Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Texas Board of Education battles over evolution in textbooks, again.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I don't think this story needs much of a preamble. The textbook battles in Texas are of particular interest to the rest of us because with a population over 26 million, Texas is the second most populous state in the country and as such, the textbooks they approve greatly influence publishers.


Those committees included several evolution critics and creationists. They have consistently urged the board not to adopt the books unless publishers highlight more flaws in the theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.
One reviewer suggested that coverage of “creation science” be required for every biology textbook. But that would violate a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ban on the teaching of creationism in science classes.
Other reviewers found fault with the books’ positive treatment of Darwin’s theory and his fundamental tenets.
For example, Pearson Education’s textbook reads: “All historical records are incomplete, and the history of life is no exception. The evidence we do have, however, tells an unmistakable story of evolutionary change.”
Further, the book adds, “every scientific test has supported Darwin’s basic ideas about evolution.”
One of the reviewers argued that the second statement is “not just misleading, but dishonest.” The reviewer, who was not identified in the report, called the statement a “factual error” that must be corrected.
The reviewer also attacked the book for stating that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. He called that “a very outdated view.” Many creationists maintain that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old.


Source - Dallas News


Publishers submitted proposed textbooks this summer, but committees of Texas volunteer reviewers — some nominated by creationists who are current and former Board of Education members — raised objections. One argued that creationism based on biblical texts should be taught in science classes, while others objected that climate change wasn't as settled a scientific matter as some of the proposed books said.


Source - Huffington Post

In 2010, a state law was passed which allows school districts in Texas to choose their own books, though most adhere to the State Board of Education's recommendations. That's a pretty scary idea considering there are textbooks like the one claiming the Loch Ness monster proves that evolutionary theory is wrong, which has been used by a Houston charter school.




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
When will people learn evolution doesn't disprove God...
Religion has no place in a science class, If this passes the next generation of Americans will be more stupid than the last.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I think that if they want to continue teaching the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's theory, they should also put Creationism in the books also. Creationism isn't any more way out there than thinking that there was a Big Bang and everything came into being or thinking that we came from monkeys. I don't think that I have ever seen a monkey in a zoo evolve into a human being and I don't care how hard you slam some rocks together, they will not form anything but busted up rocks.
Everything in this world is perfect just the way it is, so something had to design it. There had to be some intelligent being that created everything. Things don't just come out of nowhere and form into perfect things. There is something called the "Golden Ratio" or the "‎Fibonacci Sequence". You can take this sequence of numbers and they equal to the shape of almost everything that is in existence today. If almost everything is equal to the Golden Ratio, there had to be some intelligent being, far more intelligent than we are, that created everything. Even many scientist today are believing that some intelligent being had to create everything.
Teachers teach our children these "Theories" like they are Fact. A theory is no more fact than Santa clause or the Easter bunny is fact. You can say that there is a Santa Clause and you could make a very good theory about that he lives in the north pole and that he gives children toys once a year and that he has flying reindeer, but unless you can show me a "Real Santa Clause", it is just a theory, not a fact.
So, if you want to teach the children of the world about the "Big Bang Theory", "Darwin's Theory", or any other theory, you have to let Creationism be taught also and let the children decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by UndercoverJoe
 


Blimey you need to read some science books...ok.


1) We do not come from Monkeys we share a common ancestor.(Gentics has proved that we share a common ancestor with Chimps).

2) When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

3) Like I said evolution doesn't disprove God, maybe God made all the laws for evolution to work, the physics, the chemistry etc and let it all ride and it came up with us eventually.

4) Science is about facts that can be observed and tested NOT about faith based ideas, let me guess you just want one of the religions ideas put in text books? (Christianity what about Shintoism ect).

5) Many Religions have accepted evolution from Islam to the Catholics why is it so many are against it? It is it because it basically disproves Adam and Eve?

6) Perfect things? sorry where are these perfect things? I hope you do not mean us, we are far from perfect we can't eat or drink while breathing, 1 in 4 of us can't have lactose....If we were designed the designer did a really bad job.

Re reading your post and the comment about you have never seen a monkey turn into a human just proves you are trolling or really need to go back to the classroom.
edit on 22-11-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


boymonkey.... I really like you so don't take this personally or the wrong way...


Evolution is a theory with NO supporting evidence in the fossil record or ANY missing links for any species.....

It does not explain how life started since the probability of the right proteins (20) out of a hundred.forming a complicated (even for a single cell organism) form are many millions of times over what mathematical law dictates as even possible.


