Why is evolution taught in our schools?

[inquiring mind]

I did not arrive at acceptance of macro evolution without several years of intensive study. Have you employed the same level of effort in rejecting it?

Yes, probably more.

Perhaps you are unable to see "why (I) would reason that way" because you have chosen not to expend the same level of effort. The lack of such effort and the consequent lack of knowledge you would have gained thereby would necessarily make you ignorant of the relevant data.

Uhh... NO. You love conjecture and speculation, don't you.

 

[YeshuaFan]

1. Darwin never "admitted"any such thing.
2. Darwin was not an apostle nor his writing an epistle.

He stated that his theory will rise or fall depending on transisition record that would be found. or not found in this case!

 

[Aman777]

That is not the way that science is done. It is the tests that have to be repeatable.

I see. False tests continue to show that prehistoric people magically changed into Humans with the highest intelligence in Nature. Let's see your false tests which tells us that today's backward Science CANNOT tell us of our true Human origin on another world.

 

[YeshuaFan]

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

Proves beyond any doubt thta Darwin knew that his entire theory hangs on this issue of the species changing recorded down in the fossil record, and so far, No proof for that exists!

 

[USincognito]

He stated that his theory will rise or fall depending on transisition record that would be found. or not found in this case!

Quote?

 

[Aman777]

But that is where faith comes in.
Creation is a matter of faith, not scientific fact.

False, since believing in the false ToE requires more faith and cannot be supported by Scientific Fact.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, probably more.

Then it is remarkable that you reach the conclusions you do.

Uhh... NO. You love conjecture and speculation, don't you.

Of course I do. It would be insane and unbelievably stupid not to.
Conjecture and speculation are vital aspects of humanity. Conjecture and speculation are glorious expressions of the human imagination. That's the same imagination that has let us spread around the globe, produce great works of art and develop science and technology.
I have the same love of the scientific method: the method that lets us control and direct our conjecuture and speculation, discarding what is invalid and developing what has merit.

 

[Aman777]

Regarding understanding being opened by God - I would settle for some evidence for any of the tall tales in scripture attributed to the work of God.

The evidence is found in Genesis 1:21 since NO man of the time could have possibly known and correctly states that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER on the 5th Day. I've told you this before and you have been unable to refute (prove me wrong) in ANY way. Try again?

 

[inquiring mind]

This sort of dishonest crap-stirring is why I put you on ignore, and back on ignore you go.

Right back to your playbook, dishonest, liar, and ignorant designating. You know, if I thought you were actually going to ignore me... I just don’t think I could bear it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then it is remarkable that you reach the conclusions you do.

Of course I do. It would be insane and unbelievably stupid not to.
Conjecture and speculation are vital aspects of humanity. Conjecture and speculation are glorious expressions of the human imagination. That's the same imagination that has let us spread around the globe, produce great works of art and develop science and technology.
I have the same love of the scientific method: the method that lets us control and direct our conjecuture and speculation, discarding what is invalid and developing what has merit.

That's certainly putting a positive spin on it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Good. You should be able to tell us where "evolved beings" came from apart from "common ancestors" which were made by Lord God at the beginning of the present 6th Day/Age, in the creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven.

Which evolved beings are you referring to? Do you mean evolved brachiopoda, or evolved carnivores, or evolved arthropods, or evolved bryozoa, or something else? Are you being incredibly anthropocentric and are referring to humans as the evolved beings? You do realise a human is no more evolved than an oyster?

 

[tas8831]

When they can no longer produce fertile offspring is when they become a separate species.

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.

 

[tas8831]

The evidence is found in Genesis 1:21 since NO man of the time could have possibly known and correctly states that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER on the 5th Day. I've told you this before and you have been unable to refute (prove me wrong) in ANY way. Try again?

I saw this when I foolishly clicked on 'view ignored content.' I did not attempt to refute you because you have been on my ignore list for months.
I will only respond thusly - bible verses are only evidence that something was written down by ancient middle eastern numerologists, for which there is ZERO corroboration or supporting evidence.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Quote?

The posting quoted by another poster in my same post!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I saw this when I foolishly clicked on 'view ignored content.' I did not attempt to refute you because you have been on my ignore list for months.
I will only respond thusly - bible verses are only evidence that something was written down by ancient middle eastern numerologists, for which there is ZERO corroboration or supporting evidence.

Actually, the account in Genesis was given to Moses by God Himself, so He should know how He did it!

 

[Tinker Grey]

the account in Genesis was given to Moses by God Himself

Prove it

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yes, probably more.


Uhh... NO. You love conjecture and speculation, don't you.

Even many evolutionists see Darwinism as a dead end, as not being able to be proven by so called scientific facts!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Prove it

Jesus quoted the account in genesis, and since he was the one who created Adam and Eve, and was there in the Garden with them!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Jesus quoted the account in genesis, and since he was the one who created Adam and Eve, and was there in the Garden with them!

Prove it. And, no, quoting the Bible doesn't count.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Prove it. And, no, quoting the Bible doesn't count.

If one does not accept that Jesus is the Lord God, and the scriptures are inspired, than there is no proof that will satisfy someone!