- NEW!
by RFlagg on March 11th, 2007
by Tinkerbell on March 8th, 2008
by science_geek on March 11th, 2007
by iwnit on March 8th, 2008
by darbea on May 11th, 2007
by Don Gorgeous George on July 24th, 2009
by joeyayoub on March 8th, 2008
by Dugald on July 22nd, 2009
by PokkiTokki on March 11th, 2008
by The Reverend Soleil on March 11th, 2008
by Dee on March 8th, 2008
by bradleybell on March 8th, 2008
by 23Skidoo on July 24th, 2009
by Gideon on March 11th, 2008
by brandy on March 11th, 2008
by veriria on March 11th, 2008
by DiSTurBiA on March 8th, 2008
by Seraphim Shinobi on March 8th, 2008
by Friartuck on February 24th, 2009
by 23Skidoo on November 23rd, 2008
by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on June 8th, 2007
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on March 11th, 2007
by Icebox April on March 11th, 2007
by FadingxSmiles on March 11th, 2007
by Abbyguy on March 11th, 2007
by Tallyman on November 28th, 2009
by Vaporeongirl on November 21st, 2009
by StupidGirl on November 21st, 2009
by Tallyman on November 21st, 2009
by ChuckExAnon on February 14th, 2009
by sassafrass on February 9th, 2009
by Freddy Says remove all moderation points on March 11th, 2008
by friend2umon on March 11th, 2008
by ValentineHeart on March 11th, 2008
by brandy on March 11th, 2008
by DiSTurBiA on March 11th, 2008
by darthson decries derigible destruction on March 8th, 2008
by peterpam on March 8th, 2008
by unknown on March 11th, 2007
by Anonymous on March 11th, 2007
by J.R.C. on March 11th, 2008
by iDeath on November 21st, 2009
by Football on December 3rd, 2009
by norm on November 21st, 2009
by A Rock In Woolfs Clothing on November 28th, 2009
by Does it matter? on November 22nd, 2009
by ScienceSwamy on November 22nd, 2009
by Anonymous on November 21st, 2009
by The Galaxy Hitchhiker on April 3rd, 2009
by The Wade on March 11th, 2008
Can you prove to me that young Earth Creationists are wrong?
by Captain4876 on June 29th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If an evolutionist could reason with a creationist -would there be any creationists?
by aldonoir on December 18th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If the children of creationists grow up to believe in evolution are they disowned? Is love of family more important than fervent belief?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 4th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Does Is Not Take More Faith To Believe In Evolution Than It Does To Believe In A Creator?
by Abzter on December 20th, 2011
| 4 people like this
Has every possible argument for creationism and God been debunked?
by n1kkigirl on August 2nd, 2011
| 3 people like this
You're reading Why should creationism be taught in schools?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Oh, wouldn't it be nice if states like Kansas agreed with you, that is one of the myriad reasons why the US is slipping behind the rest of the world in Science.
by science_geek on March 11th, 2007
What this country needs is a federal administration that's more inclined to inforce the seperation of church and state.
The US has gotten pretty backwards in the last few decades, and in all likelyhood it will get no better any time soon.
by RFlagg on March 11th, 2007
Like any democracy it depends on the voters to vote intelligently.
by DavidHume on March 11th, 2007
And one other aspect to consider, David, is that religion has the advantage in the voting populus even if it's *Not* in the majority, because religious people are more motivated to unite and vote in one solid mass to support their ideals.
(One thing though, it's not technically a democracy, it's a republic.)
by RFlagg on March 11th, 2007
Yes x2
by DavidHume on March 11th, 2007
One, the separation of church and state as intended by the founding fathers is not what we have come to recognize it as, the US, regardless of what you personally believe, was founded because Christians wanted to be able to practice their religion without being oppressed, they wanted to escape from the state controlling their religion, thus they wrote separation of church and state not to keep the church's influence from the state, but to keep the state from controlling the church.
