I agree with this. Creationism if just the mythologic background of Christianity on how the universe got started. It is no different than Greek mythology or Egytian, in the sense that they all have no scientific proof at all.
The "fossil records" are not "evidence for evolution." They're the same fossils whether you're a creationist or evolutionist. That's the fact. The rest is in the interpretation.Even Darwin admitted there should be "countless intermediates." So where are they? The fossil record should be chock full of failed evolutionary experiments. Instead we have evolutionary "trees" that have fully formed, complex life forms at the end of their branches, but nothing in between. Some feeble attempts to construct imaginary lines of descent for horses and whales have been amply debunked.
Creationism should be taught in their respective classes in their respective places. I don't see a place in it in our public school system... Public schools have established that there should be a distinction between what faith and non-faith topics. I don't see a problem with it in Private schools, though, if they warrant it.
Education should not condemn or condone any form of religion.
The "fossil records" are not "evidence for evolution." They're the same fossils whether you're a creationist or evolutionist. That's the fact. The rest is in the interpretation.Even Darwin admitted there should be "countless intermediates." So where are they? The fossil record should be chock full of failed evolutionary experiments. Instead we have evolutionary "trees" that have fully formed, complex life forms at the end of their branches, but nothing in between. Some feeble attempts to construct imaginary lines of descent for horses and whales have been amply debunked.
When Darwin first made his theory he admitted that the fossil record was incomplete. But now we have a lot more fossils and we are finding more and more fossils throughout the years. It's also not just Fossil evidence either, it's DNA evidence that points to a common ancestor.
my choice is to study about Harry Potter, CMON SCHOOLS TEACH ME, I dont want math, I dont want science, I want HARRY POTTER, its based on a book and you ppl cant disprove it so it means IT MUST BE TRUE its only logic, here you go I made a flawless argument that Harry Potter happened and that it should be thought in schools ... FACT
OT: I agree creationism makes people stupid, and I cant put it any simpler than to say: thats not what schools are for!
When Darwin first made his theory he admitted that the fossil record was incomplete. But now we have a lot more fossils and we are finding more and more fossils throughout the years. It's also not just Fossil evidence either, it's DNA evidence that points to a common ancestor.
The fossil record shows fully formed, functional living things, not "becoming" things. Information, such as that found in genetic material, cannot arise on its own, without a source, nor is it useful standing on its own, without a code, mode of transmission, mode of reception, and the machinery to make it useful.
Are you even aware that genetic mutations are almost always harmful? Otherwise we should be exposing ourselves to chemicals and radiation to help out evolution, should we not?where exactly the genetic material that mutates came from in the first place? Why are evolutionists so thick headed on that question? Why can't they seem to grasp the concept that their argument is based on genetic material that ALREADY EXISTS and they keep avoiding the question of where the genetic material and the information it contains came from in the first place?
I agree. We all had early ancestors, didn't we? That's some powerful proof that those early ancestors were the result of mindless processes that turned particles into people. Great arguments you have here.
The “evidence” IS inconsistent with evolution.That's why more and more scientists are beginning to admit it.There is a document “A Dissent from Darwinism” which has been signed by thousands of top scientists, and still more every month.
The fossil record shows fully formed, functional living things, not "becoming" things. Information, such as that found in genetic material, cannot arise on its own, without a source, nor is it useful standing on its own, without a code, mode of transmission, mode of reception, and the machinery to make it useful.
First question what the heck is an incomplete/developing organism? Please elaborate.
But there are primitive and adavanced form of various organs, check that out:
You must be registered for see links
Are you even aware that genetic mutations are almost always harmful? Otherwise we should be exposing ourselves to chemicals and radiation to help out evolution, should we not?
Are you aware that when exposed to suddent overwhelming changes 99% of species just die off immediately.... only species used to the changed situation even has the possibility of surviving let alone actually survive. Why do u think we have endangered species? Its cos evolution is not like in Pokemon.
where exactly the genetic material that mutates came from in the first place? Why are evolutionists so thick headed on that question? Why can't they seem to grasp the concept that their argument is based on genetic material that ALREADY EXISTS and they keep avoiding the question of where the genetic material and the information it contains came from in the first place?
