@skydome29 Maybe because that opinion is based on scientific studies whom themselves are based on facts and not on bullshit from a book written by uneducated bronze age shamans?
Wisdom teeth, appendixes, tonsils, coccyx's, fish with lungs, the archeopteryx, every frog, whales and snakes with leg bones. What the hell is wrong with creationists. They just say evolution is wrong while providing no substantial proof then say creation is right while providing no proof at all except old books written before the invention of a true educational system that cannot be substantiated. Grow up and educate yourself on the scientific method.
@Outlawzero What is wrong with you - the structures that you put forward as "vestigial" are not vestigial at all. They certainly do not prove Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Since Evolution is taught in the science classroom as a "fact" the onus of proof is on evolutionists. Where is the proof? What is the proof?
Micro evolution is observable science.
Darwinian/Macro evolution is a fairytale for grownups.
@AzraelI666 You are asking an irrelevant question. My point is that these structures do NOT support the fairytale of Darwinian/Macro evolution. Evolutionists gravitate to these an other facalious arguements to conceal the fact that the scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woeful.
The battle is not between science and religion; it is between science and Darwinism.
@theot58 If you would have bothered to do a little research (true science, not your Discovery Institute cretinism) you would have found that they are not only supported and explained by science, but they are actually an evidence for evolution.
On the second hand, don't bother do it - you would refuse to accept the conclusion of those studies anyway. As Ben Franklin said it: None so blind as those who will not see. And you are the poster boy for religion-induced cretinity.
@AzraelI666 You are acting like a typical Evolutionary Nazi. Anyone who disagrees with your belief in evolution is labelled a "cretard", ignonrant and other disparaging names.
Your intimidation tactic is being watched by the public and recognised for what it is.
If you have real evidence - lets see it. But please stop your bullying.
@theot58 Have you heard of Google? If yes then use it. If not then let me get you the first results of the searches
w w w.publish.csiro. au/ ?paper=RD02087
w w w.bookrags. c om/research/vestigial-structures-wap
But my guess is that, even if you would read even these few articles you would refuse to accept their content - by now religion has fried your brain beyond repair, you're effectively retarded.
Please stop showing your stupidity, it hurts when read.
I went to the 1st reference. It included the statement "Homology of the surfactant proteins within the vertebrates POINTS to a single evolutionary origin for the system and INDICATES that fish surfactant is a ‘protosurfactant’. (capitilization mine).
What do you think this prooves?
This is so typical of the poor science thrown at me. Evolutionists presume Darwinian/Macro evolution then proceed to torture the evidence to make it fit.
@AzraelI666 What they are is evidence of the desperation of evolutionists to torture the evidence to support the fairytale of Darwinian/Macro evolution. This reminds of the Erst Haeckel fraud "ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny". It is still in text books today even though it was proven false many decades ago.
Evolutionists are so desperate for evidence they fabricate it out of thin air.
@tangerinetigerr Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.
The world is beautifully symbiotic, there may be a God... I don't know, and neither does anyone else. What I DO know however, is that creation theory (or intelligent design) is incorrect. If you believe that rubbish you've simply been deceived. Science is not something to be scared of, it's absolute.
@Catac Just like millions of people I KNOW with out doubt that there IS a God...The Bible makes it clear that whoever SEEKS God will find Him...To say that you dont know if He exists is proof that you dont DESIRE to find Him...if you did you would see Him clearly...Christ created you. Christ created me. Christ created the science that you worship. IF you dont want to do A simple act of SEEKING God then you wont find Him.
@tangerinetigerr I do seek God. The God of happiness and love. I'm say i don't believe in the bibles version of God. MUCH LIKE 70%+ OF THE 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH. Are we all hellbound? Just because we don't know if the version you adorn is correct? What about all the GOOD people that ARE NOT christian?
If that's how your version of God works then I'm awestruck.
I won't adhere to that.
Not even if he floated his tyrannical self down from the sky and threatened me with a hot poker.
@theot58 BINGO ! You think Goddidit(Intelligence). Any SCIENTIFIC PROOF of any kind to back that up or are you just spewing what you read from AIG? (capitalization mine)
Our Bearded Guy Beats your Bearded guy mainly because our Bearded guy actually existed once (Darwin)....I not sure there is any proof for your guys Beard , but it don't stop you drawing it on .........now does it? , and if Jesus did exist he was black....oh and while I am at it , December the 25th is a pagan festival it as nothing to do with Jesus birthday ...it was hijacked by Christianity because it was popular , pretty much what Christianity is trying to do with Science at the moment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science simply means the study of. And as we continue to study, "scientific facts" of old continue to be dis-proven re-thought, or completely disregarded as rubbish. Contrary to popular belief, science neither proves or dis-proves a creator, or evolution. As both are JUST theories, and can NOT be proven! Which ever you choose to believe in takes a measure of faith. People cling to one or the other. CLOSE MINDED either way!
@number1lilslugger 1st off saying evolution is JUST a theory shows that you do not understand what a Scientific Theory really is. Evolution has been proven, it has been tested and has been observed, to say other wise is going against all the facts we have on the entire subject. Please try to not group faith and scientific theories in the same area as they are NOT the same.
@number1lilslugger No, that's stupid for the simple reason you put them on the same level, did you learn that bit of pseudo knowledge in your creationsm class?
Actually, in May, scientists working with various proteins and amino acids analyzed, deconstruction, and then reconstructed a cell, and as it reproduced, the first artificial life form. Proof that you don't need some all-powerful entity to create life; though you would need billions of years of evolution to get complicated life-forms like we have today.
@saxmanchiro Thank you for the irrelevant quotations you are making.
I get this all the time where the core scientific issues are ignored and irrelevant distractions and scientific soundind words are introduced for the sole purpose of hiding the fact the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MACRO EVOLUTION IS WEAK AS!!.
We used to hear the bull about fossils - we don't hear it anymore because the fossil record CONDEMNS macro evolution.
@theot58 10 yrs ago, paleontologists(scientists that specialize in studying FOSSILS) found, in Romania, some fossilized bones of a small carnivore dinosaur. After having the samples independently dated(usually by 5 independent isotope labs) and finding them around 65 million yrs old, finally finished the Scientific Method and reported out to the public. It took 10 yrs to do the job correctly. Just think, we have over 250k published proven hypotheses supporting Evolution. And your evidence???
Darwin himself said that there must be "countless" transitional forms - WERE THE ARE THEY?
The fossil record clearly CONTRADICTS macro evolution, since it asserts that there should be "countless" numbers and all we have in reality is a handfull of dubious ones which could be interepreted in a variety of ways.
@theot58 it was interesting to read your various comments; but the more i read others' comments supporting evil-ution, even i thought for a moment there that we were all created by UNintelligent Design =[ ..... bit i do believe in a loving Creator instead...i need to pray that evil-utionists stop
mEEting at their "fable table" of non-reason, extrapolating fables, and presenting them as fact!
TRUE FACT: "In the Beginning God CREATED..." F122311...622pm
@saxmanchiro Thank you for recongnising me individually - but your recognition is not deserved.
You are doing what many evolutionists have done to me previously, confusing the real issues with distractions. YOUR SILLY ASSERTION ABOUT SCIENCE IS STUPID AS.
I love science, I have taughts science, I am an electrical Engineer and use the scientific method daily. I DON'T HAVE A PROB LEM WITH SCIENCE.
I have a problem with calling Macro Evolution "science"
@saxmanchiro Darwinian/Macro Evolution is the deception.
The battle is often misreprested as science against religion - thi is bull.
The real battle is BETWEEN SCIENCE AND DARWINISM.
Darwinian/Macro evolution is promoted dogmatically to unsuspecting students as a "fact" while real science contracts it big time.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
@theot58 Darwin and his hypothesis of Natural Selection is just a small part of the curriculum(State mandated). We spend much more time on the evidence for the Theory that developed over the next 150 yrs. Science pwns holy books of horrors. Funny you bring up Micro and Macro Evolution. These are the same thing, just one is short time, as in bacterial resistance to antibiotics and one over billions of yrs. Same process. Biologists do not use these terms, only creationists.
@theot58 Here is just a very very short list of pieces of evidence for the TofE, since Darwin's work was presented;
ERVs, DNA/RNA analysis(Genomics), biochemical(proteins, lipids) analysis/comparisons, metabolic pathways, thousands of transitional fossils, genetics, Mitosis/Meiosis, Endosymbiosis, bacterial speciation, conjugation among prokaryotes, membrane proteins/phospholipids, and so much more. But you know this stuff since it's taught in high schools around the civilized world.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
” The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
The co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick admitted, “The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle,
so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
@saxmanchiro Rattling of scientific labels does nothing to support Darwinian /Macro evolution. It's interesting that you include DNA/RNA - this DISPROVES Macro evoluition.