Second, the science that is found in textbooks throughout the country is skewed and some of it is actually totally false, I can give you some examples if you'd like, in fact, science supports creationism, there is a lot of evidence for a young earth, and there is not example of evolution ending with something better than what it started with. I would be happy to debate and/or give you more info, just ask or email dan.deur648@gmail.com
by Dandoor on December 14th, 2008
You know what, the founding fathers were generally deists, not particularly Christians, so you are incorrect on that issue.
I am a biologist, so if you want to discuss the reality of evolution versus the made up and entirely unsupported story spread by creationist charlatans, then be my guest. First, we need to establish some ground rules about sources. If we are to discuss it in a scientific way then we need to be able to verify our claim with references. That way we can determine the validity of claims made by those sources. OK?
by science_geek on December 14th, 2008
So let us begin with evolution, what do you know about the evidence that supports evolution?
by science_geek on December 14th, 2008
I see no evidence supporting evolution. There are gaps in the fossil records. Darwin himself said that if there were evidence of jumps in evolution that did not take a gradual process, his theory would completely fall apart. There is carbon 14 found in fossils, which scientists claim to be millions of years old, however they also say carbon 14 only lasts 60,000 years... how can this be?
by Dandoor on December 14th, 2008
You obviously need to do some actual study of the topic.There are some gaps in the fossil record, but they are being continually filled in as we discovery more and more evidence that supports the theory. If you want to get a better idea of what the tree of life looks like with our present knowledge I would recommend you spend some time looking at this site. You may find it very enlightening.
http://tolweb.org/tree/
by science_geek on December 14th, 2008
1) Can you explain the question i had about the carbon 14 isotope?
2) Is there any transitional fossils that you know of?
by Dandoor on December 15th, 2008
I do not know of any claim of age made about a fossil more than 60k years old with that technique. There are a lot of different isotopes used now that have much longer half lives. There are other techniques used to determine the age of fossils and of the rocks themselves as well. There is not space here to educate you on the methods used for this. I wish that I had the time and space to do it, as it is clear that you have been fed inaccurate and unreliable information.
There are many transitional fossils, in fact almost all of them are in some way transitional. Today's whale are a fine example of a transitional form. They still have legs from the time they were land animals some 60 or so million years ago.
There is a lot more substantial evidence when you look at sites like the Tree of Life website I referred you to. On that site the phylogeny is arranged based on relatedness as revealed by DNA analysis. DNA is the biggest problem for creationism, why are you not attacking that?
by science_geek on December 15th, 2008
Well can i go back to the fossils real quick? One, it doesn't matter that there are other things that we use to determine age, if is still that isotope in them, when we know that that isotope only lasts 60k years, because if they are that old, it would not be found there. Also the ways of determining age by where they are in the fossil layers does not make sense, how do you explain the trees going through multiple layers? Also you said before that they are constantly finding new fossils, however, along with that, they are finding the same types of fossils in completely different layers, and it's becoming more and more random all the time. And as for the whales...
by Dandoor on December 16th, 2008
Land dwelling animals move their tails from side to side, a whale however cannot do this. This sounds insignificant, but any land dwelling animal wishing to evolve into a whale would certainly practice moving its tail up and down on land first. And it could certainly improve, to a point, after that the movement would crush its reproductive member against the pelvis, lowering sexual urges, and it would soon loose interest in reproduction. Not a very positive evolutionary step, and taken to extremes, the tail movement would crush the whole pelvis all together; natural selection would work against the change in tail movements on a land dwelling animal.
by Dandoor on December 16th, 2008
To make the claim as evolutionists do, that land-dwelling mammals evolved into sea-dwelling whales is to claim that there had to be simultaneous accidental genetic changes which allowed the tail to grow larger while the pelvis grew smaller. And all this ignores the problems caused as the ever shrinking pelvis or hip bones reached the point where they were far too small to support the creature’s weight on its hind legs, and yet still too large to let the animal move its tail up and down with any efficiency.To totally convert a land-dwelling mammal into a whale you would also have to replace its sweat glands with thick layers of blubbery fat, change its eyes so that the light rays under sea water are still brought to focus on the retina, change its skin to produce a curious surface efficiently designed to streamline the flow of water, and also find some way to enable it to give birth to young which suckle under water without drowning, a rather essential ‘adaptation.’