The fact is that evolution is as much faith based as any god head or other ideology about creationism ...

There is no proof and less evidence as time and greater catalogue of the fossil record shows with every passing decade.....we just don't like to say "I have no idea"

I would prefer honesty as intelligence over faith in absurdities ........


an unproven theory has NO place in accepted scientific truth void of the scientific process .....which evolution lacks....and as far as probability ...... 1 in 10 to the power of a 100 is not sound math. Ultraviolet light would have destroyed any genetic soup and water would have made such a combination impossible in primitive earth
......


so its a hundred year old best guess by the son of a mathematician who counted on the fossil record proving him right....which it didn't and NEVER will....and other disciplines have shown him to be wrong.


That famous test in the 50s of reproducing the building blocks of life in primordial earth atmosphere only produced 4 of the 20 necessary proteins for life...and they had to be quickly removed from the electric current so they wouldn't be destroyed ......without mentioning that all would somehow magically coalesce into a complex single organism in water....which wouldn't help that process ....

we don't know.......this theory is wrong....move on and get back to science ...not faith based beliefs in theory....



...
edit on 11 22 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)
edit on 11 22 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


Evolution is not about the start of life.

No such thing as a missing link.

You want transitional fossils? we have plenty.

en.wikipedia.org...

Heck we even have transitional species alive today.

Like I said genetics prove we share a common ancestor with chimps.



I like you to dude so I will not bother again with this thread, Iam getting bored explaining the same stuff all the time.
Enjoy you day fella.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by UndercoverJoe
 

It seems like over the years I've responded to this identical post a thousand times and I can't stomach it anymore. You could at least make an effort to stay abreast of the current trends in refutations employed by creationists. Try something like this article on creation.com as a jumping off point. Then you can at least come across as a thoughtful while being wrong.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 

Oh boy. I'll just quote myself from another thread:



Evolution is a continuum and as such there are no discrete "links" to be "missing." Taxonomy and phylogeny are tools for conveniently mapping information, no such precise delineations occur in nature. It's analogous to viewing the visible spectrum and then demanding to be shown the "missing link" between orange and red.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I see SOME, well very few fossils which do not show transitional characteristics in that link.

Where is the fish with fins that start forming what later became hands or hooves, or paws.....

Where is the giraffe with a short neck that eventually got longer as trees did....

Your own link says this is an incomplete list....and that it will never be satisfactorily filled.....BECAUSE there is no evidence in the fossil record showing ANY transitional phase.

Unless it happened in one generation after MILLIONS of years without change before, or after.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record was grossly incomplete a hundred years ago and that is why there was no transitional fossils.

IT IS VERY MUCH complete today, except to those who argue for evolution and simply dismiss the hundred years of catalogue and meticulous study that may lack only less than 10% of a complete picture for any period in earths history....but thats not complete enough for them....no. Because they havent found a single transitional fossil...(those in your link arent)

Thats like saying that because you havent jumped up and flown yet, it is just because you havent figured out how, not that you arent a bird and never will ....


And evolution DOES try to explain how life began. It argues that 20 proteins, of the same type(left handed VS right), formed by random choice of nature out of a hundred (in water under ultraviolet radiation which would dissolve or destroy all), and coalesced into a single cell....which evolutionists say is simple.....have you ever studied the structure of a single cell organism? Not so simple. Membrains and clockwork inner structures dont just "form" randomly.

www.darwinismrefuted.com...

If you research the chance of this happening you would know that it is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

Do it, check it out. Genetic soup probability.....

lmgtfy.com...

carm.org...

digitalcommons.liberty.edu...

and there is a PLETHORA of others. Just look if you REALLY want to know if this theory is untouchable for its factual solidity.

SO the Origin of life is unexplained to some, to others....ONLY LIFE begets LIFE.

Evolutionists then argue that the same process of random happenings (which they say happens allot) is in charge of life evolving)which we HAVE NOT EVER witnessed or found evidence of)....there is no such evidence or much less proof. There is only evidence that species pop up and die out....none LESS evolved than the last but rather, All are built perfectly for their environment......there is no fittest.

But hey what do I know right.

edit on 11 24 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Then perhaps there is genetic evidence or other...?

No,?! then what in Zoros name is the starting point for this absurd theory?

The visual observations of skeletal and fossil remains by an untrained eye a hundred years ago?


Ok.....
edit on 11 24 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Why do we even have school anymore? It's not like we care about true education or anything..



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


Evolution is a theory with NO supporting evidence in the fossil record or ANY missing links for any species.....


