Evolution VS Creation

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You mean dating in general, or carbon-dating?



Could you rephrase your question? I'm not sure I understand it.



Yet it is located in the digestive system.



Natural selection = fact

Mutations = fact

Genetic drift = fact

Gene flow = fact

As long as these 4 things are facts, evolution, by definition, must be fact.

Also, you do realize that everything developed in biology that you see today is made within the framework of the theory of evolution, right? Cloning, genetic engineering, insecticides, they're all based on the theory of evolution. The reason you see evolution being accepted as a fact is because evolution is to Biology what gravity is to Physics.


As far as we know about the appendix, what it did originally was help digest stuff like leaves and such.

Well, since it seems like Carbon-14 is a main one, I suppose I am just referring to that one.

I don't see the purpose of spontaneous generation if it is agreed that biogenesis is true (life comes from life)

So, the tonsils are located in the throat, yet they are also part of the lymphatic system. What does location have to do with anything?

Natural Selection does not prove Evolution, it merely suggests that creatures pass on their genes to their offspring, which is obviously true.

The only Mutations that have ever been passed on, are negative ones; however, for evolution to be correct, the Mutations must be beneficial.

Couldn't Genetic Drift be explained by Dominant and Recessive Traits? (you'll have to forgive me, I don't understand the concept fully)

What does Gene Flow even have to do with it? The passing along of traits is natural, isn't it?

Also, the things being studied based off of Evolution could still be accurate even if Evolution weren't true. Allow me to demonstrate, in a Chemistry formula where 2 reagents yields 2 products (A + B > C + D), your tasked with finding the amount of grams of D you will get based on how much of A that you have. So you balance the formula, however, your balance is off. Instead of 2A + 3B > C + 4D, you have A + 2B > C + 2D. Even though the equation is wrong, your ratio is still the same between A and D, so you will get the same answer.

Another thing, Cloning is the result of taking something living and using it to produce a replicate of said living creature. So, that doesn't help Evolution at all.

Why is it that they can't recreate life in a test tube?

EDIT:

I read your Fact Sheet, and it seems completely irrelevant. The passing on of traits is completely natural, so I don't see how that has anything to do with your claim of evolution.

[Phoenix]

Well, since it seems like Carbon-14 is a main one, I suppose I am just referring to that one.

Well, carbon dating can only measure up to 60,000 years. Other stuff, like argon and uranium dating, is used for older things.

I don't see the purpose of spontaneous generation if it is agreed that biogenesis is true (life comes from life)

While I'd love to debate this too, you are aware that whether abiogenesis is possible or not means nothing to the theory of evolution, right?

So, the tonsils are located in the throat, yet they are also part of the lymphatic system. What does location have to do with anything?

Quite a bit, actually. If something is located in the digestive system, then we can assume right away that it originally served a digestive function, else it wouldn't be there.

Natural Selection does not prove Evolution, it merely suggests that creatures pass on their genes to their offspring, which is obviously true.

I've defined evolution a few times already, you know =/

"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"

The only Mutations that have ever been passed on, are negative ones; however, for evolution to be correct, the Mutations must be beneficial.

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutations can be harmful, neutral or beneficial. Harmful mutations get deleted via natural selection. Neutral mutations "pile up". Beneficial mutations flourish.

Couldn't Genetic Drift be explained by Dominant and Recessive Traits? (you'll have to forgive me, I don't understand the concept fully)

Genetic drift is easy to understand once you grasp the concept. Say your mom and dad had 2 kids. Their 2 children have their combined alleles, but some alleles of both your mom and your dad never get passed down because of probability (if your mom has blonde hair, and both children are born with brown hair, for instance). When the parents die, these alleles die with them.

What genetic drift does is that, even without natural selection, the population changes over time anyway because some alleles never get passed down.

What does Gene Flow even have to do with it? The passing along of traits is natural, isn't it?

Gene flow is much more simple; when 2 populations meet and reproduce, they transfer the genes from on to the other, hence gene flow.

