Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm sure the Hebrews would have the vocabulary to write that.
Donkeytron said:Sorry, it is a scientific theory. And, strangely enough, virtually every practicing biologist accepts or uses it. Don't you think that evolutionary biologists would notice the fact that their unifying theory doesn't hold up under experimental conditions?
GraceInHim said:correct experimental conditions - therefore not absolute and should not be telling kids in school something that is not 100% correct -
invisible trousers said:are you (or any other creationists) going to actually get around to showing that evolution is wrong, or just parrot the same old b.s. pratts?
really, if evolution is so wrong, there should be mountains of evidence all over the world for a young earth and no evolution.
what's the hold up?
tall73 said:I responded with several on post 208. And I assume by your posting someone elses link that you cannot accurately summarize the teaching of evolution?
GraceInHim said:Yes - but that is not God
Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi5.html
Melethiel said:I'm of the mindset that eventually more evidence will come up, and a new theory will be formulated. But until then, evolution ought to be used, because it has proven to be useful in many discoveries.
As for it not being taught because it is not set it in stone...should we not teach kids that light is radiation made of waves, just because it actually has particle-like qualities? That light is a wave is not 100% correct, yet it is being taught to kids. I guess we should go to court over that and demand that the whole picture be taught. How concrete does scientific evidence have to be before it is worthy of being taught?
GraceInHim said:you seem to do go around my words to make yours correct -
Darwins theory which make us an Apes ancestors is not 100% truth - therefore it should not be taught in schools - and that is why more parents as I placed yesterday on this thread the PewReport are against this theory - so my whole thing is the Ape -
Claim CC150:
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
Source:
Robinson, B. A, 2003. 17 indicators that evolution didn't happen (with rebuttals). http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm#11
Response:
1. Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).
invisible trousers said:are you (or any other creationists) going to actually get around to showing that evolution is wrong, or just parrot the same old b.s. pratts?
really, if evolution is so wrong, there should be mountains of evidence all over the world for a young earth and no evolution.
what's the hold up?
Donkeytron said:Rofl nice article. Here's a particularly telling passage:
"[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The evolutionary trees shown in biology textbooks are simply theory, not science."
[/font]
ArchangelGabriel said:depends on what im showing.. that humans werent evolved from animals or taht the world in general with the exclusion of humans uses evolution
and what is a pratt?
But it is the job of the parents to let kids know that they were created by God. Questions of a higher power do not fall under the realm of science, and therefore you cannot fault science classrooms for not teaching about God. The job of a science classroom is to present the evidence as we know it. This evidence is constantly being revised; the taxonomy I am learning and what my teacher learned is quite a bit different. But are we to say that because our scientific knowledge is limited, science should not be taught at all? Yes, perhaps the identity of the common ancestor of humans and apes is incorrectly placed. Why is it such a big deal?GraceInHim said:the whole case in court is not to throw out all scientific discoveries or what else can we discover - it is only the theory of ancestory to Apes - parents are on the rise on getting out of schools - but them we need to let kids know where they came from - a higher power - so that is the tricky part of this court case - because it deals with religion and God.
invisible trousers said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html
why do you keep on lying?
edit: by now i should have realized that trying to discuss science with people who don't even remotely understand it is a fruitless effort.
Melethiel said:But it is the job of the parents to let kids know that they were created by God. Questions of a higher power do not fall under the realm of science, and therefore you cannot fault science classrooms for not teaching about God. The job of a science classroom is to present the evidence as we know it. This evidence is constantly being revised; the taxonomy I am learning and what my teacher learned is quite a bit different. But are we to say that because our scientific knowledge is limited, science should not be taught at all?
Our ancestors were not apes, so that's not really relevant. So, what do you propose be taught instead? The science classroom is not the place for teaching about God. Do you suggest that the question of evolution be ignored entirely, because some people don't like the evidence that goes behind it? (This is a serious question.)GraceInHim said:yes - but there are many kids without guidance - so should we ignore them? and this is about is our ancestors were Apes not anything else.
Melethiel said:Altogether now...
Evolution does not teach that humans come from apes. Evolution teaches that both humans and apes come from a common ancestor that was neither/both human nor ape.
As such, you are asking us to prove a strawman.
It is like asking why a lion hasn't evolved into a domestic cat yet. I don't see anyone denying that lions are related to cats.
Our ancestors were not apes, so that's not really relevant. So, what do you propose be taught instead? The science classroom is not the place for teaching about God. Do you suggest that the question of evolution be ignored entirely, because some people don't like the evidence that goes behind it? (This is a serious question.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?