The removal of Darwin and evolution from schools is a backwards step

Evolution has to be the most misunderstood scientific theory of all time, and that's because people don't want to understand it -- I think they fear that if they were to understand it, they wouldn't be able to find flaw with it.

It is just a theory... lacking a lot of evidence...

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Evolution has to be the most misunderstood scientific theory of all time, and that's because people don't want to understand it -- I think they fear that if they were to understand it, they wouldn't be able to find flaw with it.

I don’t need think it’s misunderstood, I think it’s disbelieved by many, for varying reasons.

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Evolution has to be the most misunderstood scientific theory of all time, and that's because people don't want to understand it -- I think they fear that if they were to understand it, they wouldn't be able to find flaw with it.

I don’t need think it’s misunderstood, I think it’s disbelieved by many, for varying reasons.

Mainly fairy tales and lack of understanding.

It is pretty staggering how many do not believe in evolution considering the evidence is monumentally positive that it happened and is happening all the time.

Removing it from any education is to the detriment of any school.

That's a telling quote about an ape turning into a human, Mr Singh obviously does not understand the theory. How can he possibly be the minister for higher education?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Evolution has to be the most misunderstood scientific theory of all time, and that's because people don't want to understand it -- I think they fear that if they were to understand it, they wouldn't be able to find flaw with it.

Its not just evolution Ben and i completely condemn the Israeli and turkish government on this.

Sadly Governments are tring to enforce their beliefs and ignore bological facts

Look at all these made up studies that look to force views onto people. From gender studies to viewing white males, as the epitome of evil. Sadly identoty politics plays a massive part in this and even here. Where people are looking to further divide society through such brainless prejudiced concepts

This is just another example. Like with gender studies which ignora biology, this does the same with evolution. They want to ignore the biological facts

The scope of this problem is only just rearing its ugly head

I am appalled its not even being taught and that to me is brainwashing and censurship to all ideas.

I do not agree with creationism, but I would never ban this being ever discussed, but this is what is happenning with many biological facts these days

Didge wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Evolution has to be the most misunderstood scientific theory of all time, and that's because people don't want to understand it -- I think they fear that if they were to understand it, they wouldn't be able to find flaw with it.

Its not just evolution Ben and i completely condemn the Israeli and turkish government on this.

Sadly Governments are tring to enforce their beliefs and ignore bological facts

Look at all these made up studies that look to force views onto people. From gender studies to viewing white males, as the epitome of evil. Sadly identoty politics plays a massive part in this and even here. Where people are looking to further divide society through such brainless prejudiced concepts

This is just another example. Like with gender studies which ignora biology, this does the same with evolution. They want to ignore the biological facts

The scope of this problem is only just rearing its ugly head

I am appalled its not even being taught and that to me is brainwashing and censurship to all ideas.

I do not agree with creationism, but I would never ban this being ever discussed, but this is what is happenning with many biological facts these days

Creationism should be discussed in schools, in Religious Studies class. It absolutely should not be taught or reference in biology as anything like a credible alternative to evolution.

Les wrote:It absolutely should not be taught or reference in biology as anything like a credible alternative to evolution.

Absolutely agree. How do you teach creationism as scientific causation, when you've never even met the chap.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Evolution has to be the most misunderstood scientific theory of all time, and that's because people don't want to understand it -- I think they fear that if they were to understand it, they wouldn't be able to find flaw with it.

I don’t need think it’s misunderstood, I think it’s disbelieved by many, for varying reasons.

Mainly fairy tales and lack of understanding.

It is pretty staggering how many do not believe in evolution considering the evidence is monumentally positive that it happened and is happening all the time.

Removing it from any education is to the detriment of any school.

I’m not advocating it being removed as a possible theory. All theories should be explored in my opinion.

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Evolution has to be the most misunderstood scientific theory of all time, and that's because people don't want to understand it -- I think they fear that if they were to understand it, they wouldn't be able to find flaw with it.

I don’t need think it’s misunderstood, I think it’s disbelieved by many, for varying reasons.

