Darwin's evolution theory?

[coolstylinstud]

I'm sure the Hebrews would have the vocabulary to write that.

Its light you dont always have to say exactly what it is.

 

[GraceInHim]

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?

correct experimental conditions - therefore not absolute and should not be telling kids in school something that is not 100% correct -

 

[invisible trousers]

correct experimental conditions - therefore not absolute and should not be telling kids in school something that is not 100% correct -

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?

 

[Melethiel]

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]

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?

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 -

 

[Donkeytron]

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?

You responded with a cut and paste that's way too long to address. I've tried several times to get across what evolution is and isn't. And I guess you couldn't be bothered to click on the link. Why not just pick one individual claim and lets start from there?

Hey here's a good one from 2001: A "scientist" discussing the long-discredited paluxy tracks and suggesting that there was a giant race of men who lived with the dinosaurs:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/03006.htm

You might want to rethink your source.

 

[Donkeytron]

Yes - but that is not God

Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi5.html

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]

 

[GraceInHim]

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?

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]

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 -

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

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.).

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.

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

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?

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?

 

[GraceInHim]

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]

Donkey - you only place a part of a sentence to make it look that way - you seem to be so active that your greatX10000 grandmother came from Lucy then make a holiday for her -

I know mine and she isn't no chimp

 

[invisible trousers]

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?

point refuted a thousand times, generally creationlist lies and distortions

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

they've all been debunked.

 

[Melethiel]

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.

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]

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.

repost and repost - seems my post come from all different sources disputing my ancestor was not no chimp

 

[GraceInHim]

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 - 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]

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.

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.)

 

[coolstylinstud]

Until you can show me somewhere in the bible that it even hints at evolution or the true creation being worng thne i will believe what i believe

 

[GraceInHim]

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.)

you said it - not me - so please do not say after our ancestors were not apes and then before say they were to answer my questions - stick within 1 area - unless you are not certain and now beleive our Ancestors were not Apes

 

[marciebaby]

I'm a biochemist-at least I was until I had children-so now I'm a mom with an expensive education.
I remember sitting in class studying protein synthesis and thinking to myself, "There is NO way that all this just happened by itself." Every component of our bodies, every gene, every biological cycle are just so incredibly complex. Someone once said to me that if you go out into nature and find a watch just lying there, NO ONE ever says, "Wow, look how this watch evolved here. Isn't it interesting how the wind smoothed the gold over time, and how the all the gears are formed so perfectly?"

But human beings, who are incredibly more complex, just arose accidentally?

 

[Melethiel]

Well, evolution doesn't have to do with origin. Of course it's absurd to think that it just happened accidentally. I take biochemistry next year...providing, that is, that I survive organic chemistry. It's soooo complicated...

GraceInHim...common ancestor is not the same as an Ape. Both my statements stand.