Check this out.


50,000 generations of bacteria prove that evolution never stops

In a remarkable experiment that's been going on for nearly a quarter century, biologists have shown that lab-grown bacteria — even in a stable, unchanging world — will continue to evolve in a way that makes it increasingly good at reproducing.

Back in 1988, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski took some E. coli bacteria and put them in a dozen glass flasks. These 12 populations of bacteria have been there ever since, eating and dividing in isolation — over and over and over again. Now, some 25 years and 50,000 generations later, the strain has demonstrated some very noticeable changes.

What he and his colleagues at Michigan State University in East Lansing discovered was that, even in the static, boring lab flask, the bacteria never stopped evolving.


FYI - Evolution is about adapting to changing environments. You apparently believe God created a constantly changing world but made life unable to adapt and survive. ...You don't think much of her do you?









edit on 24/11/13 by soficrow because: fixed sentence
edit on 24/11/13 by soficrow because: same



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Schools are the Governments way of getting you to learn and to think the way that they want you to. If you actually do research on the history of the United States, you will find that the history books in schools are not very accurate and some even distort the truth, so that people will forget the actual truth of what happened in the past. Just like our schools teach "the separation of church and state". There is no law that says that the church and the state should be two separate entities and that they should not go hand in hand, that is just what the government wants people to think. Just as this thread is arguing about science and creationism, the books in our schools are to blame because they teach children to believe in this theory or that theory, so when the children grow up and become adults, they will hopefully believe the way that the government wants them to believe, unless their parents or some other person of influence has taught them differently, in which case you have people who think outside the box and the government frowns on people like that. Governments all over the world teach their citizens what they want them to believe, whether it is a belief in a god, a belief science or a belief that people of other races are evil. If a government can make you believe the way that they want you to believe, they can control you and make you think that they are the only ones in this world that are intelligent and powerful. A government can make it's citizens believe that they are their protector, their provider and their way of life. If a government can instill their way of thinking into children at an early age, those children will probably think that way for the rest of their lives and the government will have another person under it's control.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


How about a study with some actual peer review.

www.conservapedia.com...




Richard Lenski is a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University.[1][2] He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a doctorate in zoology[3] from the University of North Carolina.[4] When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. [5]
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of evolution. Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.

The 2008 paper he co-authored was peer reviewed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions [6] about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.[7]

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the data underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the E. Coli bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. [8]

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):[9][10]


Also his study if true and not contaminated, shows that some of the cultures were able to survive better than others in that environment.

It does not show a new species with /or new traits emerging to cope with its environment. It shows that some were just better at surviving than others in that environment. They were always there and always had those traits. Those generations that survived would survive less in another environment compared to those that died off if the ones that died off were better adapted to another environment.

They are still the same species of bacteria with the same, NOT new traits being passed on to new generations. No evolution took place. Just environmental selection.

Like for example, if 2 human populations were living in a sunny desert environment. One which is not native to that environment and with no melanin in its skin would die off because it has less survivability than the other group with melanin production in its skin. This would happen over time because those without melanin would die from skin cancer faster and before they can exchange their genetic material to following generations.

They are all still human and no evolution took place in such a situation. One just survived in that particular environment over the other...because one group is better built for that environment and the other is better built for another....

Environmental adaptations arent evolution....thay are just the result of a process of environmental selection favoring the genetic exchange of one group over another over time. Like having light eyes or not.


By the way I never said GOD did a thing. Just pointed out that Darwin was wrong and evolution is faith based....not factual.

I think life is amazing and a "miracle" in its own right.

edit on 11 24 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


...Environmental adaptations arent evolution....thay are just the result of a process of environmental selection favoring the genetic exchange of one group over another over time.


So your argument is semantic. No time for it. But before I go...


What is Evolution?

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. ...when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


PS. Lenski thoroughly debunked Schafly's "response" - and embarrassed him to boot.

Lenski affair

The Lenski affair was a poorly conceived stunt by Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia to denigrate the groundbreaking evolutionary research of Michigan State University professor and National Academy of Science member Richard Lenski, in which Lenski and his student Zachary Blount actually observed evolution happening. Schlafly's stunt backfired completely and led to one of the best responses to creationism to date. It is now one of the most famous incidents in creation/evolution circles on the Internet.






edit on 25/11/13 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

tadaman
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


boymonkey.... I really like you so don't take this personally or the wrong way...


Evolution is a theory with NO supporting evidence in the fossil record or ANY missing links for any species.....