All that nonsense this guy said about an ape being witnessed transforming into a human shows how many people misunderstand it.

Other critiques that show people don't understand evolution include:

* If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

* Where's the "missing link"?

And funny enough, a lot of people are perfectly willing to accept evolution happens to every other living thing, but think we're somehow exempt.

And, like I said, I think evolution is a theory that should be explored.
But not the only theory.

eddie wrote:And, like I said, I think evolution is a theory that should be explored.
But not the only theory.

But it's the best one.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

eddie wrote:And, like I said, I think evolution is a theory that should be explored.
But not the only theory.

But it's the best one.

For you, for now. Unless something else comes along...right?

And besides that...

I think that each individual should decide which theory suits them. We all have our own paths to follow.

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

eddie wrote:And, like I said, I think evolution is a theory that should be explored.
But not the only theory.

But it's the best one.

For you, for now. Unless something else comes along...right?

And besides that...

I think that each individual should decide which theory suits them. We all have our own paths to follow.

Okay, I'll let it rest at that.

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

eddie wrote:And, like I said, I think evolution is a theory that should be explored.
But not the only theory.

But it's the best one.

For you, for now. Unless something else comes along...right?

And besides that...

I think that each individual should decide which theory suits them. We all have our own paths to follow.

See, this is the problem.

Should we let flat earth theories be discussed in classrooms too? If not, why not?

What theory is even remotely close to being as proven as evolution is?

Nothing, that's what.

The so-called missing link is debunked already. The idea of apes changing into people show the level of stupidity from some regarding the subject.
I worked with a guy, years ago, who was skeptical of evolution. But entertained (and I'm NOT making this up) the idea that IF evolution is true, that it is more likely we evolved from mermaids (since they are at least half human). I'm not joking, this is something someone said to me and he was honestly not having a laugh.

Evolving from mermaids, arguments against that involve transformations from one species to another... none of these warrant discussion in a science classroom.

The only reason people still call evolution a 'theory' in the sense it is unproven is because they DO NOT understand it.

A 'theory' is simply a way of explaining how something works. We know how life evolved now, we have the evidence. Yet we still call it 'The Theory of Evolution' because it is ultimately an explanation of how something works. The problem for skeptics is they do NOT understand that there are proven and unproven theories.

Evolution is 99% certain at this point. There may be tiny variances in HOW it happens but we know it happens.

There is not one single viable alternative, unless you know something we don't.

NOTE: when you call it 'a possible theory' it sounds like you consider it unlikely or at best AS likely as creationism or some other radical hypothesis. It isn't.

Put simply, if 99% of evidence pointed to one man being the killer in a murder case, he'd be convicted. Apparently that isn't enough for disbelievers in evolution. Go figure...

Do you know what Les? I didn’t read your post fully because I knew what you’d say. Honestly.

My point is this: let people find out for themfuckingselves! Are you the person who should decide what kids should be allowed to know?

I’ll ask you again: ARE YOU, THE PERSON WHO SHOULD DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION PEOPLE SHOULD LOOK AT?


This is the difference between you and I. There are some theories I think are absolute wank. Do I think that people should know the absolute wank theories?

Absolutely!


Why?

Because they should decide what they believe and I can argue against them, if I wish. They can listen, if they wish. They can think, what they wish. It’s their own right, their own journey. We can only discuss it without anger, or ego, or pride.

One of us will be right or wrong. Maybe we will never know.

Say they change your mind? Say you change theirs?

Just stop judging people by your own opinions. Question them, by all means, but don’t assume you’re right.

That’s not always a good route.

I think it's a matter of classroom time management. If you've got limited time to educate children, you can't teach them every pet theory everyone's ever put forth on a particular topic. You have to choose the theory that has proven itself the most reliable.

Evolution has been proven in an experiment. Not only has creationism never been proven, you can't even test it.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:I think it's a matter of classroom time management. If you've got limited time to educate children, you can't teach them every pet theory everyone's ever put forth on a particular topic. You have to choose the theory that has proven itself the most reliable.

