[_ Old Earth _] Debunking Evolution:

[jasoncran]

uh and barb there no such thing a creationist science as ones world view doesnt matter then now does it? oh thats right it only science if lines up with naturalism.

which btw is umimperlistic.

 

[Lewis]

This is in 2 post, so read on.

(Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of [COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]Evolution[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] is Wrong, False and Impossible))

The scoffers will immediately dismiss the source, but some who would like to discuss this would maybe like to dispute the information presented. If the source is absolute bunk then the brilliant minds here should be able to dismiss these 'theories' outright no?

I would like to do it this way if you don't mind, Pick a number and then discuss only that number in your reply. Please title each of your responses with the number so readers can follow.

I will post mine first.........as a reply to another thread with BH. It was brought up that evolution is only theory but supported by Science and that no Creation can be supported as such....so lets see.

Please lets keep it civil, (ME INCLUDED)


The body and soul of [COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]Charles [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]Darwin's[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.






Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The [COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]theory [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]of [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]evolution[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.



Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.


Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.


Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong



The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.


Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

 

[Lewis]

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land [COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]rovers[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.



Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Evolution is False and Impossible







Now as a side note, I would like to present this article for discussion also, lets call it # 12 shall we? This one I need to look into as I do not quite follow this as I should even though I took Introductory Geology. I am really having trouble with any scientific explanation for this one.

I know I posted more than I should but most will not follow the link, maybe this way they will actually READ it before responding.





Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead


A story about two friends from day one.

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.


Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]



reply posted on 18-8-2005 @ 10:22 PM by edsinger Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing intelligent design in [COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]nature[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]. One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system called a bacterial flagellum found in many bacteria including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint and flexible propeller. The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism. The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much to small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an [COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]Intelligent [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]Designer[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR].

I had always heard that the smallest living thing has 23 parts, and it could not exist without all 23 and therefore could not have evolved. It made sense and I am sorry I do not remember where I heard this but the text directly above is darn near the same thing. How can evolution explain this?

How can these smallest of parts that need to be there in number evolve? It doesnt make sense. Just as the deeper you go into Space, when you travel to the smallest parts of creation, it gets MORE complicated, not less.



It would seem that some scientists at least believe that evolution can not explain this complexity in the world.



CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about the Cell
- Overconfidence in Evolution the Problem - Get rid of that fairy tale, and we will begin to deal correctly from effect to cause
- Too Much Complexity in Just One Cell - It is bigger than New York City!
- Cells Only Reproduce after Their Kind - They obey the law of Genesis 1
- Evolutionary Theories Are Ridiculous - They do not explain the facts
- Each Cell Is Full of Complicated Parts - We still do not understand its full complexity
- All its Parts Had to Begin Operating at the Same Time - Gradual changeover could not succeed
- Evolutionary Theory Offers No Solutions - We must look elsewhere for answers



SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE CELL

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]





reply posted on 18-8-2005 @ 11:07 PM by edsinger It'll take time to read all of this but, one problem I noticed in several places as I was scanning it - there is the near constant refrain of "it must be false because we haven't yet discovered it".

If every field of [COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#e0e060 !important][FONT=inherit !important]science[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] has now concluded that everything that can be known is already known and science is pretty much finished all its work, then I somehow missed that announcement. Can you help me find that memo?

Thanks!




reply posted on 18-8-2005 @ 11:43 PM by edsinger

Originally posted by Al Davison

If every field of science has now concluded that everything that can be known is already known and science is pretty much finished all its work,

Thanks!​

I dont believe science is dead at all, it is language to understand Creation as is Mathematics.





reply posted on 18-8-2005 @ 11:46 PM by FredThttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1#pid1644424.

 

[Barbarian]

yeah right. no its not. i wasnt taught that in school on convergent evolution. how could something a common ancestor from the single cell or another gene that is related that has say the code for the brain and one organism who has similar capilities has another gene for that?

Can you give us an example? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

so we shouldnt study orgins eh barb then of how the universe came to be with the said laws too?

Not part of evolutionary theory. It assumes the universe exists and has living creatures. As far as the theory is concerned, any origin would be OK.

how then or why must we assume then that by proxy theres no creator then?

Can't. Science can't deny or support the supernatural.

 

[Barbarian]

Lewis, instead of shotgunning a million ideas, pick one that you think is persuasive, and we'll look at it. Then the next one. That way, the thread doesn't wander all over the place.

Which of your objections would you like to discuss first?

 

[Lewis]

Lewis, instead of shotgunning a million ideas, pick one that you think is persuasive, and we'll look at it. Then the next one. That way, the thread doesn't wander all over the place.

