Originally posted by Valhall
Well then you haven't responded to my bee post that has been posted on at least two different threads here. It isn't based on religious faith, but the claims made by the evolutionists darned sure take some faith.
It was a 42,000,000 year old bee in amber. They extracted its DNA, and then compared it to the modern bee...ALMOST IDENTICAL.
So my question still remains unanswered:
1. Either evolution takes a butt-load more time than 42,000,000 years, OR
2. We're all gonna evolve into bees, because they obviously are the bomb.
Which is it?
[Edited on 17-12-2003 by Valhall]
Originally posted by Machine
In earlier posts some have asked for evidences against evolutionary theory. This is a small question with a huge answer. Now, the link I have placed here is by no means exhaustive of the subject but it does make nice, easy to read points concerning evolution. Nothing too heavy to start with just something to chew on.
Originally posted by Kano
The trick is, because Evolution is a scientific theory, it changes and adapts to include any new data that comes to light. A page of out of context quotes from the last hundred years really isn't something that could be looked upon as 'many problems' with evolutionary theory. Even that page only proposes creation as an alternative. Weighing the evidence in favour of both, there is a clear winner. Thats why Evolutionary theory is taught in science classes.
[Edited on 18-12-2003 by Kano]
Help me here... where is the evidence in that page? I see a lot of opinion and quoting, but no physical evidence that contradicts evolution. We still seem to be mixing up the word "theory" is it's used by science. Relativity is a "theory" just as there are "theories" in nuclear physics that define how reactions occur. In science, theories are not guesses.
Originally posted by Machine In earlier posts some have asked for evidences against evolutionary theory. bevets.com...
Creation is a religious belief based on faith. Evolution is a branch of science based on observation and discovery. Evolution is a science taught in science class. Makes sense. Chemistry is taught as fact. Physics is taught as fact. Do you have a problem with these? Nearly all high schools have comparitive religion classes available for juniors and seniors. Whithin these clases, creation is discussed (usually the creation stories of several religions). The trouble with teaching the Genisis creation as an alternative is that it is one story from one religion. Teaching it in a required class is a contradiction of the separation ideal. If evolution is not a valid theory, then how do influenza viruses become stronger and develop new strains? What about the bacteria that are resistance to antibiotics? This is evolution before our very eyes.
Originally posted by ValhallBut Kano, the big problem is not that the Evolution Theory is taught in classes. I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with that. The big problem is HOW the Evolution Theory is taught in classes. And I'm not speaking from heresay - first hand knowledge as a substitute science teacher to middle high students. It is taught as FACT. It is taught without mention to Creationism.
It's Dogma versus a method.
If you ascribe to one, the other is nonsense.