HOW COULD DNA EVOLVE?
It is a digital code so complex that it is mindboggling complex - if you believe that it made itself using "natural selection" then you must also believe in Santa Claus.
@theot58 Check on these little things that help genetic changes in populations.
Meiosis(crossing-over, independent assortment, random fertilization), conjugation in simpler organisms, pollenation with help from pollenators after Meiosis, mutations(neg and pos), viral additions to germ cells before Meiosis, DNA switches, etc. Sorry if these are too difficult but this is all high school bio.
@saxmanchiro I guess this implies that you do believe in Santa Claus.
Scientific terms DO NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF FOR EVOLUTION FAIRYTALE.
NASA Director Wernher von Braun said:
“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design....
Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye.”
@theot58 Care to comment on my last post to you? I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation, but you didn't come back with anything. Typical theist who puts up a statement/claim, it's properly addressed/answered and you don't acknowledge that answer. You just come back with "Scientific terms do not consitute proof for evolution fairytale" and even caps to boot! Fucking moron. Go read a high school text book. Happy Holidays!
@saxmanchiro Your comment: "I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation" clearly indicates your level of intelligence in this field.
ARE YOU NUTS!!!
DNA is a huge problem for evolution. There are gigabits of information there - whare it come from? It is a digital code that is mindblowing complex. The likelyhood of all the bits falling into place by "chance" is so remote that is laughable that you are putting it forth as evidence for evolution.
@theot58 He's nothing close to a scientist, why would i ask a religious leader about science?? hahaha and this guy puts scientific proof of a darwin myth? I'd rather read an arthur c. clarke romance novel.
@theot58 Are you that dumb to not understand what is written before you?
OK let me spell it like for a retard: because the DNA of even the simplest life form is relatively large when it's copied or split errors occurs. These errors are effectively bad instructions that change the organism in some way = mutations. If these mutations are beneficial they get transmitted further, if not they die with the organism. More mutations = new specie.
@theot58 Care to comment on my last post to you? I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation, but you didn't come back with anything. Typical theist who puts up a statement/claim, it's properly addressed/answered and you don't acknowledge that answer. You just come back with "Scientific terms do not consitute proof for evolution fairytale" and even caps to boot! Fucking moron. Go read a high school text book. Happy Holidays!
@theot58 Care to comment on my last post to you? I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation, but you didn't come back with anything. Typical theist who puts up a statement/claim, it's properly addressed/answered and you don't acknowledge that answer. You just come back with "Scientific terms do not consitute proof for evolution fairytale" and even caps to boot! Fucking moron. Go read a high school text book. Happy Holidays!
@theot58 Then do a little research of your own and find out what biologists thought about those testimonies - incompetents was the nicest characterization of them i could find.
I love science; I am an engineer and qualified teacher.
The battle is not between science and religion rather it is between science and Darwinism.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
@saxmanchiro I am currently training Engineers and technicians in the maintenance and developement of computer control systems for a major international Automation company. When I was teaching at school, I was teaching students 7 -12 in subjects associated with technology and science, it included computing at various levels, business management, accounting, maths and science at lower levels.
@theot58 Is this school located in a non-Theocratic country, such as Canada, USA, Finland, Sweden, etc? If so, did you follow your assigned curriculum? Opine a bit? Insert your personal feelings regarding established theories within science?
@theot58 Someone has managed to put some nasty shit into your logic pathways. Please provide your supported explanation for past and current biodiversity, since you 'believe' (w/o evidence-faith) that evolution is not 'fact'. I await your Nobel prize winning response with extreme interest.
Let's take a look at which actually lines up with science and therefore is actual science. First, a scientific "Law" is a rule that cannot be contradicted by any theory. So lets look at which one lines up with science.
Law of Causality
Evolution- No ID-Yes
1st & 2ND Laws of thermodynamics
Evolution-No ID- Yes
Law of Bio-genesis
Evolution- No ID- Yes
I'm not a religions nut case I'm just a simple scientist who still believes in true science not God hating BS.
@nkatsinas Thank you for that very insightful rebuttal. You must be one of those "complex scientists" who have moved far beyond logic, science, and reason to resort to petty insults, instead of offering evidence to debunk my argument. You have further solidified my theory that MOST Atheist are just God hating and their Ideas have more to do with emotions rather that intellect.
Firstly, there is non scientific "Law of Causality", only a philosophical one (look it up!). Even if there were, the Theory of Evolution doesn't violate it.
Evolution takes place in an open system (the earth) and does not comment on the conversion of matter into energy, so neither law of Thermodynamic applies.
The 'law of biogenesis' only applies to complex organisms (again, look it up!). Even if it were otherwise, evolution does not address the origin of life.
I am an electrical engineer whos is disgusted by the arrogance of evolutionists who assume Macro Evolution is correct and slander anyone who provides scientific challenges to the evolutionary fairytale.
I am a public high school Biology teacher in the Southern USA. My curriculum is state mandated and correct. All of the information I am required to teach has gone through the scientific method and I remind my students on a regular basis that if they want to bring in any other opinion or story they might have been told that conflicts with the curriculum, they cannot share it with the class or me. If it has not been subjected to the same methodology, it is not science and not allowed. Period.
That is good to know that you like to keep the points which are proven scientifically and not just "ideas". There are far to many teachers who have tried pushing their own opinions or ideas on students due to religious ignorance in this country. It almost seems like they would love for this country to be a Theocracy.
If it is not proven via scientific means then it shouldn't be in the class room.. period.
Unfortunately, I am one of only three who do this among our science teaching staff. Even our admin and central office, Board of Ed and even our State dept are staffed with fundies. I know of a few science staff that put their god spin into the lectures. This is not allowable and must be stopped. The push seems to be for a Theocracy in this country, you are correct.
If ID is ever discussed in the future by our State dept of Ed, I will be in the room in support of proper science only.
@xxdjsethxx The only theocracy you'd have to be concerned about is Islam. Christianity has shot it's wad. Islam is soon to follow. There will just be pockets of theism left picking on the occasional lone rationalist, or blurting out an irritating belch of venom, then fading back into it's hole in the ground.
@theot58 You obviously don't understand the scientific method. You don't need to observe something to be able to test it: Common ancestry makes claims which have been tested; the consequences of evolution have been discovered all over the place, most spectacular examples being the fused human chromosones and the occurence of retro virus DNA in humans and Apes. Evolution is an observed fact... to explain it best, Darwin's theory was developed. Evolutions explains observations.
@teddansonLA You obviously are making rash assumptions about me "not understanding the scientific method". I am a qualified electrical engineer currently working as a Training Engineer in control system. I am also a qualified teacher who has taught science.
I assert that you have blindly accepted Macro Evolution on the basis of mass acceptance rather than scrutinised the evidence.
Debate that I have seen leads me to concluded the evidence supporting evolution is VERY WEAK.
@theot58 Maybe you do understand the scientific method, but it doesn't show in your analysis. Let me give you another example for you to submit to your criteria of scientific method: quantum mechanics. The wavefunction has not been observed, is not (directly) measurable and therefor fails your test. So is QM valid or not? I say it is because the predictions it makes have been verified.
@teddansonLA I do not understand Quantum mechanics; so I cannot comment on that. Regardless of that it is not correct to equate Macro Evolution with Quantam Mechanics and groups together and assert that if one is true the other must be true too.
It does raise an interesting question What precisely is "scientific" and what is not.?
A better question is: Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that Macro Evolution is true?
Fossils do NOT support macro evolution, they discredit it.
@theot58 I was not equating QM with evolution (Macro??? there is just evolution). I was pointing out that the QM wavefunction does not fit your scientific methodology. I just re-read my QM post, and was struck by the fact I didn't mention evolution. So how on earth did you conclude that I was (a) equating QM and evolution and (b) asserting the truth of one based on the truth of the other? Re-read my post, then re-read your scientific method post and look at what I was criticising.
@theot58 re: evidence for evolution. Darwin's theory was that species evolved by descent with modification - there are common ancestors for e.g. humans and apes. The fossil record absolutely supports the common ancestry, about 6 million years ago. Secondly, human and chimpanzee DNA also show that we share a common ancestor 6 million years ago (by two methods: molecular clock, retrovirus studies). Common ancestor + modification = evolution of distinct species: macro evolution. all Observed!