Evolution has been proven in an experiment. Not only has creationism never been proven, you can't even test it.

Ah. So who decides what “pet theory” children should be privy to?

Les wrote:A 'theory' is simply a way of explaining how something works. We know how life evolved now, we have the evidence. Yet we still call it 'The Theory of Evolution' because it is ultimately an explanation of how something works. The problem for skeptics is they do NOT understand that there are proven and unproven theories.

Well, all ideas are theories. That is because any scientific finding is corrigible. Some findings are more sure than others, but they are always capable of being amended or improved upon. I mean, once they were certain that the earth was flat.

BTW, evolutionists are being challenged by those who believe in extraterrestrial intervention. So there are challenges from both sides.

eddie wrote:Do you know what Les? I didn’t read your post fully because I knew what you’d say. Honestly.

My point is this: let people find out for themfuckingselves! Are you the person who should decide what kids should be allowed to know?

I’ll ask you again: ARE YOU, THE PERSON WHO SHOULD DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION PEOPLE  SHOULD LOOK AT?


This is the difference between you and I. There are some theories I think are absolute wank. Do I think that people should know the absolute wank theories?

Absolutely!


Why?

Because they should decide what they believe and I can argue against them, if I wish. They can listen, if they wish. They can think, what they wish. It’s their own right, their own journey. We can only discuss it without anger, or ego, or pride.

One of us will be right or wrong. Maybe we will never know.

Say they change your mind? Say you change theirs?

Just stop judging people by your own opinions. Question them, by all means, but don’t assume you’re right.

That’s not always a good route.

But that's just willful ignorance.

Clearly, on the evidence of the idiotic Indian politician and my mermaid entertaining colleague people do NOT find out for themselves. They dislike a certain idea, make stupid assumptions and just further show why half of humanity is happy to condemn themselves to stupidity rather than ACTUALLY find things out for themselves at all.

People SHOULD know about bad theories, but SHOULD they be TAUGHT in classrooms?

Obviously not. That is, as Ben says, an absolute waste of classroom time.

The fact you are even TELLING me I assume I'm right by advocating teaching evolution in classrooms is honestly utterly ridiculous.

Am I assuming I'm right by saying the earth is round, the moon isn't made of cheese and that praying to gods will not cure cancer? Of course not! It is so bloody obvious is shouldn't need explaining.

I'm sorry eds, but it sounds like even you clearly do not fully understand evolution yourself if you can put it in the ballpark of 'other wank theories'.

You did not read my post regarding the different meanings of theories or why we shouldn't teach flat earth theories? Then it is sad to say you obviously don't mind exercising some aversion to the discussing the subject for yourself. So NO, people cannot always be trusted to find things out for themselves.

The only reason evolution isn't already considered as good as fact is because of idiot, often religiously motivated politicians who still push the idea it is 'only a theory'.

EDIT:On do I get to decide who knows what. NO. Clearly not. But schools don't have time to teach manufactured controversy at the expense of centuries of scientific knowledge.

Original Quill wrote:

Les wrote:A 'theory' is simply a way of explaining how something works. We know how life evolved now, we have the evidence. Yet we still call it 'The Theory of Evolution' because it is ultimately an explanation of how something works. The problem for skeptics is they do NOT understand that there are proven and unproven theories.

Well, all ideas are theories.  That is because any scientific finding is corrigible.  Some findings are more sure than others, but they are always capable of being amended or improved upon.  I mean, once they were certain that the earth was flat.

BTW, evolutionists are being challenged by those who believe in extraterrestrial intervention.  So there are challenges from both sides.

Extraterrestrial intervention is not entirely outlandish tbf (though still fairly outlandish lol).

However, that would only present us with an interference in the evolutionary chain, it wouldn't disprove evolution itself.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:
Its not just evolution Ben and i completely condemn the Israeli and turkish government on this.

