Why is evolution taught in our schools?

[Justatruthseeker]

Because that was a common belief at the time of Galileo.



Oh my, playing at science to justify your belief in fairy dust.

Hmmm, seems I just proved my theory with hard empirical laboratory data.... while you have no explanation at all.....

Oh, you mean because you don't want to "see" it.... I understand....

Speaking of Fairie Dust, which one of us here is using laboratory data, while the other claims bent nothing??????

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope try again. But then people that deny logic should never try to apply logical fallacies.

No True Scotsman would fall under:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

And if you don't think No True Scotsman is science, then it would fall under:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

And I speculate No True Scotsman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm, seems I just proved my theory with hard empirical laboratory data.... while you have no explanation at all.....

Oh, you mean because you don't want to "see" it.... I understand....

Speaking of Fairie Dust, which one of us here is using laboratory data, while the other claims bent nothing??????

No, you made a bogus claim about gravity and then used an experiment that in almost all certainty that you did not understand.

Tell me, what was the purpose of that experiment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No True Scotsman would fall under:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

And if you don't think No True Scotsman is science, then it would fall under:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

And I speculate No True Scotsman.

Again, you do not understand logic. Don't even try.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, you made a bogus claim about gravity and then used an experiment that in almost all certainty that you did not understand.

Tell me, what was the purpose of that experiment?

Bogus claim about gravity? Says the guy that would agree that relativity is 99.8% correct, then dismisses it and adds 95% Fairie Dust because his 99.8% correct theory without it fails to model the rest of the universe correctly......

You have no quantum theory of gravity - all your models fail miserably. You got not one single experimental or theoretical quantum data set in which to make any claims about gravity at the level we are discussing..... your thoughts about gravity at this level have already proven that they are wrong.... so why would I be concerned with the belief of those who can't model gravity correctly at the quantum level at all, nor without adding 95% Fairie Dust to the model they proclaim is already 99.8% correct without it....

It is what the experiment showed. It discovered much, much more than the charge on an electron.....

It showed that gravity is dependent upon both voltage and charge.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bogus claim about gravity? Says the guy that would agree that relativity is 99.8% correct, then dismisses it and adds 95% Fairie Dust because his 99.8% correct theory without it fails to model the rest of the universe correctly......

You have no quantum theory of gravity - all your models fail miserably. You got not one single experimental or theoretical quantum data set in which to make any claims about gravity at the level we are discussing..... your thoughts about gravity at this level have already proven that they are wrong.... so why would I be concerned with the belief of those who can't model gravity correctly at the quantum level at all, nor without adding 95% Fairie Dust to the model they proclaim is already 99.8% correct without it....

It is what the experiment showed. It discovered much, much more than the charge on an electron.....

It showed that gravity is dependent upon both voltage and charge.....

No one has added any fairy dust.

What part of science are you having such a hard time understanding now?

You are relying on old refuted ideas and using the weakest of Tu Quoque arguments when you ignore the failures of your beliefs.

Right now there is no discussing science with you since you refuse to learn even the basics. You take yourself out of the debate by doing so. All there is is corrections of your errors.

Seriously, why don't you take me up on my offer to covert he basics? Are you trying to use ignorance as an excuse? If you understood how scientists actually work and what is and what is not evidence and why you would not be able to honestly make the claims that you do. You appear to know this. I am not going to use some special definition of what science is that was made up just for the theory of evolution. This will apply to all sciences.

 

[xianghua]

A robot penguin that is identical to a real penguin is still a robot.

great. and since both are identical then a real penguin can be consider as a robot too.

 

[xianghua]

You don't know the difference between a penguin and a robot, yet you feel qualified to discuss matters of biology?

That's just rich.

i actually asking you for the difference. i see no real difference between a penguin and a robot. are you?

 

[Heissonear]

....................... If you understood how scientists actually work and what is and what is not evidence

Aye, on this thread on "evolution" you might want to do what you say.

Evolution is based on conjecture, not fossil record evidence.

There are no fossil sequences inbetween any two different lifeforms that shows evolution happened.

Evolutionists claim they have such fossils showing one creature "evolved" into another creature, but such is not fossils based but conjectured based. They are claims.

Evolution requires belief to accept. It is a dogma that has produced other religions: Naturalism and Scientism and Humanism are the religions preached to public school students.

A very great error of our modern times.

 

[RDKirk]

And since so much of science goes against "common sense" the best way to find out the truth is by investigation and experimentation.

Not just "common sense."

Aristotle's argument for larger objects falling more quickly was--and is still--air-tight as an exercise of logical process.

It just lacks the necessary facts to come to a true conclusion. The "common sense" part was in premises of the argument.

