11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Ah, Ben Stein, the traitor Jew, supporter of creationism ("intelligent" design), thus supporter of Hitler.

I asked why micro couldnt lead into macroevolution and why we couldnt have one ancestor. She had no answer and said that we should just agree to disagree.
:( I didn't hound her and let it go.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
-Herbert Spencer

After recovering from my headdesk, I played this video so she could listen (since she said she believes in microevolution but not macroevolution) to your explanation as to why the argument was faulty. She still didnt get it. She then drew a diagram of circles and paths from them explaining that species came from several ancestors and NOT just one. I asked why those animals didnt have a common ancestor and her answer was: its a religious thing-or something to that effect.

The Banana mans troops were giving out their free copies of Origin of Species with Ray Comforts 50 pages of misinformation and propaganda at KSU today. I went, got a book, sat down, ripped out the 50 pages of BS and handed the BS back to them saying, Here, I fixed it for you. Later while I was explaining why I tore the pages, a girl from one of my classes asked, So you think we came from monkeys?

My answer would be, "Of course we came from monkeys.How else do you explain the fact that we ARE monkeys?"

It doesn't bode well for American education that you needed to explain this to a University student.

Well one of the answers to Creationist Claims in TalkOrigins webpage says "Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time." In that context, it just seems to me that the geological succession of organic beings fits beautifully into the definition of "law" you explain in the 15th FFoC.

Or am I just confused because it was discovered and recognized before population genetics (and before 1859)?

Well what AronRa said and biology doesn't use laws, theories are the highest thing in biology. Just like Germ theory. Even though no one argues at the validity of the theory it is a theory and will always be one.

At least that is what I was taught in my science classes. AronRa says the laws of population genetics but from what my professors have told me there aren't laws, just theories.

In the 15th one of these videos he describes facts, laws, and theories as such. (7:10)

fact = verifiable data

law = statement which is always true under specific circumstances

hypothesis = testable, potentially, falsifiable explanation of facts/laws