A Biologist named Lenski observed about 50,000 generation of E Coli for over two decades and suddenly found that a perticular batch has developed the ability to metabolise citrate (Bit like humans suddenly developing the ability to digest wood) when they were developed in medium rich in citrate (originally indigestible to the E Coli) for many generation. He also reached the various conclusions that answers your questions.
I agree. We all had early ancestors, didn't we? That's some powerful proof that those early ancestors were the result of mindless processes that turned particles into people. Great arguments you have here.
The “evidence” IS inconsistent with evolution.That's why more and more scientists are beginning to admit it.There is a document “A Dissent from Darwinism” which has been signed by thousands of top scientists, and still more every month.
How many of them are actually Biologists and have the required qualifications to comment on the matter?
Also a tiny lesson in evolution:
If u want to discuss with a rational mind read the below first:
First, that depends on what you mean by "evolution", and second, we need to clear up some misunderstandings you have about science.
The word "evolution" can refer to BOTH a fact and a theory. This is not unusual in science ... the same can be said of the word "gravity", "atoms", "cells", etc.
People sometimes use the word "evolution" to refer to the *process* by which species change over time. In that sense, evolution is a *FACT*. Species change, so things evolve.
But people also use the word "evolution" to refer to the explanation for *why* things evolve (Darwin's theory of natural selection), or to the consequences (such as common descent of all living things ... which is probably what your really asking about).
This is not unusual in science. For example we sometimes use the word "gravity" to refer to the observed *FACT* that objects fall to the ground. But we also refer to the "Theory of Gravity" which is the explanation for *why* things fall to the ground, as well as all the things that are explained by the attraction of matter to matter ... like the motions of the moon and the planets. So 'gravity', like 'evolution', refers BOTH to a fact and a theory that *EXPLAINS* that fact, or the things that are explained *BY* that fact.
The second thing we really have to clear up is this misconception you have about science, that things start out as a "hypothesis", then graduate to a "theory", and then finally are "proved" to be called "facts."
Science doesn't work that way.
Facts come first. Facts are not "proved" to be true. Facts are *observed* to be true. It is in that sense that we say the evolution is a *FACT*. It is a fact that we *observe* to be true every time a bacterium becomes resistant to antibiotics, or a flu virus gets resistant to last year's flu shot (which is why we need a new flu shot every year), or when we breed dairy cows to get better milkers, or racehorses to get new champions, or cocker spaniels with floppier ears, or breed the plant species called teosinte until it becomes maize, and maize until it becomes corn. All of those are absolutely cases of observed *EVOLUTION*.
But science ultimately is not about facts. Science is about finding *explanations* for facts. An educated guess is called a 'hypothesis'. But once a hypothesis has gathered a lot of evidence and it explains a *lot* of facts, then we call it a 'theory.'
It doesn't get any better than a theory.
Facts can't become theories. And theories can't become facts. Period. Ever. There is no way to "prove" a theory to make it a fact.
Always, always, always remember that a theory is an *EXPLANATION* for facts. And you will stay out of the trap of thinking that a theory can be "proved" to be a fact.
In fact, the word "proved" is another red flag that you are not understanding how science works. We talk about "proving" things in Math, not Science! In science we don't talk about "proof" we talk about *EVIDENCE*. What's the difference? "Proof" is absolute ... something is either proved or it isn't (as in math). But *EVIDENCE* accumulates. A theory accumulates more and more proof, and thus we say that the theory is stronger and stronger. The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in the history of science ... not because of one experiment or observation, but because of *thousands* of experiments and observations! That's why we call it *EVIDENCE*, not "proof."
Finally, a theory is the Holy Grail of science! So the phrase "just a theory" makes no sense. If you ever encounter a person, or web site, or book that uses the phrase "just a theory", or "only a theory", or "still a theory" Its better to *RUN AWAY*. Because that person, web site, or book does not understand science *AT ALL*.
