Starboy

OK, kiddies, time for another science lesson.

Science cannot prove anything least of all evolution. Please see my previous post on this thread. As far as evidence is concerned, I suggest you look for it yourself. Based on your previous posts, whatever I state here will not be sufficient for you. I think you need to see it yourself, so I suggest you start at a zoo and/or aquarium. Go and spend the day observing the animals and ask yourself, why are there mammals that live like fish (porpoise), why are there birds that live like mammals (penguins) and why are there mammals that live like birds (bats). Genesis has nothing to say about this, but you might consider evolution as a possible explanation.

That being said, I want to state YET ANOTHER TIME, that evolution as stated by Darwin is probably wrong as a scientific theory. <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C7E3C-BECF-1D0F-8B07809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=1." target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C7E3C-BECF-1D0F-8B07809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&ca tID=1.</a>

I am sure that you are smart enough to realize that even if Darwin’s theory is wrong that doesn’t make creationism right. It simply means that there is somebody out there that is going to get a Nobel Prize for the next evolutionary theory.

You see, one of the many differences between science and religion is that new science gets the Nobel Prize and new religion gets crucified.

Adios

Starboy

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: gkochanowsky ]</p>

Lizard

xBobtheAlienx wrote:
Um, checking out books from your school library or the public library is free. Try the 500 section. Happy reading!

Starboy

As I understand the whole stink regarding creationism vs. evolution being given “equal” time in the classroom, it goes something like this. Most Christian fundamentalist insist that the bible is absolute truth and as absolute truth must be taken literally. One of the many sticking points this creates is the account of Genesis, which has man and all creation as a direct product of God and not the result of a natural process. Fundamentalist see the teaching of evolution as a threat to their religion since it puts forward an entirely different explanation based on scientific knowledge. These Christian fundamentalists like fundamentalists everywhere put themselves in a very difficult situation. By insisting that everything they believe in is absolutely true, they cannot abide by any dissenting opinion. If they had their way, evolution would not be taught at all, but because it is science they cannot stop it. There is a long history of suppression of scientific evolutionary thought in this country, only recently has it been taught widely. To add to this tapestry of politics, atheism is on the rise in this country, as atheists have become more numerous they have started slowly to dismantle the cozy relationship that the Christians have created with the government over the last 100 years. Few people realize that all the references to God in our anthems and currency, and all the prayers in our public institutions are recent phenomena and certainly would not have been endorsed by the founding fathers. All of this makes the Christian Fundamentalist feel very threatened, and makes them think that their faith is under attack, so they are attacking back. One of the many fronts they are fighting on is the Creationism front. To uphold their assertion that Genesis is true, they have taken up the strategy of trying to prove that evolution is false by coming up with what they call creationism science. In addition, to counter what they perceive as dangerous teachings, they want Creationism taught in the schools side by side with evolution as if it were a legitimate scientific theory. Now if you read the posts on this thread very carefully and do your homework, you should be able to determine on your own that creationism is not science and therefore should not be taught on a par with other scientific theories. Also it should be obvious that creationism is a thin cover for religious belief, and because of protection of religious freedom by our constitution, can’t be promoted by our government. I hope this explains the whole mess.

Adios

Starboy

Caverdude

Ahh, but then you are not really seeing electrons, but rather you are seeing the effect of electrons. Same thing with sub-atomic particles discovered in particle accelerators. We do not see the particles, but see the tracks left on film (or whatever medium they use).

HRG

Sorry, but this analogy is incorrect. The effects of particles in high-energy physics experiments are not photons which enter your eye and are absorbed by your rods and cones.

What's your definition of "seeing" ? Under mine:

"Seeing X" = "absorbing a photon emitted or scattered by X in one's retina" ....

we are seeing electrons.

Regards,
HRG.

Oolon Colluphid

How about the distribution of pseudogenes?

How about Peter Sheldon’s Welsh trilobite work?

How about the biogeography of marsupials, lemurs, fossas, herring gulls...?

How about Peter and Rosemary Grant’s population studies of Daphne Major finches?

How about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Warfarin resistance in rats, lead tolerance in roadside plants, mosquito resistance to DDT and Plasmodium resistance to chloroquinine...?

How about the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

How about cyndont therapsids?

How about the genomes of mitochondria and Rickettsia prowazekii?

I’ll continue the list when you can demonstrate you know what those are, and their significance.

[quote]<strong>(OC: Evolution, meaning that every living thing is related by descent with modification, is a fact.)

You did actually read my post, right? You can actually read??

You prove your creator. Nah, I’ll make it easier. Offer one shred of evidence for it.

TTFN, Oolon

Duvenoy

"Actually i havent been asked to prove the existence of God yet. And I cant get a hold of that college book considering im only in high school, dont have the money to get it, and even if i did, i wouldnt know where to get it. So I ask again: prove evolution."

A: Ok, prove the existance of God, or any supernatural force.

B: Public library.

doov

xBobTheAlienx

Before I read that, I must say that these evidences are observed by EVOLUTIONISTS, and are interperated by them. There is always going more than one way of interperating evidence. So im gonna read it but it is biased sooo....

MrDarwin

Tell me Bob, what kind of evidence would you find convincing? Because I have generally found that there is not any evidence of any kind that can be observed in the real world, in real time, that creationists would not find a way to interpret in favor of their own beliefs.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Mageth

Before I read that, I must say that these evidences are observed by EVOLUTIONISTS, and are interperated by them. There is always going more than one way of interperating evidence. So im gonna read it but it is biased sooo....

Wrong. The evidence is observed by scientists. There really is no category of scientist which refers to themselves as "evolutionists." And any scientist would jump at the chance to come up with an interpretation of the evidence that would displace current evolutionary theory. Instant Nobel prize and world fame!