@theot58 Those are not the three tenets of scientific method. Darwin's theory is testable - it looks at facts (distribution of species, the fossil record) and gives an explanation of those facts. Then, as a result of the explanation, theres are tests it must pass e.g. why humans have less chromosones than Chimpanzees (now understood and a spectacular vindication of evolutionary theory). Darwin's theory is actually a triumph of science, which is why it is so important.
Under scrutiny Macro Evolution crumbles which is why evolutions now refuse to engage in debates with creationists. There is an excellent debate between William Moore a profession teaching Evolution and Kent Hovind at Wayne State University. I am happy to send it to you if you are interested.
@theot58 Kent Hovind is a joke! He makes up all sorts of rubbish when attacking evolution. For instance, he keeps saying that dogs do not produce non dogs (no one says they do), he repeatedly conflates evolution and cosmology... evolution and abiogenesis... Speciation has been observed; that humans and apes share a common ancestor has been demonstrated; if they share a common ancestor, then they must have evolved to get to where we are today... all demonstrated, all now facts.
@saxmanchiro With all due respect, you gagging scientific discussion and prohibiting students from raising valid scientific arguements agains Macro Evolution is quite stupid. That is the core of the scientific method.
The only reason this is necessary is because Macro Evolution is a fairytale for grownups. It is BELIEVED not because of strong supporting science but because of philosophical affinities.
@saxmanchiro I have no idea what you are trying to say. But let me be clear on what I am trying to say.
1) DARWINIAN/MACOR EVOLUTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE OBSERVABLE EVIDEMNCE
- Under scientific scrutiny the so calle evidence of "fossils", "homology" antibiotic resistence" DNA etc crubles indeed these very things clearly contradict the theory.
2) WE ARE DECEIVING OUR KIDS TEACHING THEM THE FAIRY TALE OF MACRO EVOLUTION
@theot58 Shame on you. Obfuscation of the truth is not nice. Please provide all of us your rendition of why we have biodiversity we see today. When you get that done, may I suggest you submit your work to the Nobel committee. They have a $2million prize waiting for you. Micro and Macro Evolution are the same thing, just different time frames. Please do as I asked in my earlier post. Go read some non-fiction and get your nose out of some Creationist pseudo-science literature.
@saxmanchiro You are asking an irrelevant question. My opinion regarding biodiversity has nothing to do with teaching Evolution as "fact" when the scientific evidence supporting it is woefully deficient.
I have answered your question. Now you answer my question.
What is the scientific evidence which "proves" Darwinian/macro evolution?
Where is the evidence available for the average student to investigate?
How does Darwinian/Macro evolution explain the emergence of genders?
@theot58 You see, my questions if very relevant to this conversation. You attack the well established TofE with zeal but refuse to put up a replacement explanation for biodiversity. I have a hunch what your answer would be but I just want you to type it here for all to see. You mentioned in an earlier comment about 'Intelligent Design' but I don't think you actually meant that since that notion was destroyed yrs ago by so many during the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial, Creationism disguised.
If your child needed urgent medical attention , and you called for a doctor and a guy in white coat turns up and says ...look all these other doctors are wrong , I know what's going on , I have Creation science degree in Biology even you would be out of there .If you really took the time to understand science you would see with ease there are more mysteries that could change Physics as we know it ,.go read something about string theory , Higgs Boson , Particle physics then we will talk
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
You are mistaken in believing that there is a battle between science and religion.
THE REAL BATTLE IS BETWEEN GOOD SCIENCE AND DARWINISM.
Darwinian/Macro evolution has negligible scientific evidence supporting it and huge scientific problems.
Do a Google "Dissent from Dawin" - 20 pages of dissenting scientists
@theot58 Then google those so called scientist - either crackpots/failed academics or morons that have no knowledge of biology. If you think that they should have a say then the next time you feel ill you should visit the closest hardware shop for their competent service.
@saxmanchiro What about after class? to not bring it up at all means you can't actually pin-point the errors or mis information this/these kid(s) might be getting.
@skydome29 There are too many parents just waiting to drop the complaints with the board if I attempt to try what you say. I would LOVE to have after-school sessions to discuss their misconceptions or conflicts. However, the State I teach in is not friendly towards my ideas. We have a local teacher who was demoted for standing up to her fundie students trying to push their biblical crap in her classroom. The Principal found no wrong done but the parents went to the board with their concerns. Sad
@saxmanchiro I can't imagine, nor really have ever had, a classrom (other than an actual religion class) with these kinds of problems. It fascinates me the deep level of indoctorination and contrastingly low levels of insight into general realms of knowledge like science, history, and reasoning that go into creationism. Which state do you teach in by the way?
@saxmanchiro Oh, beautiful state. So the pro-creationists have done an end-around with your school board? It's truly fightening that a country with the greatest technological capability can't collectively accept the processes that provide it.
@skydome29 The fundies are all through the system. Four yrs ago, I attended a State dept of Ed sponsored conference with over 3000 attendees from around the state. Guess what they did at the opening diinner with all sitting at their tables? They called on a pastor who appeared on stage and said Grace!!! A STATE DEPT CONFERENCE! A teacher at my table put her arms in the air(antennae I guess) saying "Praise Jesus". I could not believe it was happening. Our head of HR is a part-time pastor.
@saxmanchiro Hahaha that is deffinitely an experience; I would just pack up and leave state. Are there actually students trying to teach the science class?
@skydome29 I'm not leaving. I have much work to do, helping to remove the dogma that has been pounded into these kids' heads. I have found my 'calling'. Some kids try to slide their fairytales into class but I quickly remind them of what classroom they are sitting in.
@saxmanchiro that was the other side of the coin, and I figured you take that one. It is definitely a great calling and best of luck to you with this. It still baffles me how they can possibly slide anything in that wouldn't get laughed at, essentially catholcism says we came from mud.
@skydome29 YOU ARE DREADMING IF YOU BELIEVE THE DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION MADE ONE IOTA OF CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE.
Ernst Chain (1906-1979) co founder of penicillin
His biography stated:
“Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution” and that “evolution was not really part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation – and he was and is, by no means alone in this view”.
Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits” 03 February 2010 by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini
“Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.
The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered." ...
Please read the full aticle to see the falacy you are propogating.
@theot58 Funny thing happened when I wrote my teaching board exams. Nothing was asked on the exams about the bullshit/tripe you profess. Wonder why? Also, the National Center for Science Education agrees with my curriculum. Wonder why? Please give us your take on present and past biodiversity. I am all ears, as millions of other scientists would be.
Isn't the "Academic Freedom Act" essentially like the "Fairness Doctrine"? What is wrong with hearing both sides of the argument? Shouldn't we all be a lot more "TOLERANT"?
There is no argument or debate ...there is only Science and Religion ..don't get me wrong what you are proposing is fair as long as you equally include all the other religions , Islam Judism ect...og waite a minute we do have a lesson like that it's called Religiouse Education ..where you learn about all faiths including yours ...stop trying to smuggle Creation Bollocks into Science no one (apart from a few Bible belt schools) will ever embrace it fully in science..
@IHATEATHEIST2 We currently have religion in the science classroom - YES!!!
It is called evolution. Macro Evolution is not observed, has not been measured and is not repeatable. It violates the key tenants of the scientific method.
Macro Evolution is simply BELIEVED yet we teach it as "fact"
Let's get religion out of the science class - stop teaching evolution as a "fact". Teach the scientific problem with - that is real science
Honestly mate your talking shit , A scientific theory is underpinned and backed up by lot's of scientific fact that drives you to a best guess, this is totally changeable in light of any new evidence presented, and has the ability to change in light of a new discovery when has the Bible ever done that? .....should we start teaching the Koran, or maybe Buddhism as part of science as well has the Christian Faith?. that's why we have religious education as part of the Curriculum.
You have obviously baught the evolution tripe about "mountains of evidence".
What is the evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution? Where is it?
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Watch some debates on this topic and see how the Evolution Genie crumbles under scrutiny.
@IHATEATHEIST2 The scientific methods REQUIRES the evidence for any theory to be critically scrutinised.
THIS IS NOT DONE FOR EVOLUTION - IT IS SIMPLY TAUGHT AS DOGMA.
Religion has nothing to do with it.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Treating both sides of the argument as equal contenders belies the nature of the claims made by both parties. ID doesn't meet even the minimal definition of science. Nor can it boast the experimental background or attention to rigor which all academic sciences adhere to. ID is not science in either the broad or narrow sense and CANNOT be taught as a science. It's religion parroting as academics and accusing elites of conspiring against it when it inevitably falls on its face.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
” The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
I like that they call their bill "academic freedom" when it's purpose is to force teachers to educate students in ID.