Sadly Governments are tring to enforce their beliefs and ignore bological facts

Look at all these made up studies that look to force views onto people. From gender studies to viewing white males, as the epitome of evil. Sadly identoty politics plays a massive part in this and even here. Where people are looking to further divide society through such brainless prejudiced concepts

This is just another example. Like with gender studies which ignora biology, this does the same with evolution. They want to ignore the biological facts

The scope of this problem is only just rearing its ugly head

I am appalled its not even being taught and that to me is brainwashing and censurship to all ideas.

I do not agree with creationism, but I would never ban this being ever discussed, but this is what is happenning with many biological facts these days

Creationism should be discussed in schools, in Religious Studies class. It absolutely should not be taught or reference in biology as anything like a credible alternative to evolution.

Actually, I think it should be taught within science. To show it is unscientific

Like any failed scientific view, it should be discussed and even more to have someone scientific to teach how wrong and flawed it is

I mean we already teach about previous scientific views from the past that we now see how wrong people once were.

So yesy it should be taught within science, as what better people to show and explain why it is flawed that science teachers

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:
Its not just evolution Ben and i completely condemn the Israeli and turkish government on this.

Sadly Governments are tring to enforce their beliefs and ignore bological facts

Look at all these made up studies that look to force views onto people. From gender studies to viewing white males, as the epitome of evil. Sadly identoty politics plays a massive part in this and even here. Where people are looking to further divide society through such brainless prejudiced concepts

This is just another example. Like with gender studies which ignora biology, this does the same with evolution. They want to ignore the biological facts

The scope of this problem is only just rearing its ugly head

I am appalled its not even being taught and that to me is brainwashing and censurship to all ideas.

I do not agree with creationism, but I would never ban this being ever discussed, but this is what is happenning with many biological facts these days

Creationism should be discussed in schools, in Religious Studies class. It absolutely should not be taught or reference in biology as anything like a credible alternative to evolution.

Actually, I think it should be taught within science. To show it is unscientific

Like any failed scientific view, it should be discussed and even more to have someone scientific to teach how wrong and flawed it is

I mean we already teach about previous scientific views from the past that we now see how wrong people once were.

So yesy it should be taught within science, as what better people to show and explain why it is flawed that science teachers

I do agree that flawed science could be shown. But creationism isn't even science, it's just religious based assertions and as Ben points out, time spent entertaining those ideas is time not spent on more useful things.

The entire problem with regarding the OP seems to be a woeful misunderstanding of whether evolution happens or not.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:
Its not just evolution Ben and i completely condemn the Israeli and turkish government on this.

Sadly Governments are tring to enforce their beliefs and ignore bological facts

Look at all these made up studies that look to force views onto people. From gender studies to viewing white males, as the epitome of evil. Sadly identoty politics plays a massive part in this and even here. Where people are looking to further divide society through such brainless prejudiced concepts

This is just another example. Like with gender studies which ignora biology, this does the same with evolution. They want to ignore the biological facts

The scope of this problem is only just rearing its ugly head

I am appalled its not even being taught and that to me is brainwashing and censurship to all ideas.

I do not agree with creationism, but I would never ban this being ever discussed, but this is what is happenning with many biological facts these days

Creationism should be discussed in schools, in Religious Studies class. It absolutely should not be taught or reference in biology as anything like a credible alternative to evolution.

Actually, I think it should be taught within science. To show it is unscientific

Like any failed scientific view, it should be discussed and even more to have someone scientific to teach how wrong and flawed it is

I mean we already teach about previous scientific views from the past that we now see how wrong people once were.

So yesy it should be taught within science, as what better people to show and explain why it is flawed that science teachers

You'd achieve more by teaching Darwinism versus Lamarckism  

Creationism has no place in schools, it's a fairytale nothing more, if parents want to teach their kids that they can do outside of school hours

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually, I think it should be taught within science. To show it is unscientific

Like any failed scientific view, it should be discussed and even more to have someone scientific to teach how wrong and flawed it is

I mean we already teach about previous scientific views from the past that we now see how wrong people once were.