Only when you understand all of that, are we ready to talk about the idea that, say humans and apes share a common ancestor, or that all living things share a common ancestor ... which (I'm guessing) is what you're really asking about.
But unfortunately, your question had so much misunderstanding about *BASIC SCIENCE* in it that my answer already got too long. I don't mean that as an insult ... we all have to learn this stuff. I just mean that there is no way to explain evolution if you don't know how scientists use the words like "fact", "hypothesis", "theory", "proof" or "evidence."
So if you understand all of the above, please ask again.
How Evolution works, An example.
Let us consider a original rabbit species who lives in a valley region, but after a few year they grow too great in number to stay there and they divide in three groups: One group stays, one group moves and settles near a desert and the last in the mountains. The original group remains more or less unchanged but the other groups adapt themselves to their new environments, and after a few thousand years they are slightly different. So now we have got three different types of rabbits. Now that evolution. How Natural Selection works here: U must know that all indivisuals of a specis are born different, now among the rabbits who went to the desert those indivisuals who wld have better talents for surviving there wld live and reproduce passing down the needed genes for survival. Now again we also know that mutations happen with in a species, so if a rabbit has a mutation like a deformed paw that is excellent for digging sand he will be more successful than others and the females mob him untill the majority of the new generation have his malformed but much more adapted genes (while the minority unchaged ones will fall behind in the competition and die out).
So this is how evolution is supposed work, which is repeated a million times over over again in many different ways for about billion of years.
Origin of life:
Evolution is about how life form changes and behaves not how they originated. There are many theories but very little proof. But consider this strange factor: Viruses are very strange organisms they can feed and reproduce like living things but only under suitable conditions, when their preference is denied to them they are just lumps of proteins: they dont respire,feed, reproduce at all and can stay like that for an eternity but the moment u give them the proper environment again, they act like living things. Plus they are probably older than even the first bacteria species....... They are between the living and the non living and the only clue to abiotic origin of life. See:
You must be registered for see links
for much more info.
Human are not the only animal u know?
Like the title, we are not the only animal, we happen to be the best result of evolution, and most advanced of all animals, so damn of corse we are gona be be different and better.
Another thing: Did u know that old snake species like pythons have small legs/spurs as a reminder of their evolution from lizards and also pythons have two lungs like most four legged lizards instead of only one lungs like most advanced snakes..... check these out for proof:
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Image thanks to wildlife website arkive.org, visit:
You must be registered for see links
A simple proof:
You must be registered for see links
Other Proofs:
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
PS Darwin's estimations were found in adequate in recent times (just like Newton's principles) and thus there are recent developments and upgrades to the theory of evolution ..... dont go all Darwin said that and Darwin said this. Peaople REsearch everything for a reason u know.
First question what the heck is an incomplete/developing organism? Please elaborate.
But there are primitive and adavanced form of various organs, check that out:
You must be registered for see links
Are you aware that when exposed to suddent overwhelming changes 99% of species just die off immediately.... only species used to the changed situation even has the possibility of surviving let alone actually survive. Why do u think we have endangered species? Its cos evolution is not like in Pokemon.
Read this:
You must be registered for see links
A Biologist named Lenski observed about 50,000 generation of E Coli for over two decades and suddenly found that a perticular batch has developed the ability to metabolise citrate (Bit like humans suddenly developing the ability to digest wood) when they were developed in medium rich in citrate (originally indigestible to the E Coli) for many generation. He also reached the various conclusions that answers your questions.
Got better arguments? many of us are all ears.
How many of them are actually Biologists and have the required qualifications to comment on the matter?
Also a tiny lesson in evolution:
If u want to discuss with a rational mind read the below first:
First, that depends on what you mean by "evolution", and second, we need to clear up some misunderstandings you have about science.
The word "evolution" can refer to BOTH a fact and a theory. This is not unusual in science ... the same can be said of the word "gravity", "atoms", "cells", etc.
