If you don't accept common descent...

You are basically right that evolution is not a religion, as such, but it is held with religious fervor by many.

But while the underlying philosophy that drives most intelligent design proponents is Christianity, the underlying philosophy that drives evolution is atheism. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that atheism is a religion, because it is a belief about God.

This is a new concept of law, introduced by the courts in the mid twentieth century. It has absolutely zero basis in the Constitution. When the courts introduced this concept, they reversed their own former position.

...Here we see that, as I had previously pointed out, evolutionists have relatively recently re-defined speciation in such a way that it becomes easy to demonstrate speciation. It is, by the way, not the way you have defined it. Speciation of the type required for evolution to proceed requires that the new species is unable to be cross bred (even artificially) with the parent species. But this definition was explored and rejected as the concept developed.

Actually, my research was from published peer reviewed scientific literature, an exhaustive list of all mutations that had been observed in the fruit fly. And as I said, 90% of them were lethal, and 90% of them that were not lethal were crippling. This is simple fact, whether you care to believe it or not.

Your logic totally breaks down here. Mutations that are of neutral value can collect and be passed on to following generations. Individuals that receive lethal mutations cannot reproduce, and therefore cannot pass these mutations on.

I referenced well accepted scientific understandings about the length of a DNA molecule and the spacing between the rungs of the DNA ladder. The rest is simple mathematics. If you cannot follow the mathematics, I am sorry, but it is fact, whether or not you understand it.

I never denied the process of natural selection. But to imagine that this is why dark colored peoples "developed" in Africa and fair haired people "developed" in northern regions is to project your theories. We have historical data, not theories, as to the ancient movements of ethnic groups. We know, for instance, that the western Europeans migrated to that region from the steppe regions of the Ukraine, and that the dark skinned peoples migrated to Africa from what is now western Turkey.

There are so many that it would take a whole book to present it. The earliest that I remember at the moment was the Piltdown man.

This was followed by Java man

and numerous others such as the (now well known to be) false diagrams of how embryos supposedly traced their evolutionary descent as they grew.

All of these frauds continued to be presented in textbooks long after they had been exposed. Within my personal experience, I have know more than one university professor of biology to stress "proofs" of evolution to beginning students, while explaining to advanced students that these supposed "proofs" are not factual. The truth is, that every argument for evolution is debunked by leading experts in the field to which that argument applies.

This is pure nonsense. A creator could create many different life forms as easily as he could create one.

I quote again from the same website I quoted from above:

3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized...

Thus, your own proponents clearly state that most of the purported cases of observed speciation were "inferred," rather that observed. I tend to believe that the word most would read all if the writer were entirely truthful, but I will not press the point at this time.

Well I have studied them, and I can assure you that every dating method applicable to living things except one includes at least one unprovable assumption. The only one that is logically rigorous is tree ring dating, and that can be extended back only a few thousand years.

So why do people have different skin tones based on their geographical region and how much sunshine they get in that region?

because when a white honkey like me ended up migrating to a place like africa i would have got sunburned to buggary all the time in my skimpy little fig leaf suit, and couldn't have been much of a contributer to society. My kind therefore would not have lasted very long at all. What sort of woman would want to marry the useless red guy and have his kids. I either died or got out of that place.

Pardon, but i wish to ask a few questions.


Like who?

I’m afraid you’re wrong. Evolution is no more driven by atheism than gravity or cells.

Furthermore, which court case showed that that was the Supreme Court’s opinion, I would like to look it up.

Furthermore, evolution does not promote atheism. Various field of science promote the idea of a young earth being wrong and evolution promotes gradual change of life. Not anything about God.

I thought that the ‘government shall not impede or promote’ religion was part of the establishment clause?

Furthermore, what former position? The Scopes trial from the 20s, or...?

Metherion

" I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college."

" The objection is that the foundation of the college upon the principles and exclusions prescribed by the testator, is derogatory and hostile to the Christian religion, and so is void, as being against the common law and public policy of Pennsylvania...

" we are compelled to admit that Christianity is part of the common law of the state, yet it is so in this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance or injury of the public. Such was the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Updegraaf v. the Commonwealth, 11 Serg. and Rawle, 394.