So yesy it should be taught within science, as what better people to show and explain why it is flawed that science teachers

You'd achieve more by teaching Darwinism versus Lamarckism  

Creationism has no place in schools, it's a fairytale nothing more, if parents want to teach their kids that they can do outside of school hours

Nothing should ever be censured Veya and to me if taught within religion. Then its not really being challenged. As a religious teacher can and will back such a view

To me, you tackle this head on with science

That way you are informing people how flawed such a view is. Where that is the issue, some parents brainwash their children with this. Hence why this needs to be counter balanced by scientific teachers

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually, I think it should be taught within science. To show it is unscientific

Like any failed scientific view, it should be discussed and even more to have someone scientific to teach how wrong and flawed it is

I mean we already teach about previous scientific views from the past that we now see how wrong people once were.

So yesy it should be taught within science, as what better people to show and explain why it is flawed that science teachers

I do agree that flawed science could be shown. But creationism isn't even science, it's just religious based assertions and as Ben points out, time spent entertaining those ideas is time not spent on more useful things.

The entire problem with regarding the OP seems to be a woeful misunderstanding of whether evolution happens or not.

That is just a very poor way to think about this and this is where often people on the left go wrong.

By not discussing this, you then provide credance to a poor idea, that people then view the scientific world does not even want to discuss this. This happens all the time and how conspiracies form, because they then think the sicnetific world is trying to hide something

That is a poor way to teach. You do not learn about the horrors and evils of the world, by simple not speaking or teaching about them

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually, I think it should be taught within science. To show it is unscientific

Like any failed scientific view, it should be discussed and even more to have someone scientific to teach how wrong and flawed it is

I mean we already teach about previous scientific views from the past that we now see how wrong people once were.

So yesy it should be taught within science, as what better people to show and explain why it is flawed that science teachers

I do agree that flawed science could be shown. But creationism isn't even science, it's just religious based assertions and as Ben points out, time spent entertaining those ideas is time not spent on more useful things.

The entire problem with regarding the OP seems to be a woeful misunderstanding of whether evolution happens or not.

That is just a very poor way to think about this and this is where often people on the left go wrong.

By not discussing this, you then provide credance to a poor idea, that people then view the scientific world does not even want to discuss this. This happens all the time and how conspiracies form, because they then think the sicnetific world is trying to hide something

That is a poor way to teach. You do not learn about the horrors and evils of the world, by simple not speaking or teaching about them

History, English and Social studies will teach about plenty of evils.

Let's discuss what Science classes are meant to do. They are to teach students to both known how life, the elements and physics work and to experiment.

Where does teaching about creationism fit in to that? Further, if you overtly teach it as a nonsense you'll just upset the idiots in society in who think it is true.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is just a very poor way to think about this and this is where often people on the left go wrong.

By not discussing this, you then provide credance to a poor idea, that people then view the scientific world does not even want to discuss this. This happens all the time and how conspiracies form, because they then think the sicnetific world is trying to hide something

That is a poor way to teach. You do not learn about the horrors and evils of the world, by simple not speaking or teaching about them

History, English and Social studies will teach about plenty of evils.

Let's discuss what Science classes are meant to do. They are to teach students to both known how life, the elements and physics work and to experiment.

Where does teaching about creationism fit in to that? Further, if you overtly teach it as a nonsense you'll just upset the idiots in society in who think it is true.

So your view is not to offend people

Which is again the problem again that stems from the left

So even more does it need to be taught as it then allows skeptism to fall within people with their beliefs

Again if its taught in religion, its no being challenged and not being challenged by science teachers

Then kids brainwashed with this go on believeing their mythical beliefs

So when you teach science it is to also show flawed ideas throughout history

Science has been one longing curve where scientists are continually out to disproves each others hypothesis

That is what science is about and many things have been taught before that were once thought to be scientific facts and later disproven

I also think that Theocracy and political religious governements should be taught within Politics and political science

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually, I think it should be taught within science. To show it is unscientific

Like any failed scientific view, it should be discussed and even more to have someone scientific to teach how wrong and flawed it is

I mean we already teach about previous scientific views from the past that we now see how wrong people once were.