Also, the things being studied based off of Evolution could still be accurate even if Evolution weren't true. Allow me to demonstrate, in a Chemistry formula where 2 reagents yields 2 products (A + B > C + D), your tasked with finding the amount of grams of D you will get based on how much of A that you have. So you balance the formula, however, your balance is off. Instead of 2A + 3B > C + 4D, you have A + 2B > C + 2D. Even though the equation is wrong, your ratio is still the same between A and D, so you will get the same answer.

That's provided you make another mistake that perfectly balances the other one. the chances of that happening are low. The chances of it happening multiple times are virtually nonexistent.

Another thing, Cloning is the result of taking something living and using it to produce a replicate of said living creature. So, that doesn't help Evolution at all.

I think you understand evolution solely as common descent =/

Why is it that they can't recreate life in a test tube?

Because we're just starting to understand how the early atmosphere was like.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Well, carbon dating can only measure up to 60,000 years. Other stuff, like argon and uranium dating, is used for older things.



While I'd love to debate this too, you are aware that whether abiogenesis is possible or not means nothing to the theory of evolution, right?



Quite a bit, actually. If something is located in the digestive system, then we can assume right away that it originally served a digestive function, else it wouldn't be there.



I've defined evolution a few times already, you know =/

"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"



Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutations can be harmful, neutral or beneficial. Harmful mutations get deleted via natural selection. Neutral mutations "pile up". Beneficial mutations flourish.



Genetic drift is easy to understand once you grasp the concept. Say your mom and dad had 2 kids. Their 2 children have their combined alleles, but some alleles of both your mom and your dad never get passed down because of probability (if your mom has blonde hair, and both children are born with brown hair, for instance). When the parents die, these alleles die with them.

What genetic drift does is that, even without natural selection, the population changes over time anyway because some alleles never get passed down.



Gene flow is much more simple; when 2 populations meet and reproduce, they transfer the genes from on to the other, hence gene flow.



That's provided you make another mistake that perfectly balances the other one. the chances of that happening are low. The chances of it happening multiple times are virtually nonexistent.



I think you understand evolution solely as common descent =/



Because we're just starting to understand how the early atmosphere was like.

1) I was under the impression that those forms of dating are also inaccurate (do to half-lifes)

2) I suppose, seems pretty contradictory to me though

3) You could assume it, but then again, people assumed that the Earth was in the center of the universe based on what they could perceive. Unfortunately for humans, Perception of Reality and Actual Reality, are two entirely different things.

4) With the exception of Mutations (which from what I have read, have only been found to be negative, although I have heard that there are irrelevant ones as well, not sure), everything you have said is merely traits being passed along that are already there. Nothing had changed. Even if certain genes were (for whatever reason), not passed down, that doesn't prove Evolution to be true, because Natural Selection isn't proof of Evolution (although, you say Genetic Drift is mere probability, so I don't see how that supports Natural Selection anyway).

5) The Peppered Moth experiment isn't a reasonable experiment because, as with most experiments, the person's Bias affected the results more than the actual experiment. Allow me to quote from the site "verticalthought.org" which discusses the re-examination of said experiment. (my apologies if it is long)

"We will see that this so-called "proof" of the evolution of the peppered moth shows that even supposedly careful and impartial scientists cannot be trusted to leave their bias aside when it comes to teaching Darwinian evolution.

"The re-examination of this tale is the centrepiece of Michael Majerus's book, Melanism: Evolution in Action. Depressingly, Majerus shows that this classic example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention . . .

"Majerus notes that the most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks—exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search.

"The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators. (Kettlewell also released his moths during the day, while they normally choose resting places at night.)

"The story is further eroded by noting that the resurgence of typica [light-colored moths] occurred well before lichens recolonized the polluted trees, and that a parallel increase and decrease of the melanic form also occurred in industrial areas of the United States, where there was no change in the abundance of the lichens that supposedly play such an important role.

"Finally, the results of Kettlewell's behavioural experiments were not replicated in later studies: moths have no tendency to choose matching backgrounds. Majerus finds many other flaws in the work, but they are too numerous to list here. I unearthed additional problems when, embarrassed at having taught the standard Biston story for years, I read Kettlewell's papers for the first time."

6) On a final note, is it, or is it not true that a reducing atmosphere is needed for Evolution to be true; yet, the recent evidence (such as examining solidified amber) points to an even greater oxidizing atmosphere than we have today?