There is plenty of evidence to support evolutionary theory. Here is the timeline of human evolution:
Timeline of human evolution


It does not explain how life started since the probability of the right proteins (20) out of a hundred.forming a complicated (even for a single cell organism) form are many millions of times over what mathematical law dictates as even possible.


Evolution never claimed to explain how life started. Abiogenesis does that. Stop mixing up your scientific theories.


The fact is that evolution is as much faith based as any god head or other ideology about creationism ...


That isn't a fact, that is an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that. Just because you want to ignore the evidence to support the theory, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


There is no proof and less evidence as time and greater catalogue of the fossil record shows with every passing decade.....we just don't like to say "I have no idea"


As time goes on, the fossil record becomes more complete not less complete, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Maybe some links and proof to back this claim up would help.


I would prefer honesty as intelligence over faith in absurdities ........


Absurdities like some magical god "poofed" the universe and all of life into existence 10,000 years ago?



an unproven theory has NO place in accepted scientific truth void of the scientific process .....which evolution lacks....and as far as probability ...... 1 in 10 to the power of a 100 is not sound math. Ultraviolet light would have destroyed any genetic soup and water would have made such a combination impossible in primitive earth
......


You are right about unproven theories. Creationism is an unproven theory. Therefore it has no reason to be included in a science textbook. Your probability is flawed, since it must assuredly happened in the past since we are here having this conversation. And AGAIN you are referencing Abiogensis. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn the difference!



so its a hundred year old best guess by the son of a mathematician who counted on the fossil record proving him right....which it didn't and NEVER will....and other disciplines have shown him to be wrong.


Proof?


That famous test in the 50s of reproducing the building blocks of life in primordial earth atmosphere only produced 4 of the 20 necessary proteins for life...and they had to be quickly removed from the electric current so they wouldn't be destroyed ......without mentioning that all would somehow magically coalesce into a complex single organism in water....which wouldn't help that process ....


Proof?


we don't know.......this theory is wrong....move on and get back to science ...not faith based beliefs in theory....


Please read this link: What is a Scientific Theory?
Your definition of a scientific theory is SERIOUSLY flawed. We wouldn't be calling evolution a theory if scientists didn't have countless amounts of corroborating evidence to support it.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

UndercoverJoe
I think that if they want to continue teaching the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's theory, they should also put Creationism in the books also. Creationism isn't any more way out there than thinking that there was a Big Bang and everything came into being or thinking that we came from monkeys. I don't think that I have ever seen a monkey in a zoo evolve into a human being and I don't care how hard you slam some rocks together, they will not form anything but busted up rocks.


The only evidence for Creationism is from the Bible and from that its only like the first few passages of the book. There isn't enough evidence for Creationism to take it seriously as a scientific theory to be taught alongside evolution.


Everything in this world is perfect just the way it is, so something had to design it. There had to be some intelligent being that created everything. Things don't just come out of nowhere and form into perfect things. There is something called the "Golden Ratio" or the "‎Fibonacci Sequence". You can take this sequence of numbers and they equal to the shape of almost everything that is in existence today. If almost everything is equal to the Golden Ratio, there had to be some intelligent being, far more intelligent than we are, that created everything. Even many scientist today are believing that some intelligent being had to create everything.


Irreducible complexity fallacy


Teachers teach our children these "Theories" like they are Fact. A theory is no more fact than Santa clause or the Easter bunny is fact. You can say that there is a Santa Clause and you could make a very good theory about that he lives in the north pole and that he gives children toys once a year and that he has flying reindeer, but unless you can show me a "Real Santa Clause", it is just a theory, not a fact.
So, if you want to teach the children of the world about the "Big Bang Theory", "Darwin's Theory", or any other theory, you have to let Creationism be taught also and let the children decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.


They ARE fact. You are mixing up the layman definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory. Please read this link before you post again.

What is a Scientific Theory?



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


So by your own definition, you need to have change to call it evolution.

The cultures did not change they simply had half of their populations die off. There were no changes in the cultures. No new traits. One group survived while the other didnt. I did notice how you didnt address that. People say I need to redefine my definitions of evolution....well some need to as well.

That is not semantics, it is a lack of fitting even your definition.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Krazysh0t





There is plenty of evidence to support evolutionary theory. Here is the timeline of human evolution:
Timeline of human evolution


That does not show evolution since only evolutionists argue that all those are of the same lineage of bipeds. I see many who COULD be related but a visual observation of skeletal remains is not enough to claim that they are in fact all derivative of one another.