So yesy it should be taught within science, as what better people to show and explain why it is flawed that science teachers

You'd achieve more by teaching Darwinism versus Lamarckism  

Creationism has no place in schools, it's a fairytale nothing more, if parents want to teach their kids that they can do outside of school hours

Nothing should ever be censured Veya and to me if taught within religion. Then its not really being challenged. As a religious teacher can and will back such a view

To me, you tackle this head on with science

That way you are informing people how flawed such a view is. Where that is the issue, some parents brainwash their children with this. Hence why this needs to be counter balanced by scientific teachers

You don't need to inform anyone that has been taught science first how ridiculous it is.  
get in first while they are young with real science, it doesn't even have to be evolution, just the solar system and gravity etc, which you can prove with a telescope
these Basic facts contradict biblical creationism.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Nothing should ever be censured Veya and to me if taught within religion. Then its not really being challenged. As a religious teacher can and will back such a view

To me, you tackle this head on with science

That way you are informing people how flawed such a view is. Where that is the issue, some parents brainwash their children with this. Hence why this needs to be counter balanced by scientific teachers

You don't need to inform anyone that has been taught science first how ridiculous it is.  
get in first while they are young with real science, it doesn't even have to be evolution, just the solar system and gravity etc, which you can prove with a telescope
these Basic facts contradict biblical creationism.

Yes Veya, but there will be students that take science who hold creationist views and to not discuss this. Is to me, then not challenging said views. Again I 100% believe in evolution and with the many different views within physics like string theory etc. So hence even more to teach scientific facts against the biblical creationist claims. What better way to address and discuss with said students that believe this. You are then challenging their core beliefs. It opens up dialogue and debate.

We should never mollycuddle children and essentially challenge beliefs that people have

It allows then for kids growing up to have a healthier view on discussing a range of beliefs and then not to simple dismiss them, but actually prove them to be flawed

this does lead into the problem les alludes to
Creationism has no basis in scientific methodology (a Scientist Can't teach it, because they can't go through the methodology that 'proves' it) you simply can't compare them. Science is a process of observation and 'evolving' Theories (even Darwinism is already superseded by more detailed/accurate Theories), Creationism is because this fairytale says so. 

Biblical Creationism should be compared to Hindu Creationism etc
they have similarities, I think it is better to draw a clear distinction between religion and reality

veya_victaous wrote:this does lead into the problem les alludes to
Creationism has no basis in scientific methodology (a Scientist Can't teach it, because they can't go through the methodology that 'proves' it) you simply can't compare them. Science is a process of observation and 'evolving' Theories (even Darwinism is already superseded by more detailed/accurate Theories), Creationism is because this fairytale says so. 

Biblical Creationism should be compared to Hindu Creationism etc
they have similarities, I think it is better to draw a clear distinction between religion and reality

You are still failing to see the point and I know very well it has no bases in scientific methodology, but and here is the big but.

It still needs to be taught as why it is wrong and a failed and flawed concept

Just as many aspects of concepts have been proven to be wrong over the many centuries of human history

The point is though to actually discuss this and not censur this, as what does that achieve?

Nothing, as then the still falwed belief goes unchallenged within teaching. As its simple rendered to religious teaching

Hence you fail to see the point mate

The best way to dispell poor and bad beliefs is to openly discuss them and teach why they are so poor and wrong

I mean Veya, you have told me you are open to beliving that the Sun is a living entity, kind of like a deity. A destructive deity

I think, that to me that is wrong, but you have a right to that view. Would you want to have an open discussion on that within science, or have someone simple censur this from ever being discussed?

Too often I am seeing today and more so again on the left, how they wish to construct a form of teaching that is not open to many ideas, no matter how poor and wrong they are. They simple want to have people shut down, when they should actually be open and challenge said beliefs. The moment you go down the road of censurship, goes against every single aspect of scientific teaching. As its always about continually challenging.

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

But it's the best one.

For you, for now. Unless something else comes along...right?