by Dandoor on December 16th, 2008
I would like to just touch on DNA and genetics, although it is obviously a very complex science, and I won't really be doing it justice here, but i will do my best. If inherited genes control inherited characters, it would be reasonable to assume that homologous characters are controlled by homologous genes. These would be genes that control similar characters, but which have slowly evolved, changing over time, so that the inherited characters also changed. Thus the front appendages of reptiles, mammals, birds, and humans are said to be homologous. Therefore, they must be controlled by homologous genes. However, it has been proved in many cases that homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes. In organisms which allegedly inherited their front legs from a common ancestor, the front legs as well as the rear legs develop from entirely different groups of gene segments from species to species. (vertebrates referred to are necturus, salamander, frog, lizard, swift, grebe)
by Dandoor on December 16th, 2008
Also, it is true that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are very similar, research is continuing to show they are less similar. This, however is not the only thing we should be looking at, there are more things that are equally, if not more important. Humans and chimpanzees are supposed to be the most-closely related, as some have even suggested that they should be considered the same genus. However, at 18–29% of the genetic loci, humans and gorillas or chimpanzee and gorillas were more closely matched than humans and chimpanzees.
by Dandoor on December 16th, 2008
Humans and chimpanzees allegedly diverged from a common ancestor 5 million years ago, orangutans 13 million years ago and Rhesus 70 million years ago. Therefore, humans should have the fewest number of differentially expressed genes with chimpanzees, then orangutans, and the most with the rhesus macaque. However, chimpanzees have slightly more differentially expressed genes compared to orangutans than compared to rhesus. In addition, the orangutan has essentially the same number of differentially expressed genes with humans as with the rhesus macaques.
by Dandoor on December 16th, 2008
There are many isotopes. Here are some links with actual data and explanations as to why you have been fed that argument as well as parts written in language you will be able to understand.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio.asp
http://www.awitness.org/bible_commentary/genesis/radio_carbon_dating.html
(You have posted so much garbage here that I will be replying with some links. READ them, they will help you not to look so stupid when you try to discuss the topic of evolution with somebody who has studied the topic thoroughly.)
by science_geek on December 16th, 2008
Land dwelling animals move their tails from side to side, a whale however ... OK, now we will deal with this little silliness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetaceans
Show me some evidence of this confusion you speak of. If it is true I will use the information you provide to turn the world of science on its head, by publishing it in a paper. If I do this you can be a co author.
by science_geek on December 16th, 2008
How much do you really know about DNA? (I am a biologist. My work is based in our ability to manipulate DNA.) Once I know what you level of understanding is I will be able to guide you to sources of information that will be most helpful to you.
by science_geek on December 16th, 2008
Again, cite me a valid source to say the the relatedness between our DNA and that of the Bonobo chimpanzee, our nearest living relative, is very well established. Here are some links:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04000.html
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982201002275
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/7/1619.full
One thing you need to understand about science, our knowledge is ever expanding. As we learn new things our perspective changes. We do not need to be given the answers, we are discovering them. I get to do it every day, for a living.
by science_geek on December 16th, 2008
science is based on evidence and empirical data.
Hawthorn fly
One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation. Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring.
by Brain Drain on December 16th, 2008
Brain Drain, That is not an example of evolution taking place. There is a difference between evolution and adaptation. What you are describing sounds a lot like the case of the Galapagos finches. Scientists noticed the size of the beaks of the birds changing and used it as evidence of one species turning into another. However, the beaks would get longer during times of drought and shorter when there was more rain. This happened very quickly and would go back and forth. I have not looked into the Hawthorn flies, but these two cases do sound very similar.
by Dandoor on December 21st, 2008
Instances like the Galapagos finches are trivial and anecdotal next to the fact that gaps in fossil records work in *Favour* of evolution just as much as against it.
Looking at a diverse collection of fossils from a certain era in the Earth's history, we'll see a certain assortment of species in the world, looking at fossils from the same places, but dated a few million years later, we see some species that aren't found anywhere before in the fossil record: How are these new species accounted for, if not by the idea of them having evolved from others?
by Mr. Meaulnes on January 18th, 2009