And that newspaper headline "Unbiased biology textbook planned" The implication being that the book is unbiased because of it's firm conviction that the Lord made the earth. Can't get any less biased than that, eh?
lol this pandas and people is ridiculous! God invented everything that is in the world today. Read the bible people! Adam and eve! duh..... evolution is just an elaborate lie, unlike the bible!
There is no argument or debate .there is only Science and Religion .don't get me wrong what you are proposing is fair as long as you equally include all the other religions , Islam Judism ect..oh wait a minute we do have a lesson like that it's called Religiouse Education .where you learn about all faiths including yours .stop trying to smuggle Creation Bollocks into Science no one (apart from a few Bible belt schools) will ever embrace it fully in science..
It pisses me off to no end that Republicans chose to take the side of creationism (at least in general). I consider myself Republican, but in NO way would I ever support creationism.
I don't understand why these religious people have to be so insecure about what they believe. Surely that's why they're attacking evolution and real science?
Thankfully we don't have to deal with idiots pushing this absolute poo in Canada. And hopefully never - but you never know when political correctness might go too far.
Well it's only an handfull of American School children ..in the bible belt ..where most of the fanatical Conservative Christians Swell on mass , any kids caught in the cross fire though I would hope that their parents look at alternative education routes.
If it can't get out of committee in Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas, that says a lot. Conservative legislators are faced with the conflicting desires of being frugal budget wise, and pushing the Jesus agenda when you consider the poor record it has had in court. Why spend gobs of money on a hopeless endeavor?
@martyaus2905 Yeah, you're apart of a country that just follows everyone else because it's incapable of thinking of things on its own. I see just go with the flow, fuck conviction, or the trouble of thinking.
@martyaus2905 The USA is leading the way - but there are many concerned scientists who dissent from Dawinism. Do a Google "Disssent from Darwin" - the document contains the name of scientists who publicly dissent from Dawin - last look it was 20 pages long.
dude, imagine i get yelled at for speaking the truth in school. I just want kids who are going to come after me to be taught apropiately in an institution like a school, not with god bullshit
As more and more evidence comes to the surface and more and more people actually look into the facts about evolution. Its just going to get harder and harder for these people to argue against the FACT that it is inFACT a FACT!!!
Yes, now they need only work on the rest of the educational system. I'm talking about the fact that you just plopped a period randomly in the middle of a thought.
The evidence is disproving Dawinian Evolution - NOT SUPPORTING IT.
The DNA molecule is strong evidence against Darwinian Evolution and for Intelligent Design.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Haha why do people in a little video forum seen by less than 2,000 people believe their opinion is carrying any merit to "debunk" anything
skydome29 2 months ago
@skydome29 Maybe because that opinion is based on scientific studies whom themselves are based on facts and not on bullshit from a book written by uneducated bronze age shamans?
AzraelI666 1 month ago
@AzraelI666 Pssst, newsflash we're on the same team.
skydome29 1 month ago
Wisdom teeth, appendixes, tonsils, coccyx's, fish with lungs, the archeopteryx, every frog, whales and snakes with leg bones. What the hell is wrong with creationists. They just say evolution is wrong while providing no substantial proof then say creation is right while providing no proof at all except old books written before the invention of a true educational system that cannot be substantiated. Grow up and educate yourself on the scientific method.
Outlawzero 4 months ago
@Outlawzero What is wrong with you - the structures that you put forward as "vestigial" are not vestigial at all. They certainly do not prove Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Since Evolution is taught in the science classroom as a "fact" the onus of proof is on evolutionists. Where is the proof? What is the proof?
Micro evolution is observable science.
Darwinian/Macro evolution is a fairytale for grownups.
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 So if they are not vestigial then what are they? Mistakes by your god?
You know, there are more proofs about the existence of the leprechauns than for your god.
AzraelI666 1 month ago
@AzraelI666 You are asking an irrelevant question. My point is that these structures do NOT support the fairytale of Darwinian/Macro evolution. Evolutionists gravitate to these an other facalious arguements to conceal the fact that the scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woeful.
The battle is not between science and religion; it is between science and Darwinism.
theot58 1 month ago
@theot58 If you would have bothered to do a little research (true science, not your Discovery Institute cretinism) you would have found that they are not only supported and explained by science, but they are actually an evidence for evolution.
On the second hand, don't bother do it - you would refuse to accept the conclusion of those studies anyway. As Ben Franklin said it: None so blind as those who will not see. And you are the poster boy for religion-induced cretinity.
AzraelI666 1 month ago
@AzraelI666 You are acting like a typical Evolutionary Nazi. Anyone who disagrees with your belief in evolution is labelled a "cretard", ignonrant and other disparaging names.
Your intimidation tactic is being watched by the public and recognised for what it is.
If you have real evidence - lets see it. But please stop your bullying.
theot58 1 month ago
@theot58 Have you heard of Google? If yes then use it. If not then let me get you the first results of the searches
w w w.publish.csiro. au/ ?paper=RD02087
w w w.bookrags. c om/research/vestigial-structures-wap
But my guess is that, even if you would read even these few articles you would refuse to accept their content - by now religion has fried your brain beyond repair, you're effectively retarded.
Please stop showing your stupidity, it hurts when read.
AzraelI666 1 month ago
@AzraelI666 Many thanks for the references.
I went to the 1st reference. It included the statement "Homology of the surfactant proteins within the vertebrates POINTS to a single evolutionary origin for the system and INDICATES that fish surfactant is a ‘protosurfactant’. (capitilization mine).
What do you think this prooves?
This is so typical of the poor science thrown at me. Evolutionists presume Darwinian/Macro evolution then proceed to torture the evidence to make it fit.
theot58 1 month ago
@theot58 If thousand studies point at the same thing what do you think it represents?
Since you appear incapable of performing the search then let me show you the third result (second one was the Wiki)
w w w. nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/h t ml/rudimentary_organs.h t ml
AzraelI666 1 month ago
@AzraelI666 What they are is evidence of the desperation of evolutionists to torture the evidence to support the fairytale of Darwinian/Macro evolution. This reminds of the Erst Haeckel fraud "ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny". It is still in text books today even though it was proven false many decades ago.
Evolutionists are so desperate for evidence they fabricate it out of thin air.
theot58 1 month ago
i am a strong believer in creation by God.
if you just look at the CREATION you can
easily see the artistic Hand of our loving
Creator =] For this reason i may not be
back to comment on this video, because
the making of this corrupt, trashy video almost makes me think that there is only UNintelligent
design aka this video's author =]
tangerinetigerr 8 months ago
@tangerinetigerr Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.
G0JETSG0 7 months ago in playlist atheist
@tangerinetigerr
belief=no proof
Scientific Theory= Peer reviewed and constantly tested, evidence points to it being the most likely case.
Gravity is just a theory, so I tested what you said and believed there was no gravity, darn it though I still didn't float away!
Outlawzero 4 months ago
@tangerinetigerr
The world is beautifully symbiotic, there may be a God... I don't know, and neither does anyone else. What I DO know however, is that creation theory (or intelligent design) is incorrect. If you believe that rubbish you've simply been deceived. Science is not something to be scared of, it's absolute.
Cataclysm31 2 months ago
@Catac Just like millions of people I KNOW with out doubt that there IS a God...The Bible makes it clear that whoever SEEKS God will find Him...To say that you dont know if He exists is proof that you dont DESIRE to find Him...if you did you would see Him clearly...Christ created you. Christ created me. Christ created the science that you worship. IF you dont want to do A simple act of SEEKING God then you wont find Him.
...Th122211...520pm...†...†...†
tangerinetigerr 2 months ago
@tangerinetigerr I do seek God. The God of happiness and love. I'm say i don't believe in the bibles version of God. MUCH LIKE 70%+ OF THE 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH. Are we all hellbound? Just because we don't know if the version you adorn is correct? What about all the GOOD people that ARE NOT christian?
If that's how your version of God works then I'm awestruck.
I won't adhere to that.
Not even if he floated his tyrannical self down from the sky and threatened me with a hot poker.
Cataclysm31 2 months ago
@Cat 31 Thank you for your reply...it shows to me and to
God that you do not seek God, nor His peace and love...as far as your analysis for being hell-bound, i might try your "strategy" with
driving sometime...i wont obey any signs of impending danger,
i wont stay on my side of the road either. According to your way
of thinking i will still be safe; why should i follow road signs?
Nah, i wont end up in a hospital! Your paralysis-by-
analysis leaves much to be desired...547pm
tangerinetigerr 2 months ago
@tangerinetigerr
Sorry, but that's an incredibly meaningless analysis. I'm not sure what to say...
