An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Viceroy63]

Faith is not blind but based on observable facts. But one must first be willing to open their eyes to the truth. That is why I can observe, with my open eyes the fact that Evolution is a lie and should not be taught in schools and universities, as Fact.

[crispybits]

Sounds more like delusion to me.

[comic boy]

The eternal question , clever Troll or utter moron ?

[betiko]

The eternal question , clever Troll or utter moron ?

I think he's for real. look at his signature, are the mayas comming?

[comic boy]

The eternal question , clever Troll or utter moron ?

I think he's for real. look at his signature, are the mayas comming?

I like to give the benefit of doubt to the apparently feeble minded

[Metsfanmax]

I dunno? A lot of people, and kids are people too, tend to believe in the theory of "Santa Claus." That is also not a proven hypothesis, theory, either and yet year after year you see and hear Mommy and Daddy talking to their children about Jolly ole Santa and hanging Santa Claus stuff like reindeer and those little helpers and like that. Why don't we have a course in schools and universities that teach about the Theory of Santa? Both are unproven facts and both are advanced forward among people in general.

There is no "theory" of Santa Claus. There may very well be a hypothesis that Santa Claus exists, but there is no documented evidence of such a phenomenon. The theory of evolution is based on documented evidence of observations of the world around us. In other words, we don't need to hypothesize Santa Claus in order to explain any real life phenomena that we observe; we do need to hypothesize evolution to explain real data. Science is about finding the least complicated ways of describing the world that are still faithful to the actual observations; postulating Santa Claus makes things more complex without gaining any clarity about the way the world works, so it is not taught. If you think it should be taught in schools, you are again welcome to do so; perhaps schools should have a class on religion and other faith-based beliefs.

To confuse a Theory with a science is not logical. One is a lie, a fanciful thought the other a fact of nature. The theory of evolution is a lie, an Unproven and unprovable Hypothesis. You are confusing Evolution with Mutations and saying that it should be taught. The science of mutations should be taught in schools and universities but when you assert that we or any animal arose from any other life form on the planet, well that is a fabricated lie and lies should not be taught. Especially not as fact. As I stated with the part about the horse, It is the Bastion of evolutionist but it is the most fabricated hoax in Science. And that is a fact.

What you are doing is confusing science with not-science. It does not matter whether you think the theory of evolution is correct or not. We have science class precisely to teach what the consensus view among scientists is (and also where scientists do not yet think they have the answers). The consensus view among scientists is the theory of evolution. Whether or not you think they are engaged in some global conspiracy to blind people to the nature of God, it is what they think. Undeniably. And that is what science class is about. What is illogical is to suggest that we should teach what basically all scientists think about geology or physics in science class, but we should not teach what all scientists think about biology in science class. For the purposes of whether evolution should be taught in school, this argument is a complete non-starter. Your view will only stop being inconsistent if you argue that we should stop teaching physics and chemistry and geology in high school too, and only teach people a bunch of facts about nature but never give them the mental machinery to process possible connections between those facts.

[comic boy]

'There is a God because you cannot prove he does not exist .'
'Evolution is a lie because the fossil record is incomplete.'

It would seem that the person who made these statements is basing his 'facts' on widely differing balances of proof , remind me again what hypocrisy means !

[AndyDufresne]

show

--Andy

[Neoteny]

[13] And even when the fossil records show what appears to be missing links between the species they are not. It only appears to be evolution but the facts are grossly misrepresented by the scientific community. Take the evolution of the horse for example. The horse is perhaps the bastion stronghold for evolutionist. "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.(World Book Encyclopedia 1982 ed. p. 333.)

The f*ck? Maybe horses were a bastion stronghold for evolutionists 150 years ago. Maybe they were a bastion stronghold 30 years ago. But so much progress has been made in genetics and molecular biology over the last half century or so that the "bastion stronghold" for "evolutionists" has spread through most of the field of biology. You could argue that immunology or ecology are as much a bastion as horse phylogeny. When creationists say this sort of thing it becomes clear that he or she has not read anything biology-related that was published in the last decade.

Come on. I read Creation as Science. It was awful, but I make an effort damn it. Google, I dunno, epigenetics or something.

[AndyDufresne]

Google, I dunno, epigenetics or something.

Good Ol' Sci Show covered epigenetics in a short video.


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

[13] And even when the fossil records show what appears to be missing links between the species they are not. It only appears to be evolution but the facts are grossly misrepresented by the scientific community. Take the evolution of the horse for example. The horse is perhaps the bastion stronghold for evolutionist. "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.(World Book Encyclopedia 1982 ed. p. 333.)

The f*ck? Maybe horses were a bastion stronghold for evolutionists 150 years ago. Maybe they were a bastion stronghold 30 years ago. But so much progress has been made in genetics and molecular biology over the last half century or so that the "bastion stronghold" for "evolutionists" has spread through most of the field of biology. You could argue that immunology or ecology are as much a bastion as horse phylogeny. When creationists say this sort of thing it becomes clear that he or she has not read anything biology-related that was published in the last decade.

Come on. I read Creation as Science. It was awful, but I make an effort damn it. Google, I dunno, epigenetics or something.

I don't see how Epigenetics, Molecular Biology, Immunity or ecology has anything to do with A Baseless theory that proposes that species of animal including mankind himself has evolved and rose from other, lower species of life.

Why don't you enlighten us with what you have read in the "past decade" or so. Just a taste if you'd be so inclined.

I think that it is more likely that you could not even get past the reading of my original post because as some have stated, It's a "long ass" post.

Wow, you actually read that long ass OP? My hat's off to you, Mets.

Hell no. I responded to the part that was actually relevant to public education decisions, and ignored all the religious nonsense.

I am still trying to figure out what "religious nonsense" did I write about in that post?

It's a post for people who can read.

[Metsfanmax]

I wonder if you actually stop to consider the sources you use to defend your view. Steve Jones is widely known for openly saying that creationism is wrong and evolution is right. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed about selecting a paragraph from a source that blatantly disagrees with your conclusion about his own work. That is, unless you are such an expert on biology that you are more qualified than him to draw conclusions from his own arguments.

Anyway, the issue here is still not whether the theory of evolution is correct, so stop dodging.

[Lootifer]

Just because Darwin said there should be rafts of transitional species it doesnt mean evolution requires large numbers of transitional species fossils to be true.

Transitional by definition is something that undergoes rapid change and doesnt last long; its not particularly surprising (though is annoying for biologists trying to study it) that they dont show up in plentiful numbers. The number of steady state species individuals that have existed in history probably outnumber the transitional ones by many many many orders of magnitude; since fossilisation is essentially a roll of the dice it is little wonder their fossils are hard to find.

Please stop calling it a lie; lie is something that is intended to deceive; saying the entire evolutionary biology population is one big hoax is both unfounded and extremely rude (pretty hypocrital for someone who is taught to do unto others as you expected to be treated in return).

[Viceroy63]

I think that I made it very clear that the theory of evolution when taught as a fact is a deception that even when men of science do not agree with it yet they don't state all the facts.

Read that OP again if it was not clear the first time. I posted all my reasons there for all to see.

And by the way; Evolutionary Biology is one thing and the theory of evolution is another. Let's not confuse the two and call it science. One of them is science and the other is a big fat lie. Simply because it is taught as truth when it is not.

[comic boy]

Wow it appears he wasn't trolling , how terribly sad , the rise of ignorance indeed.