[Raeneth]

Originally Posted by kazukifafner

3) You could assume it, but then again, people assumed that the Earth was in the center of the universe based on what they could perceive. Unfortunately for humans, Perception of Reality and Actual Reality, are two entirely different things.

Funny how it's the religious people who assumed the Earth was the center of the universe until proven wrong by science .-.

4) With the exception of Mutations (which from what I have read, have only been found to be negative, although I have heard that there are irrelevant ones as well, not sure), everything you have said is merely traits being passed along that are already there. Nothing had changed. Even if certain genes were (for whatever reason), not passed down, that doesn't prove Evolution to be true, because Natural Selection isn't proof of Evolution (although, you say Genetic Drift is mere probability, so I don't see how that supports Natural Selection anyway).

New traits that pop up in organisms are called mutations. The term mutation just has a negative connotation in today's society.
Natural Selection supports the theory of evolution .-.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Neo Ragnarok

Funny how it's the religious people who assumed the Earth was the center of the universe until proven wrong by science .-.


New traits that pop up in organisms are called mutations. The term mutation just has a negative connotation in today's society.
Natural Selection supports the theory of evolution .-.

1) None the less, Perception of Reality and Actual Reality, are entirely different. So exactly who believes it is really irrelevant.

2) I can't think of one Mutation that was considered specifically and solely beneficial. If you can, please tell me what it is.

3) Natural Selection really doesn't support the current theory of Evolution (that life started by random chance and evolved over millions of years). It only suggests that certain genetic traits are left out if they become useless (which I don't even think has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt), nothing new was ever added to the gene pool. The majority of all evidence (on both sides) is mere assumptions; however, I do believe that there are more inconsistencies with Evolution than with Creationism.

[Phoenix]

1) I was under the impression that those forms of dating are also inaccurate (do to half-lifes)

How so? I mean, they always agree with other methods, such as tree rings and such. When has dating been off by a considerable margin?

2) I suppose, seems pretty contradictory to me though

I don't see why, though. We don't know much abiogenesis. But science can admit that much, and keep looking for the answer.

3) You could assume it, but then again, people assumed that the Earth was in the center of the universe based on what they could perceive. Unfortunately for humans, Perception of Reality and Actual Reality, are two entirely different things.

You're comparing the flat earth to how the human body works?

Very well then, name one case where someone without an appendix has been worse off than when he had it.

4) With the exception of Mutations (which from what I have read, have only been found to be negative, although I have heard that there are irrelevant ones as well, not sure), everything you have said is merely traits being passed along that are already there. Nothing had changed.

No beneficial mutations? Well, that's just a lie. Why do you think we can't cure some diseases? They mutate and become immune. Why do we have to change pesticides every 6 months? Insect mutations make them immune to the old ones.

Even if certain genes were (for whatever reason), not passed down, that doesn't prove Evolution to be true, because Natural Selection isn't proof of Evolution (although, you say Genetic Drift is mere probability, so I don't see how that supports Natural Selection anyway).

Why do bacteria with only one gene display diversity if evolution does not exist? I mean, there's only one gene, and mutations can't add variation, right?

5) The Peppered Moth experiment isn't a reasonable experiment because, as with most experiments, the person's Bias affected the results more than the actual experiment. Allow me to quote from the site "verticalthought.org" which discusses the re-examination of said experiment. (my apologies if it is long)

"We will see that this so-called "proof" of the evolution of the peppered moth shows that even supposedly careful and impartial scientists cannot be trusted to leave their bias aside when it comes to teaching Darwinian evolution.

"The re-examination of this tale is the centrepiece of Michael Majerus's book, Melanism: Evolution in Action. Depressingly, Majerus shows that this classic example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention . . .

"Majerus notes that the most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks—exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search.

"The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators. (Kettlewell also released his moths during the day, while they normally choose resting places at night.)

"The story is further eroded by noting that the resurgence of typica [light-colored moths] occurred well before lichens recolonized the polluted trees, and that a parallel increase and decrease of the melanic form also occurred in industrial areas of the United States, where there was no change in the abundance of the lichens that supposedly play such an important role.