So, what about all the other religions? You've all your eggs in one basket, I'm open.
Cataclysm31 2 months ago
@Cataclysm31 OF COURSE IT IS MEANINGLESS
...I WAS OBVIOUSLY MOCKINGLY COPYING THE NONSENSE THAT YOU SAID TO MAKE A POINT......YOU SAID THERE IS MORE THAN
ONE WAY TO GOD...I SAID THERE IS MORE
THAN ONE WAY TO DRIVE SAFELY. BOTH
ARE TOTALLY STUPID, AND VERY SELF-SERVING;
AND BOTH WRONG WAYS OF THOUGHT LEAD TO DESTRUCTION. UNDERSTAND [HOW I DONT
UNDERSTAND YOU] NOW? ..†...†...†...Sa122411
...834pm
tangerinetigerr 2 months ago
@Cataclysm31 And the God of the Bible is not tyrannical,
as you fable-y suggest. it is a shame that you are prob
list to those who you think are Christians but in fact they
prob are not...it is a shame also that you dont read the Bible
daily, and you base your eternity on that? aka, making
judgements with out reading what and Who you judge!
tangerinetigerr 2 months ago
@Cataclysm31 How can you be so sure that Intelligent Design is incorrect?
When you see a building can you be sure there was a builder?
When you see a car; can you be sure there was a designer?
When you see a painting can you be sure there was a painter?
Then how can you see the mindblowing creation around you and not conclude there must have been a Intelligent Designer?
theot58 1 month ago
@theot58 BINGO ! You think Goddidit(Intelligence). Any SCIENTIFIC PROOF of any kind to back that up or are you just spewing what you read from AIG? (capitalization mine)
saxmanchiro 1 month ago
@tangerinetigerr So you claim that because the world is so intricately complex then it must have a creator that is even more complex.
In that case please do tell us who created that creator?
AzraelI666 1 month ago
Excellent. China will need stupid people (read future Americans) to clean the toilets when it reasserts its international power.
nicksum29 10 months ago
"On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we gain no scientific explanation."
Charles Darwin
fishcontrol 11 months ago
Our Bearded Guy Beats your Bearded guy mainly because our Bearded guy actually existed once (Darwin)....I not sure there is any proof for your guys Beard , but it don't stop you drawing it on .........now does it? , and if Jesus did exist he was black....oh and while I am at it , December the 25th is a pagan festival it as nothing to do with Jesus birthday ...it was hijacked by Christianity because it was popular , pretty much what Christianity is trying to do with Science at the moment.
IHATEATHEIST2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science simply means the study of. And as we continue to study, "scientific facts" of old continue to be dis-proven re-thought, or completely disregarded as rubbish. Contrary to popular belief, science neither proves or dis-proves a creator, or evolution. As both are JUST theories, and can NOT be proven! Which ever you choose to believe in takes a measure of faith. People cling to one or the other. CLOSE MINDED either way!
number1lilslugger 1 year ago
@number1lilslugger 1st off saying evolution is JUST a theory shows that you do not understand what a Scientific Theory really is. Evolution has been proven, it has been tested and has been observed, to say other wise is going against all the facts we have on the entire subject. Please try to not group faith and scientific theories in the same area as they are NOT the same.
xxdjsethxx 1 year ago 10
@xxdjsethxx indeed
FIGHTFANNERD3 8 months ago
@xxdjsethxx Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission said:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever!
In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research said:
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
theot58 1 month ago
@number1lilslugger No, that's stupid for the simple reason you put them on the same level, did you learn that bit of pseudo knowledge in your creationsm class?
skydome29 10 months ago
@number1lilslugger So, when you call heads or tails, do you have faith in your choice?
jumpinjohnnyruss 2 months ago
Actually, in May, scientists working with various proteins and amino acids analyzed, deconstruction, and then reconstructed a cell, and as it reproduced, the first artificial life form. Proof that you don't need some all-powerful entity to create life; though you would need billions of years of evolution to get complicated life-forms like we have today.
851852093114208513 1 year ago
This is for all the theists out there in YT land who cannot accept science but use it's 'fruits' every minute of the day without question;
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."- Aldous Huxley
and this one
"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."- Andre Gide
That last quote is dead on for theot58
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro Thank you for the irrelevant quotations you are making.
I get this all the time where the core scientific issues are ignored and irrelevant distractions and scientific soundind words are introduced for the sole purpose of hiding the fact the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MACRO EVOLUTION IS WEAK AS!!.
We used to hear the bull about fossils - we don't hear it anymore because the fossil record CONDEMNS macro evolution.
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 10 yrs ago, paleontologists(scientists that specialize in studying FOSSILS) found, in Romania, some fossilized bones of a small carnivore dinosaur. After having the samples independently dated(usually by 5 independent isotope labs) and finding them around 65 million yrs old, finally finished the Scientific Method and reported out to the public. It took 10 yrs to do the job correctly. Just think, we have over 250k published proven hypotheses supporting Evolution. And your evidence???
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Darwin himself said that there must be "countless" transitional forms - WERE THE ARE THEY?
The fossil record clearly CONTRADICTS macro evolution, since it asserts that there should be "countless" numbers and all we have in reality is a handfull of dubious ones which could be interepreted in a variety of ways.
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 Again, with this post, you show how truly ignorant you are of the current science. FSM BY
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@theot58 it was interesting to read your various comments; but the more i read others' comments supporting evil-ution, even i thought for a moment there that we were all created by UNintelligent Design =[ ..... bit i do believe in a loving Creator instead...i need to pray that evil-utionists stop
mEEting at their "fable table" of non-reason, extrapolating fables, and presenting them as fact!
TRUE FACT: "In the Beginning God CREATED..." F122311...622pm
tangerinetigerr 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro Thank you for recongnising me individually - but your recognition is not deserved.
You are doing what many evolutionists have done to me previously, confusing the real issues with distractions. YOUR SILLY ASSERTION ABOUT SCIENCE IS STUPID AS.
I love science, I have taughts science, I am an electrical Engineer and use the scientific method daily. I DON'T HAVE A PROB LEM WITH SCIENCE.
I have a problem with calling Macro Evolution "science"
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58
"I have a problem with calling Macro Evolution "science"
Then you have big problem.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro Darwinian/Macro Evolution is the deception.
The battle is often misreprested as science against religion - thi is bull.
The real battle is BETWEEN SCIENCE AND DARWINISM.
Darwinian/Macro evolution is promoted dogmatically to unsuspecting students as a "fact" while real science contracts it big time.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Darwin and his hypothesis of Natural Selection is just a small part of the curriculum(State mandated). We spend much more time on the evidence for the Theory that developed over the next 150 yrs. Science pwns holy books of horrors. Funny you bring up Micro and Macro Evolution. These are the same thing, just one is short time, as in bacterial resistance to antibiotics and one over billions of yrs. Same process. Biologists do not use these terms, only creationists.
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@theot58 Here is just a very very short list of pieces of evidence for the TofE, since Darwin's work was presented;
ERVs, DNA/RNA analysis(Genomics), biochemical(proteins, lipids) analysis/comparisons, metabolic pathways, thousands of transitional fossils, genetics, Mitosis/Meiosis, Endosymbiosis, bacterial speciation, conjugation among prokaryotes, membrane proteins/phospholipids, and so much more. But you know this stuff since it's taught in high schools around the civilized world.
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro Please consider 2 quotes:
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
” The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
The co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick admitted, “The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle,
so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
theot58 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro Rattling of scientific labels does nothing to support Darwinian /Macro evolution. It's interesting that you include DNA/RNA - this DISPROVES Macro evoluition.
HOW COULD DNA EVOLVE?
It is a digital code so complex that it is mindboggling complex - if you believe that it made itself using "natural selection" then you must also believe in Santa Claus.
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Check on these little things that help genetic changes in populations.
Meiosis(crossing-over, independent assortment, random fertilization), conjugation in simpler organisms, pollenation with help from pollenators after Meiosis, mutations(neg and pos), viral additions to germ cells before Meiosis, DNA switches, etc. Sorry if these are too difficult but this is all high school bio.
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro I guess this implies that you do believe in Santa Claus.
Scientific terms DO NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF FOR EVOLUTION FAIRYTALE.
NASA Director Wernher von Braun said:
“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design....
Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye.”