People sometimes use the word "evolution" to refer to the *process* by which species change over time. In that sense, evolution is a *FACT*. Species change, so things evolve.
But people also use the word "evolution" to refer to the explanation for *why* things evolve (Darwin's theory of natural selection), or to the consequences (such as common descent of all living things ... which is probably what your really asking about).
This is not unusual in science. For example we sometimes use the word "gravity" to refer to the observed *FACT* that objects fall to the ground. But we also refer to the "Theory of Gravity" which is the explanation for *why* things fall to the ground, as well as all the things that are explained by the attraction of matter to matter ... like the motions of the moon and the planets. So 'gravity', like 'evolution', refers BOTH to a fact and a theory that *EXPLAINS* that fact, or the things that are explained *BY* that fact.
The second thing we really have to clear up is this misconception you have about science, that things start out as a "hypothesis", then graduate to a "theory", and then finally are "proved" to be called "facts."
Science doesn't work that way.
Facts come first. Facts are not "proved" to be true. Facts are *observed* to be true. It is in that sense that we say the evolution is a *FACT*. It is a fact that we *observe* to be true every time a bacterium becomes resistant to antibiotics, or a flu virus gets resistant to last year's flu shot (which is why we need a new flu shot every year), or when we breed dairy cows to get better milkers, or racehorses to get new champions, or cocker spaniels with floppier ears, or breed the plant species called teosinte until it becomes maize, and maize until it becomes corn. All of those are absolutely cases of observed *EVOLUTION*.
But science ultimately is not about facts. Science is about finding *explanations* for facts. An educated guess is called a 'hypothesis'. But once a hypothesis has gathered a lot of evidence and it explains a *lot* of facts, then we call it a 'theory.'
It doesn't get any better than a theory.
Facts can't become theories. And theories can't become facts. Period. Ever. There is no way to "prove" a theory to make it a fact.
Always, always, always remember that a theory is an *EXPLANATION* for facts. And you will stay out of the trap of thinking that a theory can be "proved" to be a fact.
In fact, the word "proved" is another red flag that you are not understanding how science works. We talk about "proving" things in Math, not Science! In science we don't talk about "proof" we talk about *EVIDENCE*. What's the difference? "Proof" is absolute ... something is either proved or it isn't (as in math). But *EVIDENCE* accumulates. A theory accumulates more and more proof, and thus we say that the theory is stronger and stronger. The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in the history of science ... not because of one experiment or observation, but because of *thousands* of experiments and observations! That's why we call it *EVIDENCE*, not "proof."
Finally, a theory is the Holy Grail of science! So the phrase "just a theory" makes no sense. If you ever encounter a person, or web site, or book that uses the phrase "just a theory", or "only a theory", or "still a theory" Its better to *RUN AWAY*. Because that person, web site, or book does not understand science *AT ALL*.
Only when you understand all of that, are we ready to talk about the idea that, say humans and apes share a common ancestor, or that all living things share a common ancestor ... which (I'm guessing) is what you're really asking about.
But unfortunately, your question had so much misunderstanding about *BASIC SCIENCE* in it that my answer already got too long. I don't mean that as an insult ... we all have to learn this stuff. I just mean that there is no way to explain evolution if you don't know how scientists use the words like "fact", "hypothesis", "theory", "proof" or "evidence."
So if you understand all of the above, please ask again.
How Evolution works, An example.
Let us consider a original rabbit species who lives in a valley region, but after a few year they grow too great in number to stay there and they divide in three groups: One group stays, one group moves and settles near a desert and the last in the mountains. The original group remains more or less unchanged but the other groups adapt themselves to their new environments, and after a few thousand years they are slightly different. So now we have got three different types of rabbits. Now that evolution. How Natural Selection works here: U must know that all indivisuals of a specis are born different, now among the rabbits who went to the desert those indivisuals who wld have better talents for surviving there wld live and reproduce passing down the needed genes for survival. Now again we also know that mutations happen with in a species, so if a rabbit has a mutation like a deformed paw that is excellent for digging sand he will be more successful than others and the females mob him untill the majority of the new generation have his malformed but much more adapted genes (while the minority unchaged ones will fall behind in the competition and die out).