" 1. Peppered moths do not rest exclusively on tree trunks, but they do rest there. Of the forty-seven moths one researcher found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. (The other fifteen were on branches). The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher (Majerus 1998, 123). Wells's claim that the moths do not naturally land on trunks is simply a falsehood.

2. Branches provide a background similar to trunks. Photos showing moths on trunks were staged but only for purposes of illustration. The photographs depict what is found in the wild, whether trunk or branch. Furthermore, the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions. "

"# Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed. Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties. Similar arguments can be made for all other experiments. Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the traditional story (Grant 1999).

# Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999). "

I'm sorry, but claiming that the peppered moth story is not viable is a common creationist claim.

6) On a final note, is it, or is it not true that a reducing atmosphere is needed for Evolution to be true; yet, the recent evidence (such as examining solidified amber) points to an even greater oxidizing atmosphere than we have today?

Reducing gases likely were not present in the early, prebiotic earth's atmosphere. :

1. The claim is false. Current evidence indicates that the early earth had a mildly reducing atmosphere (Kasting 1993). It was probably rich in hydrogen due to the escape of hydrogen from the atmosphere being much lower than previously thought (Tian et al. 2005). Calculations of the outgassing expected from chondrites (which the earth was largely formed from) also indicate a reducing atmosphere (Thomas 2005).

2. Even if the earth's overall atmosphere were neutral, there would have been many local areas that were reducing, such as areas near active volcanism (Delano 2001; Kasting 1993).

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

How so? I mean, they always agree with other methods, such as tree rings and such. When has dating been off by a considerable margin?



I don't see why, though. We don't know much abiogenesis. But science can admit that much, and keep looking for the answer.



You're comparing the flat earth to how the human body works?

Very well then, name one case where someone without an appendix has been worse off than when he had it.



No beneficial mutations? Well, that's just a lie. Why do you think we can't cure some diseases? They mutate and become immune. Why do we have to change pesticides every 6 months? Insect mutations make them immune to the old ones.



Why do bacteria with only one gene display diversity if evolution does not exist? I mean, there's only one gene, and mutations can't add variation, right?



" 1. Peppered moths do not rest exclusively on tree trunks, but they do rest there. Of the forty-seven moths one researcher found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. (The other fifteen were on branches). The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher (Majerus 1998, 123). Wells's claim that the moths do not naturally land on trunks is simply a falsehood.

2. Branches provide a background similar to trunks. Photos showing moths on trunks were staged but only for purposes of illustration. The photographs depict what is found in the wild, whether trunk or branch. Furthermore, the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions. "

"# Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed. Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties. Similar arguments can be made for all other experiments. Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the traditional story (Grant 1999).

# Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999). "

I'm sorry, but claiming that the peppered moth story is not viable is a common creationist claim.



Reducing gases likely were not present in the early, prebiotic earth's atmosphere. :

1. The claim is false. Current evidence indicates that the early earth had a mildly reducing atmosphere (Kasting 1993). It was probably rich in hydrogen due to the escape of hydrogen from the atmosphere being much lower than previously thought (Tian et al. 2005). Calculations of the outgassing expected from chondrites (which the earth was largely formed from) also indicate a reducing atmosphere (Thomas 2005).

2. Even if the earth's overall atmosphere were neutral, there would have been many local areas that were reducing, such as areas near active volcanism (Delano 2001; Kasting 1993).

1) It is just that, Polomiun-14 (I believe this is the correct one) has a half-life of 134 microseconds, how could you possibly use something like that to accurately measure length of time.

2) I wasn't comparing anything. I merely stated that what was people considered evidence in the past is proven wrong today. Again, Perception and Actuality are two different things.

3) How is a better immunity proof of mutation? And most of these diseases are Virus strains, which aren't alive to begin with.

4) As for bacteria, could it be that they each have a different gene.

5) So basically, the Peppered Moth Experiment is irrelevant then. You have to admit that if you go in thinking that evolution is true that it will affect the results (the same can be said with Creationism as well), or at least how they are interpreted.

6) I currently do not know enough info to comment on the Atmosphere studies.