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Care to comment on my last post to you? I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation, but you didn't come back with anything. Typical theist who puts up a statement/claim, it's properly addressed/answered and you don't acknowledge that answer. You just come back with "Scientific terms do not consitute proof for evolution fairytale" and even caps to boot! Fucking moron. Go read a high school text book. Happy Holidays!
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro Your comment: "I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation" clearly indicates your level of intelligence in this field.
ARE YOU NUTS!!!
DNA is a huge problem for evolution. There are gigabits of information there - whare it come from? It is a digital code that is mindblowing complex. The likelyhood of all the bits falling into place by "chance" is so remote that is laughable that you are putting it forth as evidence for evolution.
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Just because you don't understand it does not make it not so.
skydome29 2 months ago
@skydome29 I do understand that you have a dogmatic blind allegiance to Darwinism.
No amount of scientific evidence indicating that it is false will convince you because you are dogmatically committed to it.
Get the book "Icons of evolution" by Jonathan Wells for detailed explanation of the myths which have been put forward as evidence for Darwinism.
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 He's nothing close to a scientist, why would i ask a religious leader about science?? hahaha and this guy puts scientific proof of a darwin myth? I'd rather read an arthur c. clarke romance novel.
skydome29 2 months ago
@theot58 Are you that dumb to not understand what is written before you?
OK let me spell it like for a retard: because the DNA of even the simplest life form is relatively large when it's copied or split errors occurs. These errors are effectively bad instructions that change the organism in some way = mutations. If these mutations are beneficial they get transmitted further, if not they die with the organism. More mutations = new specie.
All you need is time.
AzraelI666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theot58 Care to comment on my last post to you? I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation, but you didn't come back with anything. Typical theist who puts up a statement/claim, it's properly addressed/answered and you don't acknowledge that answer. You just come back with "Scientific terms do not consitute proof for evolution fairytale" and even caps to boot! Fucking moron. Go read a high school text book. Happy Holidays!
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@theot58 Care to comment on my last post to you? I told you how DNA can evolve or change over time, even in one generation, but you didn't come back with anything. Typical theist who puts up a statement/claim, it's properly addressed/answered and you don't acknowledge that answer. You just come back with "Scientific terms do not consitute proof for evolution fairytale" and even caps to boot! Fucking moron. Go read a high school text book. Happy Holidays!
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@theot58 Then do a little research of your own and find out what biologists thought about those testimonies - incompetents was the nicest characterization of them i could find.
AzraelI666 1 month ago
@saxmanchiro YOU ARE DREAMING.
I love science; I am an engineer and qualified teacher.
The battle is not between science and religion rather it is between science and Darwinism.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
theot58 1 month ago
@theot58 "qualified teacher" Ok, I'm going to bite. What do you teach and what level of education?
saxmanchiro 1 month ago
@saxmanchiro I am currently training Engineers and technicians in the maintenance and developement of computer control systems for a major international Automation company. When I was teaching at school, I was teaching students 7 -12 in subjects associated with technology and science, it included computing at various levels, business management, accounting, maths and science at lower levels.
theot58 1 month ago
@theot58 Is this school located in a non-Theocratic country, such as Canada, USA, Finland, Sweden, etc? If so, did you follow your assigned curriculum? Opine a bit? Insert your personal feelings regarding established theories within science?
saxmanchiro 1 month ago
@saxmanchiro Your are persuing a red herring as a distraction from the facts that:
1) Micro and Macro evolution are fundamentally different.
- These terms were coined by evolutionists
2) Darwinian/Macro evolution is condemned by the observable evidence
- It is believed for philosophical reasons IN SPITE of the evidence
3) The battle is between science and Darwinism
4) Evolution is taught dogmatically in the science classroom as a "fact"
- This is poor science
theot58 1 month ago
@theot58 Someone has managed to put some nasty shit into your logic pathways. Please provide your supported explanation for past and current biodiversity, since you 'believe' (w/o evidence-faith) that evolution is not 'fact'. I await your Nobel prize winning response with extreme interest.
saxmanchiro 1 month ago
WHOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
splicedenergy 1 year ago
Let's take a look at which actually lines up with science and therefore is actual science. First, a scientific "Law" is a rule that cannot be contradicted by any theory. So lets look at which one lines up with science.
Law of Causality
Evolution- No ID-Yes
1st & 2ND Laws of thermodynamics
Evolution-No ID- Yes
Law of Bio-genesis
Evolution- No ID- Yes
I'm not a religions nut case I'm just a simple scientist who still believes in true science not God hating BS.
johnandraquell 2 years ago
yes you do appear to be simple. QUITE simple.
nkatsinas 1 year ago
@nkatsinas Thank you for that very insightful rebuttal. You must be one of those "complex scientists" who have moved far beyond logic, science, and reason to resort to petty insults, instead of offering evidence to debunk my argument. You have further solidified my theory that MOST Atheist are just God hating and their Ideas have more to do with emotions rather that intellect.
johnandraquell 1 year ago
Oh, this is just silly.
Firstly, there is non scientific "Law of Causality", only a philosophical one (look it up!). Even if there were, the Theory of Evolution doesn't violate it.
Evolution takes place in an open system (the earth) and does not comment on the conversion of matter into energy, so neither law of Thermodynamic applies.
The 'law of biogenesis' only applies to complex organisms (again, look it up!). Even if it were otherwise, evolution does not address the origin of life.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@johnandraquell I aggree with you 100%.
I am an electrical engineer whos is disgusted by the arrogance of evolutionists who assume Macro Evolution is correct and slander anyone who provides scientific challenges to the evolutionary fairytale.
I was encouraged to read your comments
theot58 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnandraquell You made some errors, let me fix it for you
Law of Causality
Evolution- Yes ID-No - otherwise you must explain from where you god came;
1st & 2ND Laws of thermodynamics
Evolution-Yes ID- No - a god can't create something out of nothing
Law of Bio-genesis
Evolution- Yes ID- No - otherwise you must explain who created your god.
AzraelI666 1 month ago
I am a public high school Biology teacher in the Southern USA. My curriculum is state mandated and correct. All of the information I am required to teach has gone through the scientific method and I remind my students on a regular basis that if they want to bring in any other opinion or story they might have been told that conflicts with the curriculum, they cannot share it with the class or me. If it has not been subjected to the same methodology, it is not science and not allowed. Period.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago 4
That is good to know that you like to keep the points which are proven scientifically and not just "ideas". There are far to many teachers who have tried pushing their own opinions or ideas on students due to religious ignorance in this country. It almost seems like they would love for this country to be a Theocracy.
If it is not proven via scientific means then it shouldn't be in the class room.. period.
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
Unfortunately, I am one of only three who do this among our science teaching staff. Even our admin and central office, Board of Ed and even our State dept are staffed with fundies. I know of a few science staff that put their god spin into the lectures. This is not allowable and must be stopped. The push seems to be for a Theocracy in this country, you are correct.
If ID is ever discussed in the future by our State dept of Ed, I will be in the room in support of proper science only.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
If this country does become a Theocracy like Iran.. I am moving to Denmark ;)
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
I think it already has become a Theocracy. Try running for office as an atheist. Not happening.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
Actually it always has been and now is slowly emerging out of it.
johnandraquell 2 years ago
@xxdjsethxx The only theocracy you'd have to be concerned about is Islam. Christianity has shot it's wad. Islam is soon to follow. There will just be pockets of theism left picking on the occasional lone rationalist, or blurting out an irritating belch of venom, then fading back into it's hole in the ground.
beermn56 3 months ago
@xxdjsethxx There is a lot of religion being taught in our science classrooms - you probably were not aware of it. It is called Macro Evolution.
Macro Evolution is NOT supported by the science; it crubles under scientific scrutiny.
See some debates to see what I mean.
Evolutionist are refusing to engage in debates because it simply shows that evolution is believed rather than proven
theot58 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro Darwinian evolution has not undergone the scientific scrutiny and rigor you are demanding of Intelligent Design.
Darwinian/Macro evolution
1) Has never been observed
2) Is not measurable
3) Is not repeatable
Yet it is presented as "fact" - how do you call it "Science" since it violates the 3 key tennants of the scientific method?
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 You obviously don't understand the scientific method. You don't need to observe something to be able to test it: Common ancestry makes claims which have been tested; the consequences of evolution have been discovered all over the place, most spectacular examples being the fused human chromosones and the occurence of retro virus DNA in humans and Apes. Evolution is an observed fact... to explain it best, Darwin's theory was developed. Evolutions explains observations.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA You obviously are making rash assumptions about me "not understanding the scientific method". I am a qualified electrical engineer currently working as a Training Engineer in control system. I am also a qualified teacher who has taught science.