Which of your objections would you like to discuss first?

I wanted to give it this way, that way you can pick your poison. Any of those topics can be talked about. Evolution is dead and Darwin was a fool.

 

[Classik]

I wanted to give it this way, that way you can pick your poison. Any of those topics can be talked about. Evolution is dead and Darwin was a fool.

:angry :bigfrown :fight :twopistols :shocked
Sacrilege! An abuse of the holy darwolution! The massacre of the highpriest and his worshippers! Elijah and the prophets of baal! :bicker
--
The summoning of the offender! Damages!!!

 

[jasoncran]

Can you give us an example? I'm not sure what you're talking about.



Not part of evolutionary theory. It assumes the universe exists and has living creatures. As far as the theory is concerned, any origin would be OK.



Can't. Science can't deny or support the supernatural.

i know that barb, but they have to answer where life came from and how it got on the earth. and science cant just ignore what ordered it and yet say that natural laws gave us life and intellegence(which is what ns is and does in the toe).

simple this link and our discussion will suffice on common ancestty being the core to evolution.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4686

that is a science talk show that says that and note what is underlined.

and on convergent evolution.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/l_014_01.html

birds come from where? dinosaurs. and the bat? has no common ancestor so lets see what darwin said on evolution?

this site has links to both sides and present both sides and i recall they are correct in that all life cam from a single cell. so how did wings come from a common ancestor that had them and suddenly they are now from divergent genes?

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

 

[Lewis]

It feels good to come back to the Science forum back in 2005 and 2006 I was always over here, and Apologetics forum which I was mod of for 2 years. But it is good to be back.:yes

 

[Jam]

But what I still get mad at and I will get in their world about. Is when they teach this garbage, and I mean it is garbage to our children.

This concerns me a little, to be honest... why shouldn't schools teach Evolution? I don't believe that Buddhism is true, but I don't complain that our kids are taught about it in schools. I don't believe that Islam is accurate, but I don't complain that our kids are taught about it in schools. I don't believe that the Psychodynamic approach to psychopathology is anything more than speculation, but I don't complain that kids are taught about it in schools. I don't believe in free will as commonly defined, but I don't complain that virtually every institution in the world assumes its existence at least in practice.

What I would like to see more of in schools is the theory or philosophy of science/the scientific method! Children need to be made aware that simply because the majority of authorities on the subject accept Evolution does not mean that it is absolutely true; they need to be made aware that the popularity of Christianity in our culture does not make it true; they need to be made aware that not everything they are told by an authority figure is necessarily true... blah blah blah.

Essentially, I think that children need to be taught from an earlier age not to see the world in black and white. Scientific theories should be taught as scientific theories- including things such as Newton's laws of motion and law of universal gravitation, QED, the laws of thermodynamics and - of course - Evolutionary Theory and many more. People need to be made more aware that nothing (specifically science, here, though) is not as objective as they might like to think!

/rant :nod

 

[Barbarian]

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists.

Scientists know very well how to make granite. You melt rhyolite, and then cool it very, very slowly, over millions of years. The time needed is precisely known.

It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth.

No. Ironically, the granite from which Gentry started the issue, was not native rock, but intrusive rock forming a vein in older rock. Hence, it could not be "original."

Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

See above. This is simply false.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks.

Nor does any igneous rock, for an obvious reason; if the rock is melted, any trace of fossils will be melted away. I'm astonished the author does not know these things, any high school student should know.

All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

See above. Do you see why few, if any geologists would call granite a "creation rock?"

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure.

Seeing that evolution is only about the way populations of living things change, that's pretty obvious. However, geology easily explains these things.

And where is this granite? Everywhere.

Nope. In fact, the majority of the surface of the Earth, when you get down to bedrock, won't show you any granite at all.

Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth.

Actually, more of the basal rock of the Earth is basalt. Can you guess why?

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

Turns out, they are only in granites where there is a significant source of ionizing radiation, such as uranium. Gentry's samples, for example, came from such sites.

So the halos are not hard to figure out.

The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery"
J. Richard Wakefield
jrwakefield@msn.com
ABSTRACT
The unusual polonium halos described by Robert Gentry have been a problem for some years now. Gentry claimed that the polonium halos show that the Precambrian granite they are hosted in were 'instantly created.'