" It is not necessary for us, however, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Judaism, Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country; and therefore must be made out by clear and indisputable proof. Remote inferences, or possible results, or speculative tendencies, are not to be drawn or adopted for such purposes. There must be plain, positive, and express provisions, demonstrating not only that Christianity is not to be taught; but that it is impugned or repudiated.

" Now in the present case, there is no pretense to say that any such positive or express provisions exist, or are even shadowed forth in the will. The testator does not say that Christianity shall not be taught in the college. But only that no ecclesiastic of any sect shall hold or exercise any station or duty in the college...

" The objection itself assumes the proposition that Christianity is not to be taught, because ecclesiastics are not to be instructors or officers. But this is by no means a necessary or legitimate inference from the premises. Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics...

" Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college - its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity from from being read and taught in the college by lay-teachers? certainly there is nothing in the will, that proscribes such studies."

Fine, but why do we see no deviation of dark skin people into climates like Europe where the sun doesn't shine as intense?

How does it break down. The average human zygote has 128 mutations, by your studies around 115 of them should be lethal. And I'm saying that the majority of mutations have to be neutral in order for living things not to die out very quickly.

As far as I know Piltdown man was the only one to get the best of the scientific community; all other frauds never got the best of the scientific community.

Isn't that just another name for H. Erectus, which we have a few real skeletons of.

Are these Haeckel's drawings? If I remember correctly not all of them were false, and he was found guilty among his peers in the 1800's. And when we finally got good enough equipment to look at these embryos we found that for the most part Heckle was correct. And we don't use his drawing's anymore in biology class, now they show us real pictures of embryos.

What are these "proofs" of evolution you speak of? I have not heard of these "proofs" before, and neither have several people I've talked to that had biology around the same time you have. I can assure you that no "proofs" are being taught in modern biology class.

The proof that even one of them was false is enough to prove what we I said. But the basic theory he was advancing, the theory of recapitulation, was still being taught in general Biology textbooks in the 6os, when I was a university student, even though the advanced embryology textbooks we used taught that "this was outside of the facts."

The average human zygote does not have 128 mutations. If that were the case, it would be a rare event if a human survived to birth. The average human zygote receives 128 mutations from its ancestors. These are those mutations that are not so destructive that they seriously impede the reproductions of the individuals of the individuals that receive them.

This is simply incorrect.

I honestly do not remember. All I remember is that Java man was widely hailed. It consisted of a simeon-like jawbone that was linked to a homonoid femur. But upon close questioning the finder admitted that he had found these two bone fragments two years
apart and twenty feet apart in a live stream bed, and that he had also found other possible bone matches in that same area and had no proof that these two particular bones came from the same creature.

The proof that even one of them was false is enough to prove what we I said. But the basic theory he was advancing, the theory of recapitulation, was still being taught in general Biology textbooks in the 6os, when I was a university student, even though the advanced embryology textbooks we used taught that "this was outside of the facts."

This strikes me as odd. If there are no "proofs" being taught, where do you get the notion that the TOE is established fact?

In my (by the way considerable) experience with evolutionists generally, I have seen that they typically get very angry when their theory is challenged. This is a typical reaction associated with religious fervor, not with intellectual persuasion.

The basic assumption claimed for this branch of science is that there could have been no supernatural intervention in the development of the multitude of life forms we observe today. This is altogether as unscientific as the assumption that God created it all. But it is the essence of atheism. True science is agnostic in regard to the supernatural. It neither relies upon it nor denies it. It simply admits that it cannot know about it. But true science does not deny the supernatural. Only atheism does that.

I know this as a fact, but would have to look up the exact case.

I know you theistic evolutionists say this, but I reject it a illogical.

This is a common misconception. The "establishment of religion," as understood in the time of the founding of this nation, was a formal adaption of an official religion. There is absolutely nothing in the establishment clause that prohibits promotion of religion.

The Scopes trial never went to the Supreme Court, as far as I know.

So the Supreme Court in this case based its decision on its recognition that Christianity is the law of the land. This is only one of many such early Supreme Court decisions.

we are compelled to admit that Christianity is part of the common law of the state, yet it is so in this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance or injury of the public. Such was the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Updegraaf v. the Commonwealth, 11 Serg. and Rawle, 394.

So how many others are impacted by this lie? Or is it a case of the theory being correct so it doesnt matter if the evidence is a lie.