I assert that you have blindly accepted Macro Evolution on the basis of mass acceptance rather than scrutinised the evidence.
Debate that I have seen leads me to concluded the evidence supporting evolution is VERY WEAK.
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 Maybe you do understand the scientific method, but it doesn't show in your analysis. Let me give you another example for you to submit to your criteria of scientific method: quantum mechanics. The wavefunction has not been observed, is not (directly) measurable and therefor fails your test. So is QM valid or not? I say it is because the predictions it makes have been verified.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA I do not understand Quantum mechanics; so I cannot comment on that. Regardless of that it is not correct to equate Macro Evolution with Quantam Mechanics and groups together and assert that if one is true the other must be true too.
It does raise an interesting question What precisely is "scientific" and what is not.?
A better question is: Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that Macro Evolution is true?
Fossils do NOT support macro evolution, they discredit it.
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 I was not equating QM with evolution (Macro??? there is just evolution). I was pointing out that the QM wavefunction does not fit your scientific methodology. I just re-read my QM post, and was struck by the fact I didn't mention evolution. So how on earth did you conclude that I was (a) equating QM and evolution and (b) asserting the truth of one based on the truth of the other? Re-read my post, then re-read your scientific method post and look at what I was criticising.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@theot58 re: evidence for evolution. Darwin's theory was that species evolved by descent with modification - there are common ancestors for e.g. humans and apes. The fossil record absolutely supports the common ancestry, about 6 million years ago. Secondly, human and chimpanzee DNA also show that we share a common ancestor 6 million years ago (by two methods: molecular clock, retrovirus studies). Common ancestor + modification = evolution of distinct species: macro evolution. all Observed!
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA hahahhaha evolution has been observed very funny
hahahahahahaha
tangerinetigerr 2 months ago
@theot58 Those are not the three tenets of scientific method. Darwin's theory is testable - it looks at facts (distribution of species, the fossil record) and gives an explanation of those facts. Then, as a result of the explanation, theres are tests it must pass e.g. why humans have less chromosones than Chimpanzees (now understood and a spectacular vindication of evolutionary theory). Darwin's theory is actually a triumph of science, which is why it is so important.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA With all due respect - I disagree.
Under scrutiny Macro Evolution crumbles which is why evolutions now refuse to engage in debates with creationists. There is an excellent debate between William Moore a profession teaching Evolution and Kent Hovind at Wayne State University. I am happy to send it to you if you are interested.
Macro Evolution is a fairytale for growups!!!
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 Kent Hovind is a joke! He makes up all sorts of rubbish when attacking evolution. For instance, he keeps saying that dogs do not produce non dogs (no one says they do), he repeatedly conflates evolution and cosmology... evolution and abiogenesis... Speciation has been observed; that humans and apes share a common ancestor has been demonstrated; if they share a common ancestor, then they must have evolved to get to where we are today... all demonstrated, all now facts.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro With all due respect, you gagging scientific discussion and prohibiting students from raising valid scientific arguements agains Macro Evolution is quite stupid. That is the core of the scientific method.
The only reason this is necessary is because Macro Evolution is a fairytale for grownups. It is BELIEVED not because of strong supporting science but because of philosophical affinities.
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 With all undue respect, you have shown your ignorance 'cards' on a public forum. Please read some more. Make that non-fiction this time.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro I have no idea what you are trying to say. But let me be clear on what I am trying to say.
1) DARWINIAN/MACOR EVOLUTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE OBSERVABLE EVIDEMNCE
- Under scientific scrutiny the so calle evidence of "fossils", "homology" antibiotic resistence" DNA etc crubles indeed these very things clearly contradict the theory.
2) WE ARE DECEIVING OUR KIDS TEACHING THEM THE FAIRY TALE OF MACRO EVOLUTION
- Lets stop lying ot our kids
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 Shame on you. Obfuscation of the truth is not nice. Please provide all of us your rendition of why we have biodiversity we see today. When you get that done, may I suggest you submit your work to the Nobel committee. They have a $2million prize waiting for you. Micro and Macro Evolution are the same thing, just different time frames. Please do as I asked in my earlier post. Go read some non-fiction and get your nose out of some Creationist pseudo-science literature.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro A few points:
1) Biodiversity does not prove Dawinian/Macro evolution.
- The observable biodiversity fits in equally with the Intelligent Design model
2) You are obviously unaware the the Micro Macro distinction was made by evolutionists.
- The distiction is very important because Macro evolution is a HUGE extrapolation of Micro evolution.
- Micro evolution is observable, measureable and repeatable - it is not contested
- MACRO evolution IS NOT, it is believed.
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Answer my fucking question.
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro You are asking an irrelevant question. My opinion regarding biodiversity has nothing to do with teaching Evolution as "fact" when the scientific evidence supporting it is woefully deficient.
I have answered your question. Now you answer my question.
What is the scientific evidence which "proves" Darwinian/macro evolution?
Where is the evidence available for the average student to investigate?
How does Darwinian/Macro evolution explain the emergence of genders?
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 You see, my questions if very relevant to this conversation. You attack the well established TofE with zeal but refuse to put up a replacement explanation for biodiversity. I have a hunch what your answer would be but I just want you to type it here for all to see. You mentioned in an earlier comment about 'Intelligent Design' but I don't think you actually meant that since that notion was destroyed yrs ago by so many during the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial, Creationism disguised.
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@theot58
If your child needed urgent medical attention , and you called for a doctor and a guy in white coat turns up and says ...look all these other doctors are wrong , I know what's going on , I have Creation science degree in Biology even you would be out of there .If you really took the time to understand science you would see with ease there are more mysteries that could change Physics as we know it ,.go read something about string theory , Higgs Boson , Particle physics then we will talk
IHATEATHEIST2 1 year ago
@IHATEATHEIST2
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
You are mistaken in believing that there is a battle between science and religion.
THE REAL BATTLE IS BETWEEN GOOD SCIENCE AND DARWINISM.
Darwinian/Macro evolution has negligible scientific evidence supporting it and huge scientific problems.
Do a Google "Dissent from Dawin" - 20 pages of dissenting scientists
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Then google those so called scientist - either crackpots/failed academics or morons that have no knowledge of biology. If you think that they should have a say then the next time you feel ill you should visit the closest hardware shop for their competent service.
AzraelI666 1 month ago
@saxmanchiro What about after class? to not bring it up at all means you can't actually pin-point the errors or mis information this/these kid(s) might be getting.
skydome29 10 months ago
@skydome29 There are too many parents just waiting to drop the complaints with the board if I attempt to try what you say. I would LOVE to have after-school sessions to discuss their misconceptions or conflicts. However, the State I teach in is not friendly towards my ideas. We have a local teacher who was demoted for standing up to her fundie students trying to push their biblical crap in her classroom. The Principal found no wrong done but the parents went to the board with their concerns. Sad
saxmanchiro 10 months ago
@saxmanchiro I can't imagine, nor really have ever had, a classrom (other than an actual religion class) with these kinds of problems. It fascinates me the deep level of indoctorination and contrastingly low levels of insight into general realms of knowledge like science, history, and reasoning that go into creationism. Which state do you teach in by the way?
skydome29 10 months ago
@skydome29 The brainwashing is intense, complete and pervasive. North Carolina.
saxmanchiro 10 months ago
@saxmanchiro Oh, beautiful state. So the pro-creationists have done an end-around with your school board? It's truly fightening that a country with the greatest technological capability can't collectively accept the processes that provide it.
skydome29 10 months ago
@skydome29 The fundies are all through the system. Four yrs ago, I attended a State dept of Ed sponsored conference with over 3000 attendees from around the state. Guess what they did at the opening diinner with all sitting at their tables? They called on a pastor who appeared on stage and said Grace!!! A STATE DEPT CONFERENCE! A teacher at my table put her arms in the air(antennae I guess) saying "Praise Jesus". I could not believe it was happening. Our head of HR is a part-time pastor.
saxmanchiro 10 months ago
@saxmanchiro Hahaha that is deffinitely an experience; I would just pack up and leave state. Are there actually students trying to teach the science class?
skydome29 10 months ago
@skydome29 I'm not leaving. I have much work to do, helping to remove the dogma that has been pounded into these kids' heads. I have found my 'calling'. Some kids try to slide their fairytales into class but I quickly remind them of what classroom they are sitting in.
saxmanchiro 10 months ago
@saxmanchiro that was the other side of the coin, and I figured you take that one. It is definitely a great calling and best of luck to you with this. It still baffles me how they can possibly slide anything in that wouldn't get laughed at, essentially catholcism says we came from mud.
skydome29 10 months ago
@skydome29 YOU ARE DREADMING IF YOU BELIEVE THE DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION MADE ONE IOTA OF CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE.