So this is how evolution is supposed work, which is repeated a million times over over again in many different ways for about billion of years.
Origin of life:
Evolution is about how life form changes and behaves not how they originated. There are many theories but very little proof. But consider this strange factor: Viruses are very strange organisms they can feed and reproduce like living things but only under suitable conditions, when their preference is denied to them they are just lumps of proteins: they dont respire,feed, reproduce at all and can stay like that for an eternity but the moment u give them the proper environment again, they act like living things. Plus they are probably older than even the first bacteria species....... They are between the living and the non living and the only clue to abiotic origin of life. See:
You must be registered for see links
for much more info.
Human are not the only animal u know?
Like the title, we are not the only animal, we happen to be the best result of evolution, and most advanced of all animals, so damn of corse we are gona be be different and better.
Another thing: Did u know that old snake species like pythons have small legs/spurs as a reminder of their evolution from lizards and also pythons have two lungs like most four legged lizards instead of only one lungs like most advanced snakes..... check these out for proof:
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Image thanks to wildlife website arkive.org, visit:
You must be registered for see links
A simple proof:
You must be registered for see links
Other Proofs:
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
In the south and in other places in america, creationists force their beliefs into public schools and they try to slip it in by putting in their own books into the classrooms.
I live in the dirty south and at my school, they don't do that. I can't speak for private schools, but public schools don't "slip it in by putting their own books into the classrooms." They have a certain curriculum to go by and if they don't, they get into a lot of trouble. I'm astounded as to where you get your information.
I live in the dirty south and at my school, they don't do that. I can't speak for private schools, but public schools don't "slip it in by putting their own books into the classrooms." They have a certain curriculum to go by and if they don't, they get into a lot of trouble. I'm astounded as to where you get your information.
He wasn't talking about public schools. The most recent case involved a Christian private school, so private schools are what he is addressing. If public school did it then they would get into a heap of trouble regardless of their location.
He wasn't talking about public schools. The most recent case involved a Christian private school, so private schools are what he is addressing. If public school did it then they would get into a heap of trouble regardless of their location.
Well, it just comes from a book. Might as well start teaching the Harry Potter books at school.
I think religion should be a subject you can choose, not something you have to do. The fact that you get a grade about how much you know about religion when you're not religious is beyond stupid. It's like on English oral exams. You get graded not just by how well you can speak the language, but about how much attention you pay to the news and stuff.
Evolution is real, so I think it should be taught. At least be focused on more than religion.
I live in the dirty south and at my school, they don't do that. I can't speak for private schools, but public schools don't "slip it in by putting their own books into the classrooms." They have a certain curriculum to go by and if they don't, they get into a lot of trouble. I'm astounded as to where you get your information.
I don't see point of this topic you're bubbling something about banning religion in school and other shit but look around, everyone second person is Atheist, there's people who believe that we are made by ALIENS or that we are ALIENS or they're slaves and so on... every human has it's own brain to filter information he obtains.
some succeed and some fail but it's not to you/me/us to chose witch one.
I'm not arguing when the universe or Earth was created. I'm saying that the Earth was created with age. For example, a rock that was carbon dated is 2 million years old. Really, it's only 6000 years old, but God created it with age, making it, by man's attempt at dating it, 2 million years old. That's my point. Hopefully it's understandable to not just myself.
And how have you come to that conclusion?
No one, not even the purported progenitors of this planet, Adam and Eve, would have been able to witness any of that.
Also, it's become quite obvious that if such an entity as God existed, he's not the kind to much of anything.
There'd be absolutely no need to create a planet with "age" as the first two "humans" were originally uneducated.
Personally, all education facilities should abide by separation of church and state.
I love you ..... I mean good going there, I doubt he will read it all though. 
rep for you !