Is there genetic evidence to support such claims? NO. Is there transitional fossils to prove such a claim of one leading into the other? NO. By yours and evolutionary theorists logic, all primates alive today sharing our world with us if dug up in a thousand years would be stages leading into us. The fact that there are and always have been many types of primates living side by side with us says that everyone of those examples could simply be a separate species. In fact as new species of hominids are discovered the family tree of humanity is given MORE branches of separate "evolutionary" directions. If evolution is correct then yes they are all separate evolutionary dead ends....or if common sense tells us anything, they are separate species with SIMILAR characteristics which they adapted to survive in similar environments.


Evolution never claimed to explain how life started. Abiogenesis does that. Stop mixing up your scientific theories.

YET evolutionary theorists embrace this concept entirely. If not there would be no argument between creationists and evolutionists. It could be peacefully said that GOD created life and evolution changed it.....YET they always incorporate it into their argument. Dont back pedal now. You mean to tell me you have never argued this with a creationists before or after arguing evolution...? That would be a lie if you said NEVER....hence why I simply include it. It is used to support evolutionary theory seamlessly.


That isn't a fact, that is an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that. Just because you want to ignore the evidence to support the theory, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


NO, if there is no proof or there is simply inconclusive evidence....to call it fact is faith. You dont know but choose to believe it is so....very good at honoring the scientific process...


As time goes on, the fossil record becomes more complete not less complete, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. Maybe some links and proof to back this claim up would help.


Yet the fossil record shows NO TRANSITIONAL fossils of one species into another. NO Giraffes with short necks that got progressively longer. NO fish fins with the workings of what would later become paws hooves or hands...nothing. All the examples that early evolutionists used to use to support their claim have been dropped due to further observation. Their amount of supporting evidence is less than that of the times of Darwin as far as the fossil record shows.


Absurdities like some magical god "poofed" the universe and all of life into existence 10,000 years ago?


I NEVER said I was a proponent of this idea. I have actually studied the bible and know that there are all sorts of issues as far as translation errors and marginalia errors to simple read a king james version and think 10 thousand years is what was originally allotted. If you even care the Hebrew words used over and over again mean a period of time....not a concrete notion of this or that amount of time. Af far as the order of things being created...they werent that far off. The evidence actually agrees with the order of creation as proposed by the bible....FYI

I like to keep an open mind...its how we learn.


You are right about unproven theories. Creationism is an unproven theory. Therefore it has no reason to be included in a science textbook. Your probability is flawed, since it must assuredly happened in the past since we are here having this conversation. And AGAIN you are referencing Abiogensis. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn the difference!


Again, then why do evolutionists always use it when detracting from the arguments of creationists and to support their claim of a non creationists view of life and its process.


so its a hundred year old best guess by the son of a mathematician who counted on the fossil record proving him right....which it didn't and NEVER will....and other disciplines have shown him to be wrong.


What do you mean proof? HA! There are no transitional fossils. What getting lazy? Darwin WAS the untrained son of a mathematician. Well, he did receive an expensive education and was a disappointment. It just wasnt in biology. His grandfather was a Biologist, but he studied medicine....soooooooo More proof? Read a biography or two about people you follow without question....proof....lol


That famous test in the 50s of reproducing the building blocks of life in primordial earth atmosphere only produced 4 of the 20 necessary proteins for life...and they had to be quickly removed from the electric current so they wouldn't be destroyed ......without mentioning that all would somehow magically coalesce into a complex single organism in water....which wouldn't help that process ....

Proof?


en.wikipedia.org...

www.rationalresponders.com...

www.truthinscience.org.uk...

and this is very much on topic as Texas board of education has once again asked for a revision of what information is being passed as FACT when the leading experts even say it is flawed science. www.evolutionnews.org...]

All those detail why the Miller/Urey experiment and abiogenesis is entirely flawed. Details on the actual experiment are available on this thing called the INTERNET. Read it as I have and know the findings as I do. They did not produce the 20 necessary proteins and amino acids. They produced SOME....4 and under less than genuine circumstances. Spoon feed yourself. READ findings before jumping to defend them.


Please read this link: What is a Scientific Theory?
Your definition of a scientific theory is SERIOUSLY flawed. We wouldn't be calling evolution a theory if scientists didn't have countless amounts of corroborating evidence to support it.


PROOF? What evidence. If you had countless evidence and could PROVE evolutionary theory.....then you would have a Nobel prize. You cant because there isnt.....PROOF?

edit on 11 26 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


apparently, you do not believe in the sciences of chemistry and biology





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join