Ernst Chain (1906-1979) co founder of penicillin
His biography stated:
“Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution” and that “evolution was not really part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation – and he was and is, by no means alone in this view”.
theot58 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro YOU ARE DECEIVING YOUR STUDENTS.
Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits” 03 February 2010 by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini
“Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.
The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered." ...
Please read the full aticle to see the falacy you are propogating.
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Funny thing happened when I wrote my teaching board exams. Nothing was asked on the exams about the bullshit/tripe you profess. Wonder why? Also, the National Center for Science Education agrees with my curriculum. Wonder why? Please give us your take on present and past biodiversity. I am all ears, as millions of other scientists would be.
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
@saxmanchiro Are students presented with the scientific problem of Darwinian Evolution?
Are students permitted to aske for the evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution?
Are they permitted to challenge this evidence on scientific grounds or are they forced to simply believe it?
theot58 2 months ago
@theot58 Sorry, I asked you a question first. Still awaiting your response. What is your explanation for present/past biodiversity?
saxmanchiro 2 months ago
Isn't the "Academic Freedom Act" essentially like the "Fairness Doctrine"? What is wrong with hearing both sides of the argument? Shouldn't we all be a lot more "TOLERANT"?
bdsmawd 2 years ago
@bdsmawd
There is no argument or debate ...there is only Science and Religion ..don't get me wrong what you are proposing is fair as long as you equally include all the other religions , Islam Judism ect...og waite a minute we do have a lesson like that it's called Religiouse Education ..where you learn about all faiths including yours ...stop trying to smuggle Creation Bollocks into Science no one (apart from a few Bible belt schools) will ever embrace it fully in science..
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 We currently have religion in the science classroom - YES!!!
It is called evolution. Macro Evolution is not observed, has not been measured and is not repeatable. It violates the key tenants of the scientific method.
Macro Evolution is simply BELIEVED yet we teach it as "fact"
Let's get religion out of the science class - stop teaching evolution as a "fact". Teach the scientific problem with - that is real science
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58
Honestly mate your talking shit , A scientific theory is underpinned and backed up by lot's of scientific fact that drives you to a best guess, this is totally changeable in light of any new evidence presented, and has the ability to change in light of a new discovery when has the Bible ever done that? .....should we start teaching the Koran, or maybe Buddhism as part of science as well has the Christian Faith?. that's why we have religious education as part of the Curriculum.
IHATEATHEIST2 1 year ago 2
You have obviously baught the evolution tripe about "mountains of evidence".
What is the evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution? Where is it?
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Watch some debates on this topic and see how the Evolution Genie crumbles under scrutiny.
theot58 2 months ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 The scientific methods REQUIRES the evidence for any theory to be critically scrutinised.
THIS IS NOT DONE FOR EVOLUTION - IT IS SIMPLY TAUGHT AS DOGMA.
Religion has nothing to do with it.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
theot58 2 months ago
Treating both sides of the argument as equal contenders belies the nature of the claims made by both parties. ID doesn't meet even the minimal definition of science. Nor can it boast the experimental background or attention to rigor which all academic sciences adhere to. ID is not science in either the broad or narrow sense and CANNOT be taught as a science. It's religion parroting as academics and accusing elites of conspiring against it when it inevitably falls on its face.
jessemaurais 2 years ago
@jessemaurais YOU ARE WRONG
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
” The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
theot58 2 months ago
I like that they call their bill "academic freedom" when it's purpose is to force teachers to educate students in ID.
And that newspaper headline "Unbiased biology textbook planned" The implication being that the book is unbiased because of it's firm conviction that the Lord made the earth. Can't get any less biased than that, eh?
jessemaurais 2 years ago
@jessemaurais
Yeah let's teach the Karang in science lessons ...even Islam leave that one alone.
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
lol this pandas and people is ridiculous! God invented everything that is in the world today. Read the bible people! Adam and eve! duh..... evolution is just an elaborate lie, unlike the bible!
qualm43 2 years ago
@qualm43
Shhhhhhush now nut job.
There is no argument or debate .there is only Science and Religion .don't get me wrong what you are proposing is fair as long as you equally include all the other religions , Islam Judism ect..oh wait a minute we do have a lesson like that it's called Religiouse Education .where you learn about all faiths including yours .stop trying to smuggle Creation Bollocks into Science no one (apart from a few Bible belt schools) will ever embrace it fully in science..
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@IHATEATHEIST2: I was being sarcastic lol. God is fake, etc....
qualm43 2 years ago
It pisses me off to no end that Republicans chose to take the side of creationism (at least in general). I consider myself Republican, but in NO way would I ever support creationism.
brmadman4455 2 years ago
I don't understand why these religious people have to be so insecure about what they believe. Surely that's why they're attacking evolution and real science?
ramette99 2 years ago
@ramette99
Here here ..they say we have proof of God ...so why the need for faith if they know ......sheeesh ..sheeesh .
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@ramette99 With all due respect
Macro evolution has not been observed, is not measureable and is not repeatable.
It fails the key requirements of the scientific method.
To deceive our kids by teaching it as "fact" is really poor science and doing them a grave diservice.
Macro Evolution is a fairytale for grownups, it is BELIEVED for philosophical reasons not scientific ones
theot58 1 year ago
Wow. Everyone who believes in ID should see this.
insanecaine 2 years ago
Anne Holden has beautiful eyes. >.>
darketernal3 2 years ago
Thankfully we don't have to deal with idiots pushing this absolute poo in Canada. And hopefully never - but you never know when political correctness might go too far.
hpholland 2 years ago 2
Ahh, I love Norway! If anybody even mentions creationism or ID, everybody just starts laughing! I feel sorry for american school children!
Kjellarnek 2 years ago
@Kjellarnek
Well it's only an handfull of American School children ..in the bible belt ..where most of the fanatical Conservative Christians Swell on mass , any kids caught in the cross fire though I would hope that their parents look at alternative education routes.
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
If it can't get out of committee in Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas, that says a lot. Conservative legislators are faced with the conflicting desires of being frugal budget wise, and pushing the Jesus agenda when you consider the poor record it has had in court. Why spend gobs of money on a hopeless endeavor?
quantumleap7219 2 years ago
'Creation science' and 'intelligent design' I'm glad I live in the UK where this nonsense is rightly laughed out of any class room!
wycliffe35 2 years ago 16
Me too, I live in Australia and we dont have all this garbage either. The USA needs to get with the times.
martyaus2905 2 years ago 9
Don't kid yourself martyaus2905, creationsim is going nowhere.
brmadman4455 2 years ago
@brmadman4455
I completely agree..if they were winning why would they make so much noise ...they are in a Minority and they no it ...
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@martyaus2905 This shit doesn't fly in Canada either.
DarthSchwartz 1 year ago
@DarthSchwartz Canadians have brains.
martyaus2905 1 year ago
@martyaus2905 Yeah, you're apart of a country that just follows everyone else because it's incapable of thinking of things on its own. I see just go with the flow, fuck conviction, or the trouble of thinking.
tyseibert 11 months ago
@martyaus2905 The USA is leading the way - but there are many concerned scientists who dissent from Dawinism. Do a Google "Disssent from Darwin" - the document contains the name of scientists who publicly dissent from Dawin - last look it was 20 pages long.
theot58 2 months ago
I wish it were like that here in America. Some communities here have and endless supply of bible thumping morons.
chertzle 2 years ago
dude, imagine i get yelled at for speaking the truth in school. I just want kids who are going to come after me to be taught apropiately in an institution like a school, not with god bullshit
acdctoonlinkrocks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wycliffe35 Maybe that's why we're the most powerful country on earth and you uhhh aren't.
tyseibert 11 months ago
@wycliffe35 Consider yourself lucky
thedarkone2134 9 months ago
As more and more evidence comes to the surface and more and more people actually look into the facts about evolution. Its just going to get harder and harder for these people to argue against the FACT that it is inFACT a FACT!!!
josephrl82 2 years ago
Yes, now they need only work on the rest of the educational system. I'm talking about the fact that you just plopped a period randomly in the middle of a thought.
aarlin81 2 years ago
I think meant to put a comma.
josephrl82 2 years ago
@josephrl82 WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING
The evidence is disproving Dawinian Evolution - NOT SUPPORTING IT.
The DNA molecule is strong evidence against Darwinian Evolution and for Intelligent Design.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
theot58 2 months ago
great vid.
southparkXD1 2 years ago