Some research on the halos has been carried our by other scientists, but most of it has been aimed at solving the problems of the peculiar configuration of these halos. Fortunately, Gentry provided two specific site locations in the Canadian Shield where his samples came from. The geological setting of these sites shows conclusively that Gentry’s notion of an 'instantly created' earth composed of granite is false. Specifically the samples came from crystallized rocks which can be shown to crosscut several sedimentary and other plutonic rocks. Some of the sedimentary rocks contain stromatolites. The geology of the sites shows that the uranium, and most likely the polonium, were deposited via postmagmatic hydrothermal fluids. Besides ignoring the geology at his collection areas, Gentry also makes numerous grossly erroneous generalizations about the origin of plutonic rocks.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

To avoid the charge of cherry-picking the most egregiously bad arguments, I again invite anyone to pick out what they think is the best argument from the list and present it for me. I'll be pleased to give it my best shot.

 

[Lewis]

Scientists know very well how to make granite. You melt rhyolite, and then cool it very, very slowly, over millions of years. The time needed is precisely known.



No. Ironically, the granite from which Gentry started the issue, was not native rock, but intrusive rock forming a vein in older rock. Hence, it could not be "original."



See above. This is simply false.



Nor does any igneous rock, for an obvious reason; if the rock is melted, any trace of fossils will be melted away. I'm astonished the author does not know these things, any high school student should know.



See above. Do you see why few, if any geologists would call granite a "creation rock?"



Seeing that evolution is only about the way populations of living things change, that's pretty obvious. However, geology easily explains these things.



Nope. In fact, the majority of the surface of the Earth, when you get down to bedrock, won't show you any granite at all.



Actually, more of the basal rock of the Earth is basalt. Can you guess why?



Turns out, they are only in granites where there is a significant source of ionizing radiation, such as uranium. Gentry's samples, for example, came from such sites.

So the halos are not hard to figure out.

The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery"
J. Richard Wakefield
jrwakefield@msn.com
ABSTRACT
The unusual polonium halos described by Robert Gentry have been a problem for some years now. Gentry claimed that the polonium halos show that the Precambrian granite they are hosted in were 'instantly created.'

Some research on the halos has been carried our by other scientists, but most of it has been aimed at solving the problems of the peculiar configuration of these halos. Fortunately, Gentry provided two specific site locations in the Canadian Shield where his samples came from. The geological setting of these sites shows conclusively that Gentry’s notion of an 'instantly created' earth composed of granite is false. Specifically the samples came from crystallized rocks which can be shown to crosscut several sedimentary and other plutonic rocks. Some of the sedimentary rocks contain stromatolites. The geology of the sites shows that the uranium, and most likely the polonium, were deposited via postmagmatic hydrothermal fluids. Besides ignoring the geology at his collection areas, Gentry also makes numerous grossly erroneous generalizations about the origin of plutonic rocks.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

To avoid the charge of cherry-picking the most egregiously bad arguments, I again invite anyone to pick out what they think is the best argument from the list and present it for me. I'll be pleased to give it my best shot.

You Really Have To Do Better Than That.

 

[Lewis]

This concerns me a little, to be honest... why shouldn't schools teach Evolution? I don't believe that Buddhism is true, but I don't complain that our kids are taught about it in schools. I don't believe that Islam is accurate, but I don't complain that our kids are taught about it in schools. I don't believe that the Psychodynamic approach to psychopathology is anything more than speculation, but I don't complain that kids are taught about it in schools. I don't believe in free will as commonly defined, but I don't complain that virtually every institution in the world assumes its existence at least in practice.

What I would like to see more of in schools is the theory or philosophy of science/the scientific method! Children need to be made aware that simply because the majority of authorities on the subject accept Evolution does not mean that it is absolutely true; they need to be made aware that the popularity of Christianity in our culture does not make it true; they need to be made aware that not everything they are told by an authority figure is necessarily true... blah blah blah.

Essentially, I think that children need to be taught from an earlier age not to see the world in black and white. Scientific theories should be taught as scientific theories- including things such as Newton's laws of motion and law of universal gravitation, QED, the laws of thermodynamics and - of course - Evolutionary Theory and many more. People need to be made more aware that nothing (specifically science, here, though) is not as objective as they might like to think!

/rant :nod

Why teach children the wrong things.

 

[Jam]

Why teach children the wrong things.

Because no-one knows unambiguously what is correct and what is false: it makes sense to teach children our best current theories whilst acknowledging that they may be wrong. If we were only going to teach things about which we were absolutely sure, we would never teach children anything.

To be frank, schools teach evolution because it is the general consensus among scientists that it is true. Is it not logical to assume that scientists know best with regard to scientific theories? Without dedicating a significant portion of our lives to the study of evolution, we cannot claim to be more knowledgeable than these people who have dedicated their lives to this study. Try looking at this issue from the schools' points of view.

