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.
Evolution is taught in the biology classroom because it is the only theory that accurately explains the diversity of life on earth that we see now and in the fossil record - period.
Early-on academia’s 'believers in science only' promoted evolution aggressively as being the intellectual truth, and with the separation of church and state there was no resistance within the school system based on religious grounds. Of course our Supreme Court has never considered evolution as a religious belief, so it had a green light to go. Those in government and educational administration who knew very little about biology, accepted the TOE, not wanting to appear ignorant themselves. Higher education institutions ratcheted-up teaching the theory and indoctrinated future teachers. That was all that was needed for those wishing to take Creation out of the classroom to get a widespread foothold with TOE, and from there it has only snowballed, even to the point of being 'considered as' and 'accepted as' proven now. Honestly, it wouldn't have been wise to allow the promotion of religions in the school system, and proponents of evolution were crafty enough to piggy-back and pass off their belief as science. So all our children can really do is trust in the Lord for guidance and rely on it when TOE is presented to them as fact.Why is evolution taught in our public schools?"
It is a fact that motors that humans design and make do in fact need a human designer and manufacturer. Using metaphorical language to refer to biological structures as "motors" is not evidence that, for example, ATPsynthase is 'designed' by humans. By the way - those nice overly-stylistic diagrams of molecular 'motors' that the DI and other religious organizations prefer are not very accurate in their depictions. More realistic models don't seem so... 'designed'...isnt it a fact that motors need design?
What is the evidence for creation?actually the opposite is true: only creation can explain how all creatures appeared on earth and evolution cant.
Even though as darwin himself admitted, the fatal flaw in Evolution is the lackof any transistion fossil in the records?Evolution is taught in the biology classroom because it is the only theory that accurately explains the diversity of life on earth that we see now and in the fossil record - period.
I'd suggest reading the decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover ISD case.
The simple truth that the odds of there being any life ever forming from the universe on a just random basis is pretty much none!What is the evidence for creation?
Please keep in mind that nitpicking evolution is not evidence FOR creation.
There is zero evidence for any species changing into another one over time!God's Truth shows that evolution is nothing more than descent with modification within kinds over time. Some people wishing to eliminate God from His own creation changed the name to reflect their Godless views. None of them can explain the magic involved.
Even though as darwin himself admitted, the fatal flaw in Evolution is the lackof any transistion fossil in the records?
Your replicating cars analogy has been thoroughly discredited by numerous forum members. It is a silly idea.im trying to show you that im not any of this. but to do so you first need to answer my simple question about these cars. does the similarity between (self replicaiting )cars is evidence for evolution or common designer? to me the answer is clear- only design can explain this similarity. so why to believe otherwise when it comes to living things?
Darwin had his doubts and he did acknowledge that his theory would require lots of transitional forms as proof. He apparently thought they would be found over time, but no such luck yet.1. Darwin never "admitted"any such thing.
2. Darwin was not an apostle nor his writing an epistle.
When you persistently disregard the many examples you have been given the only feasible explanations are that you are lying, or you are suffering some form of memory loss. If it is the latter you have my sincere sympathy, if it is the former my respect for your position sinks further in the quagmire of your dissembling and equivocation.Darwin had his doubts and he did acknowledge that his theory would require lots of transitional forms as proof. He apparently thought they would be found over time, but no such luck yet.
Your answer doesn't surprise me in the least. I guess I'm getting used to your liar-liar-pants on fire responses for those who don't see so-called evidence in the same way you do. You've been shown time and time again that everyone isn't willing to use the amount of imagination you do to fill in the gaps.When you persistently disregard the many examples you have been given the only feasible explanations are that you are lying, or you are suffering some form of memory loss. If it is the latter you have my sincere sympathy, if it is the former my respect for your position sinks further in the quagmire of your dissembling and equivocation.
You have demonstrated, time and time again, that you lack the basic grounding in the evidence that would entitle you to have an opinion on the matter. Therefore, if you continue to make your fatuous, unsupported comments, I shall continue to note their failure.Your answer doesn't surprise me in the least. I guess I'm getting used to your liar-liar-pants on fire responses for those who don't see so-called evidence in the same way you do. You've been shown time and time again that everyone isn't willing to use the amount of imagination you do to fill in the gaps.
Of course Newton's gravitational model has been shown to be wrong.
Early-on academia’s 'believers in science only' promoted evolution aggressively as being the intellectual truth, and with the separation of church and state there was no resistance within the school system based on religious grounds. Of course our Supreme Court has never considered evolution as a religious belief, so it had a green light to go. Those in government and educational administration who knew very little about biology, accepted the TOE, not wanting to appear ignorant themselves. Higher education institutions ratcheted-up teaching the theory and indoctrinated future teachers. That was all that was needed for those wishing to take Creation out of the classroom to get a widespread foothold with TOE, and from there it has only snowballed, even to the point of being 'considered as' and 'accepted as' proven now. Honestly, it wouldn't have been wise to allow the promotion of religions in the school system, and proponents of evolution were crafty enough to piggy-back and pass off their belief as science. So all our children can really do is trust in the Lord for guidance and rely on it when TOE is presented to them as fact.
Darwin had his doubts and he did acknowledge that his theory would require lots of transitional forms as proof. He apparently thought they would be found over time, but no such luck yet.
“It was perfectly obvious to Darwin and his contemporaries, who had the difficult task of convincing their skeptical colleagues of the validity of evolution, that transitional forms were essential to the credibility of their claims. The fact that they were largely missing was acknowledged to be a major flaw in their argument.” Denton (ETC) Page 158
“While Darwin was attempting to convince the world of the validity of evolution by natural selection he was admitting privately to friends to moments of doubt over its capacity to generate very complicated adaptations or "organs of extreme perfection", as he described them. In a letter to Asa Gray, the American biologist, written in 1861, just two years after the publication of The Origin Of Species, he acknowledges these doubts and admits that "the eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." Denton (ETC) Page 326
Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Biological Evolution and Origin of Species
I didn't specify Newton, but nonetheless... we do still teach Newton's theory in school, because it is very nearly right, and right enough for almost all purposes. And if you go far enough in school, you learn GR.
As Asimov noted "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Anything that replaces evolution will be close enough to it that it'll be as hard to tell the difference as it is between the actual shape of the earth and a sphere.
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?