Jack Lewis wrote:
Sorry, but the evidence is nonexistant. That's a myth perpetuated by government schools to simple minded people at taxpayers' expense.
So you feel it is a big conspiracy? I had hoped you would be slightly more intelligent than that.
The evidence, working off the top of my head, includes evidence from the observation of isolated island ecosystems, evidence from the (hellishly incomplete) fossil record showing steady speciation, genetic studies on divergent species, observed mutations in viral species, bacterial and fungal diseases, insects and even rodents allowing altered behaviour, metabolism, resistance to chemicals etc. In the case of one Chernobyl flatworm, a change in the breeding habits of that species within the region has even been observed in this short time.
Another wondrous example
within the human species would be the development of sickle cell anemia as a reaction to an evolved defence against malaria in many African populations. A further one would be the evolved heightened resistence to alcohol shown by European populations due to methods used in the purification of water for the past couple of thousand years (using yeast and fermentation rather than boiling, as was practised in the far East).
That is off the top of my head.
Radiometric dating is a scam. Any testing doen, without a prior "suggested" date result in a vritual random age.
Again, you assume a giant conspiracy rather than question your own breadth of knowledge on the subject.
Radiometric dating is highly accurate, as frequencies of varying isotopes, all with known half-lifes, in rock formations is a hard thing to muck up. There are numerous different radiometric dating methods and they do not violently disagree with each other. Furthermore, half-lifes are easily obtainable in the laboratory and their reliable calculation allows for such conveniences as, say, the good working order (rather than violent meltdown) of every nuclear reactor on this planet.
While Evolutionists base their threory in part of the assumption of uniformity of natural events (readioactive decay) they, at the same time have to pretend that other events lack uniformity (the shrinking of the sun, the salinity of the oceons) all while hoping noone notices the double standard.
You are comparing apples and oranges. If you fiddle with the natural constants to allow for accelerated radioactive decay by several orders of magnitude, you end up changing more than just them. -You would need to increase the effects of electromagnetism, causing terribly violent consequences. The chemical reactions which occur in every cell, every fire and every other minor chemical reaction would be drastically altered, the fusion processes in our own sun would become near impossible, effectively killing our star, and life would, -not to be too melodramatic-, cease to be.
You even get even more fun consequences, like making simple stuff like atmospheric air virtually incompressible due to your massive increase in the strength of electromagnetism.
Needless to say, fundamental constants are not easily changed without devastating consequences.
On the other hand, magentic records in human history and geologic records show a fluctuating magnetic field, as many mechanisms for absorbing excess salinity as delivering it exist and the 'shrinking of the sun' is in fact an utterly insignificant effect.
Hell; why don't you bring up one of creationweb or answersingenesis's favourites; the moon getting closer to Earth. You can even do the calulcations on that little gem for yourself to see the obvious flaw.
The odds of a molecule as complex as DNA coming together at random is more than astronomical.
The odds of all amino acids being one sided, is also astronomical.
Not being an expert in abiogenesis, I cannot comment. I rather doubt you are either, so what are your sources?
The lack of transitional species in the collection of fossils recovered show major flaws in the theory.
Actually, the relatively small number of transitionals that exist is more-or-less to be expected, given the incompleteness of the fossil record. Only a fraction of a percentage of species once in existence have been found as fossils.
The evidence of reverse Evolution of some species in places that cannot be explained, is either ignored or flasely labeled an "overthrust"
'Reverse evolution'? Oh do come on. Reversion to former characteristics or behavioural patterns in a population is common enough and not too hard, considering that they often still lie in submissive genes for some time.
I could go on, but you should get the picture.
I do indeed. You are using pseudoscience spinners like the creationweb site. The 'reducing magnetic field', 'salinity of the oceans', 'moon getting closer', 'short-term comets' and of course the 'what's up with Polonium 218' arguments that they spin out are fairly frequently used by young-Earth creationist types. They tend to be rubbish and, often, outright lies. (Look at the 'U236 in quantity on the moon' argument and work that one out for yourself).
On the other hand, you believe that the entire scientific community is involved in a conspiracy against you (
obviously more plausible than you being incorrect and ill-informed), so perhaps it isn't
that surprising that you swallow these arguments.
Not all students take calculus. Caluculus is not a religious myth (although while debating Evolution I have had Evolutionist call trigonometry a religious myth). Many of those students that do take calculus do use it. I never took calculus in school, but have had need of it, and taught myself. It's not that obscure of a subject.
Trigonometry a myth? Considering it is a mathematical model that proves highly useful in all areas of engineering, you have my blessing to call whoever said that a bit of a thicko.
It is the belief system held by some to explain the origin and meaning of life, and that in a nutshell is ra eligion.
Nope. Atheism does not even
mention the creation of life. It is simply the lack of belief in a deity. No more, no less. An atheist could believe in evolution or that a species of super-intelligent aliens made us for fun; as long as they do not believe in a deity, they are, by definition, atheists regardless.
Atheism is, in short, the
absence of a certain belief. It cannot be described as a faith.
Most schools censor the historical FACT that the Jamestown colony erected a cross as one of their very first group efforts. That's just one of many examples. That would be allowing the religion of Atheism to excert undo influence. When God is intentionally omitted, then Atheism is the given philosophy. To censor history and science so as to omit any reference to God is to teach Atheism.
*Shrugs.*
I don't know a thing of the Jamestown colony, so excuse me for bypassing that.
As I said, atheism is a simple lack of a belief, not a faith. You cannot teach it, as it is a default state when one does not believe in a deity.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (June 19, 1961), declared that “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” [emphasis added] So apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Then they are playing semantics and should use a dictionary in future.
It never fails. When you guys start losing an arguemnt you stoop to attacking the person rather than the issue. that's called an ad hominem attack and is considered a logical fallacy.
It's a good thing that I didn't just start attacking you then, isn't it?
Atheism and Secular Humanism are not the same thing. The teaching of Secular Him,anism has been an active effort on the part of teahcers and admonistrators for quite some time. For the most part it's an abuse of Carl Roger's theories, applied in ways he never intended it to be applied.
True, there is a slight difference between the two. I will concede that.
That would be according to the respective State Constitutions, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution has been interpreted as meaning the US Constitution applies to states as well, therefore making any of those laws, measures, articles or amendments to any state constitution meaningless and unenforcable.
Well that's a relief.