 

[Barbarian]

You Really Have To Do Better Than That.

That pretty much ends the issue on polonium halos. Those facts directly contradict Gentry's arguments.

I'd be pleased to see your rebuttal of any of them. Or you might want to pick another one from your list for examination, if you don't have a rebuttal.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

... Sorry but no one here is making any good points.

 

[Barbarian]

Scientifically, those are all critical facts that apply to Gentry's claims. Which is why geologists have generally moved on. The most damaging fact to Gentry's claims is that the granite that he thinks is original rock, is intrusive, and flowed as lava into cracks and seams of existing rock.

 

[Lewis]

17 indicators that evolution of the
species didn't happen, with rebuttals

Overview:

Almost all biologists and many other scientists believe that the theory of evolution is a fact -- that species evolved over a long period of time. Only about 5% of all scientists argue for the creation of all present-day species (and of all the species seen only in fossils) in one week, about 4000 to 10000 BCE. This small minority of scientists are almost entirely evangelical Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, literally interpreted where possible. Among those scientists who specialize in biology or geology, the percentage of believers in creation of a young earth drops to less than 1%.

Many dozens of "proofs" that evolution never happened have been put forth by creation scientists. These indicators have been well circulated among scientists. All have been easily refuted by them.
If such a proof existed, it would be the discovery of the century! It would disprove the entire structure of evolution of the species. It might even disprove scientists' understanding of the origin and history of the earth itself, of its life forms and of the rest of the universe.The theory of evolution has been laboriously pieced together over more than a century. Any scientist who was able to disprove evolution would be a shoo-in for the next Nobel Prize, and would receive world-wide fame. It seems obvious that very few scientists could resist such fame and economic rewards; he or she would publish an article immediately and wait by the phone for the Nobel Prize committee to call. But, although tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists are familiar with these "proofs" by creation scientists, no scientist has ever come forward and published a proof in a peer-reviewed journal.
We receive many E-mails which contain "proofs" that evolution is a false theory. After investigation, all seem to be based on misunderstandings of generally accepted scientific beliefs. If you believe that you have one, please Email us.
All of the "proofs" listed in the following three essays are paraphrased from the original Emails.

Some indicators, with rebuttals, in this section:

Part 1: Indicators 1 to 7:

• Human footprints found inside of dinosaur footprints
• Evolution has never been observed
• Evolution would cause all land animals to be like giraffes
• Growth rate of human societies
• Pre-human fossils
• Neanderthals didn't exist
• Cro-Magnon (a.k.a. Early Modern Human or EMH) vs. Homo Sapiens brain capacity

Part 2: Indicators 8 to 12:

• Fossils of extinct proto-humans
• Long "extinct" Agraptalyte fish found
• Transitional species missing from the fossil record
• Survival of previous species
• The genome cannot increase in complexity; microevolution vs. macroevolution

Part 3: Indicators 13 to 17:

• Organic material cannot come from inorganic; thus evolution could not have started up.
• Second law of thermodynamics:
• Missing geological column
• Inter-species mating
• Missing proof

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm

 

[Asyncritus]

All have been easily refuted by them.

This is sheer nonsense.

If such a proof existed, it would be the discovery of the century!

I have produced such a proof, and some of it is to be found on my blog.

http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.com/2009/10/ervs-function-discovered.html

The fuller exposition is found in my book of the same title, and if you wish, I wll email you a copy.

 

[Asyncritus]

To be frank, schools teach evolution because it is the general consensus among scientists that it is true.

This is a purely nonsensical statement. The blanket term 'scientists' includes every discipline going, and it is simply silly to say 'consensus among scientists' as if that meant anything at all.

Which scientists do you mean?

Physicists? What do they know about biology?
Chemists? Which chemists, and what do they know about biology?
Astronomers? What do they know about biology?
Mathematicians? What do they know about biology?
Rocket scientists? Metallurgists? Computer scientists?

So that is a meaningless statement, and should not be swallowed as if it is true. Some biologists reject evolution, but have got to shut up about it or be blacklisted by the universities and establishment in general.

If their living depends on it, then they just have to keep taking the pills.

Is it not logical to assume that scientists know best with regard to scientific theories?

Which scientists?

Without dedicating a significant portion of our lives to the study of evolution, we cannot claim to be more knowledgeable than these people who have dedicated their lives to this study. Try looking at this issue from the schools' points of view.

Perhaps you should try looking at it from the facts' point of view.

There is an evolution juggernaut, and woe betide anyone who dares say nay.