A side story: Back in the mid-80s when my son was in middle school, I helped (by "help," I mean "pushed") him through a science fair project to duplicate some of Galileo's gravity acceleration experiments. Lots of falling and rolling steel ball bearings of various weights and sizes, lots of Polaroid pictures of stopwatches, lots of test data.

No exploding volcanoes or crackling lights, so my son was sure it would bomb. I assured him that if the judges had any real "science" bone in their bodies at all, it would be fine.

The thing that surprised me is that the rolling ball experiments didn't work as expected at all. In fact, the results were largely negative.

Well, I had a new modem and knew how to use it. A couple of physicists responded to my problem with, "Well, yeah. Galileo's theory was correct, but that experiment only looked like proof because of his crude timing devices. When you put a stopwatch against it, you discovered the 'moment of rotational inertia' factor."

So that's how the experiment went into the fair--as a study of the factor that proves one of Galileo's experiments faulty. And it won.

 

[xianghua]

but evidence of having descended from a previous species that could turn its ears towards sound to good effect.

so since both a car and a truck have wheels then we need to conclude that the truck evolved from a car/share a common descent with the car?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aye, on this thread on "evolution" you might want to do what you say.

Evolution is based on conjecture, not fossil record evidence.

There are no fossil sequences inbetween any two different lifeforms that shows evolution happened.

Evolutionists claim they have such fossils showing one creature "evolved" into another creature, but such is not fossils based but conjectured based. They are claims.

Evolution requires belief to accept. It is a dogma that has produced other religions: Naturalism and Scientism and Humanism are the religions preached to public school students.

A very great error of our modern times.

When you make such obviously false statements you ma!e it clear that you have no understanding of the basics of science, or else that you are lying. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do not understand How science is done at all.

To cure this flaw of yours let's go over the basics of science and then we can see how that is applied to evolution.

 

[RDKirk]

so since both a car and a truck have wheels then we need to conclude that the truck evolved from a car/share a common descent with the car?

Poor example, because the car and the truck do have common ancestors.

 

[xianghua]

Poor example, because the car and the truck do have common ancestors.

cars and trucks evolved from a common ancestor? how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

cars and trucks evolved from a common ancestor? how?

Try to avoid strawman arguments. They only tell us of the weakness of your position.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Aye, on this thread on "evolution" you might want to do what you say.

Evolution is based on conjecture, not fossil record evidence.

Fossil evidence supports evolution. You see progression in the fossil records. You see different epochs having alternate life forms. You see snapshots of changing forms with time.

There are no fossil sequences inbetween any two different lifeforms that shows evolution happened.

You want to see motion blur in a fossil? Sorry your illogical demands don't dismiss the evidence.

Evolutionists claim they have such fossils showing one creature "evolved" into another creature, but such is not fossils based but conjectured based. They are claims.

And yet, often they are predicted to exist and found to exist based on prediction from evolution theory.

Evolution requires belief to accept. It is a dogma that has produced other religions: Naturalism and Scientism and Humanism are the religions preached to public school students.

Naturalism is not a religion. It is the opposite of a religion. Scientism and humanism might be called philosophies . . they are not religions.

If you want your religious beliefs to be accepted more widely . . . stop proclaiming things that aren't true, such as denying the fact of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want your religious beliefs to be accepted more widely . . . stop proclaiming things that aren't true, such as denying the fact of evolution.

What's next? stop proclaiming the Resurrection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's next? stop proclaiming the Resurrection?

If you had reliable evidence for it there would be no problem "proclaiming" it.

 

[Aman777]

If you had reliable evidence for it there would be no problem "proclaiming" it.

Amen, and I love to proclaim it to those who think they know everything. Genesis 2:4 shows that on the 3rd Day, Lord God/Jesus made other Heavens to go with the first Heaven, which was made by God the Trinity on the 2nd Day Genesis 1:8, to bring the total to at least 3 Heavens within the multiverse by the 3rd Day/Age.

What is proof of God is that God the Spirit of Truth, the Author of Scripture, cannot lie so He correctly shows that the beginning of our Universe was late on the 3rd Day, Genesis 2:4 the SAME Day Adam was made. Genesis 2:7 This agrees with the latest discoveries of Astronomers who date that event at 13.8 Billion years ago, in man's time...AND...it had to be at the end of the 3rd Day because it was only 180 or so Million years after the big bang BEFORE the first Stars of our 2nd Universe lit up on the 4th of God's Days/Ages. Genesis 1:16
ScienceNews...Here’s when the universe’s first stars may have been born

Some would have you believe that man wrote the above and "just happened" to get that scientific Fact correct, so I have many more to offer in order to proclaim the supreme intelligence of our God, in these last days before Jesus returns. Daniel 12:4

 

[AV1611VET]

If you had reliable evidence for it there would be no problem "proclaiming" it.

"Reliable" is a relative term, isn't it?