7) I'm beginning to feel that this will just be another stalemate, so I'll end with this: This may just be my opinion, but I am confident that if the Theory of Evolution were thrown out, then one could still easily find other explanations for all of the anomalies that have been presented.

[Lezard Valeth]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So, in your opinion, what was God thinking when he gave humans wisdom teeth?

There can be various reason, like because of the first sin. Oh, and if I could understand every of God decision, I'd not be a human.

That's not what I questioned. Science indeed perfects itself, but if you're waiting for science to drop out evolution, then it's sure as hell possible, but just as likely as science dropping out gravity.

Of course, gravity was not dropped, just that Newton's law were rather destroyed, if I can say so, by Einstein's law, difference being that Einstein knew that one day his law will be destroyed.
By destroyed, that doesn't mean Newton was totally wrong, his law are a "special case", while Einstein is more general... (I am french, sorry for grammar if what I write is not easy to read)

[HadesDragon]

Originally Posted by kazukifafner

Another things, at the very least, Christianity hasn't been proved wrong.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure you've heard of it before. If not, certainly the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, both of which are derived from that analogy I just linked to.

[Phoenix]

1) It is just that, Polomiun-14 (I believe this is the correct one) has a half-life of 134 microseconds, how could you possibly use something like that to accurately measure length of time.

You are aware that not all elements are used for this, right?

Uranium-lead dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potassium-argon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rubidium-strontium dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) I wasn't comparing anything. I merely stated that what was people considered evidence in the past is proven wrong today. Again, Perception and Actuality are two different things.

"There have been cases of people who have been found, usually on laparoscopy or laparotomy, to have a congenital absence of an appendix. There have been no reports of impaired immune or gastrointestinal function in these people."

3) How is a better immunity proof of mutation? And most of these diseases are Virus strains, which aren't alive to begin with.

What? How do you think immunities are even created?

4) As for bacteria, could it be that they each have a different gene.

You misunderstood the example. One bacteria with only one gene spawns many bacteria with genetic diversity. The children are genetically different from the parent. Why?

5) So basically, the Peppered Moth Experiment is irrelevant then.

No, the peppered moth experiment proved a beneficial mutation in front of our eyes.

You have to admit that if you go in thinking that evolution is true that it will affect the results (the same can be said with Creationism as well), or at least how they are interpreted.

When did he do that?

7) I'm beginning to feel that this will just be another stalemate, so I'll end with this: This may just be my opinion, but I am confident that if the Theory of Evolution were thrown out, then one could still easily find other explanations for all of the anomalies that have been presented.

Trust me on this, a theory like evolution wouldn't have lasted so long and ingrained itself so much into Biology if it wasn't on to something.

Ever since its conception, people have wanted the theory to be false; it challenged the biggest belief on the planet! Many scientists are Christian, and they work within the theory. If you've learned nothing else, understand this: they don't believe in the theory for shits and giggles. There is a reason why I have, in my bookmarks, a site listing hundreds and hundreds of creationists claims and the rebuttal to these, and there is a reason most of your claims are there. I understand your unwillingness to discard creationism, but reality is that the theory of evolution is not going anywhere anytime soon.

an ultimatum, then. What do I need to find to completely destroy your idea of creationism? If you were to show me, for example, a fish with mammalian glands, evolution would be in trouble. Tell me 2 things:

1. What do I need to show you so you believe in the theory of evolution?
2. What would you consider a heavy hit to creationism (within possible parameters, of course)?

There can be various reason, like because of the first sin. Oh, and if I could understand every of God decision, I'd not be a human.

The first sin gave us wisdom teeth?

Of course, gravity was not dropped, just that Newton's law were rather destroyed, if I can say so, by Einstein's law, difference being that Einstein knew that one day his law will be destroyed.
By destroyed, that doesn't mean Newton was totally wrong, his law are a "special case", while Einstein is more general... (I am french, sorry for grammar if what I write is not easy to read)

By the same token, evolution will not be dropped. It will be changed, transformed, perfected, yes, but it's here to stay.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by HadesDragon

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not saying I don't understand why people doubt it (that particular being one reason). I'm just saying that there isn't concrete evidence that it is wrong.

