but no physical evidence that contradicts evolution. We still seem to be mixing up the word "theory" is it's used by science. Relativity is a "theory" just as there are "theories" in nuclear physics that define how reactions occur. In science, theories are not guesses.

Originally posted by ValhallBut Kano, the big problem is not that the Evolution Theory is taught in classes. I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that. The big problem is HOW the Evolution Theory is taught in classes. And I'm not speaking from heresay - first hand knowledge as a substitute science teacher to middle high students. It is taught as FACT. It is taught without mention to Creationism.

Creation is a religious belief based on faith. Evolution is a branch of science based on observation and discovery. Evolution is a science taught in science class. Makes sense. Chemistry is taught as fact. Physics is taught as fact. Do you have a problem with these? Nearly all high schools have comparitive religion classes available for juniors and seniors. Whithin these clases, creation is discussed (usually the creation stories of several religions). The trouble with teaching the Genisis creation as an alternative is that it is one story from one religion. Teaching it in a required class is a contradiction of the separation ideal. If evolution is not a valid theory, then how do influenza viruses become stronger and develop new strains? What about the bacteria that are resistance to antibiotics? This is evolution before our very eyes.

Skepticoverlord,

They have no problem with that (I mean some of the posters in this thread), but with macroevolution.

I see evidence for macroevolution also. Another one here:

news.bbc.co.uk...

But there is also a lack of evidence with macro evolution...such as Angiosperms...which have been around for billions of years....and are still around....

But also apparently they changed into roses too....

How did these angiosperms evolve into roses....and where is the evidence of the evolutional change happening?

There is alot of evidence missing for billions of years worth of evolution from an angiosperm to a rose.

Take into consideration that most plants that die are broken down by bacteria a.o.. Fossilisation occurs in certain conditions that are not so common. I'm not so sure what percentage of plants and animales make it to fossils, but it's not that high at all.

Also, sharks have existed for at least 350 million years. That still doesn't refute evolution.

It's a matter of becoming extinct or not. And that depends on weather, location and danger (predators). So angiosperms not being extinct does not refute evolution either.

Here is info about angiosperms evolving.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...


[Edited on 18-12-2003 by TheBandit795]

It's Dogma versus a method.

If you ascribe to one, the other is nonsense.

That, is one of the most profound things I've heard in a long time.... You just got one of my votes this month!

You should make that your sig....

The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.~ Charles Darwin

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. ~ Charles Darwin

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geologic record, will rightly reject my whole theory. ~ Charles Darwin


Just one "tiny" problem with macro-evolutionary theory. This is a strong argument of absence of evidence. There are many more.

�extreme imperfection of the geological record�. What a riot!


Machine