[Phoenix]

What Russell's teapot states is that it's not our job to prove Christianity wrong, it's your job to prove it right.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

an ultimatum, then. What do I need to find to completely destroy your idea of creationism? If you were to show me, for example, a fish with mammalian glands, evolution would be in trouble. Tell me 2 things:

1. What do I need to show you so you believe in the theory of evolution?
2. What would you consider a heavy hit to creationism (within possible parameters, of course)?

1) Concrete, unquestionable, proof of the Theory of Evolution. Not roundabout assumptions of, "this must be true, so the rest must be true". You need to show me undeniable proof that the universe started from large explosion; which created the earth; life was formed by a reducing atmosphere, chemicals, and a single spark, which evolved from that one organism to the vast varieties that we have today. If you can do that, then I'll be a committed evolutionist.

2) see #1

So far, everything you have given me only assumes evolution to be true, not outright proves it.

[HadesDragon]

Originally Posted by Face Down

Like I said before you can teach biology without teaching evolution.

Just putting my two cents in on the matter.

All I'm going to say.

" 1. Biology without evolution is natural history, not biology. There is a great deal of important information in natural history that should be taught, but evolution is the unifying idea that ties it all together, allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.

2. To quote an anonymous writer to TalkOrigins.org (June 15, 2003 feedback):

Evolution matters because science matters, and too many people (including some presidents) are willing to believe that science is something you can pick and choose from, with "good" science being anything that supports your own views and "bad" science being anything that doesn't. Physicists are great guys because they say nothing to offend us, biologists are mad scientists leading us down the path to perdition with their genetic meddling, evolutionists are self-delusional fools, and anyone studying environmental science is a left-wing tree-hugging extremist whose sole goal is to destroy the American economy and lead us to one-world government. If scientists in a given discipline argue about any conclusion, whoever says what you want to hear is the right one. Too many people can't accept that although scientists are not perfect, and do make mistakes (sometimes whoppers), science isn't something you can pick through like a buffet, accepting only what is to your "taste" and designating the rest inedible. If people feel free to reject the science of evolution, they feel free to reject any science on no better grounds. Whether my students accept evolution may have little direct effect on my future. Whether they understand biology, ecology, environmental geology (water is a big issue in my community), and other subjects and can make informed decisions regarding scientific issues does matter. If they feel free to reject evolution as part of a "buffet" approach to science, their other choices will be no better informed. "

I'll say this again: your school is doing you all a diservice by not teaching you evolution.

Originally Posted by kazuki

1) Concrete, unquestionable, proof of the Theory of Evolution. Not roundabout assumptions of, "this must be true, so the rest must be true". You need to show me undeniable proof that the universe started from large explosion; which created the earth; life was formed by a reducing atmosphere, chemicals, and a single spark, which evolved from that one organism to the vast varieties that we have today. If you can do that, then I'll be a committed evolutionist.

2) see #1

So far, everything you have given me only assumes evolution to be true, not outright proves it.

You do realize that the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, yes? It's physics, not biology. Even if the Big Bang was proved false, it wouldn't harm evolution's credibility in the slightest, and vice versa.

And Phoenix has said this before, and I feel I should state it again (just in case, pay it no mind if you're already aware of it): even if BOTH of them were disproved completely and beyond the shadow of a doubt, it wouldn't do anything for creationism/ID. You'd have to prove it right, that's how science works.

Also, would you care to cite an example of what you would consider "Concrete, unquestionable, proof of the Theory of Evolution"?

[Lezard Valeth]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

The first sin gave us wisdom teeth?

The things which came after the first sin is that human have a hard life, or something like that.

By the same token, evolution will not be dropped. It will be changed, transformed, perfected, yes, but it's here to stay.

Today scientist say it is impossible to travel faster than light. In 1000 years I want (or rather, those who will live at this time if humanity still exist) hear a scientist still saying it's impossible.
Science can be mistaking. But, hey, I never said evolution is wrong, I said both co exist. That is difference.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

What Russell's teapot states is that it's not our job to prove Christianity wrong, it's your job to prove it right.

2+2 = 5. It cannot be proven right but it can be proven wrong.
God exists. It cannot be proven right but it cannot be proven wrong.

Seen like that, it's not our job to prove Christianity right, it's your job to prove it wrong.