And besides that...

I think that each individual should decide which theory suits them. We all have our own paths to follow.

I agree that everyone should be able to decide Eddie, but they should at least look at the evidence before they do and there lies the problem with people that do not believe in evolution.

They simple do not look at the evidence and the evidence is overwhelming

So granted, its up to everyone to decide, but poor decision making is made based off never ever listening to both sides of the arguments. I always do and hence why where once I was a Christian and never believed in evolution. I took a very bold step and actually started to read and research about it.

When I first joined sky news forum, many years ago. I was still very skeptical about evolution, having read Michael Cremo's views in books like Forbidden Archeology I had read. It took a poster, "I am King" who you may remember. Who tore me to pieces on his knowledge of science and evolution, being the fact he worked in biology. When people dismiss theories like evolution, they simple have never actually ever studied it or have an agenda to not want to take in the evidence, because they have a religious agenda

So the floor is really open to you to actually read up on this and then you can truely say you have and been able to make an active choice on your reasons on what you believe.

Hence why I think creationism should be taught to children and shown how poor and wrong it is, with undeniable data on this. As seen it took "I am King", far more intelligent on science than I am, to help me thus understand why I was wrong. Hence if people are closeminded and never look at the evidence. Then they are simple failing themselves.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

But it's the best one.

For you, for now. Unless something else comes along...right?

And besides that...

I think that each individual should decide which theory suits them. We all have our own paths to follow.

I agree that everyone should be able to decide Eddie, but they should at least look at the evidence before they do and there lies the problem with people that do not believe in evolution.

They simple do not look at the evidence and the evidence is overwhelming

So granted, its up to everyone to decide, but poor decision making is made based off never ever listening to both sides of the arguments. I always do and hence why where once I was a Christian and never believed in evolution. I took a very bold step and actually started to read and research about it.

When I first joined sky news forum, many years ago. I was still very skeptical about evolution, having read Michael Cremo's views in books like Forbidden Archeology I had read. It took a poster, "I am King" who you may remember. Who tore me to pieces on his knowledge of science and evolution, being the fact he worked in biology. When people dismiss theories like evolution, they simple have never actually ever studied it or have an agenda to not want to take in the evidence, because they have a religious agenda

So the floor is really open to you to actually read up on this and then you can truely say you have and been able to make an active choice on your reasons on what you believe.

Hence why I think creationism should be taught to children and shown how poor and wrong it is, with undeniable data on this. As seen it took "I am King", far more intelligent on science than I am, to help me thus understand why I was wrong. Hence if people are closeminded and never look at the evidence. Then they are simple failing themselves.

Did you ever watch Richard Dawkins discussion with that awful Christian woman (I forget her name but she basically smiled and spoke like a robot for 60 minutes while Dawkins explained things that clearly went way over her head)?

She just kept repeating lines about there being 'not enough fossil evidence' and that was pretty much it. Things like that, along with 'I've never seen an ape turn into a man' guy and 'more likely we'd have come from mermaids' guy are perfect examples of people not looking into this even remotely.

I am King was a great poster, I miss minds like his on forums like this. Genuine thinkers.

I think a lot of the issue people have with evolution is a) it appears complex at a glance, and many people what 'simple' answers to life's big questions, and b) they strongly dislike the idea we share a base ancestor with monkeys, therefore questioning what it is to be human. So fear, ultimately. And a crying shame that is too.

Can anyone here post the conclusive evidence that proves the theory of evolution?


And the last time I remember seeing 'I am king' posting, he was trying to back up the moon landings as true, but then disappeared after being shown some contradictory evidence that he was unable to refute...!

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:this does lead into the problem les alludes to
Creationism has no basis in scientific methodology (a Scientist Can't teach it, because they can't go through the methodology that 'proves' it) you simply can't compare them. Science is a process of observation and 'evolving' Theories (even Darwinism is already superseded by more detailed/accurate Theories), Creationism is because this fairytale says so. 

Biblical Creationism should be compared to Hindu Creationism etc
they have similarities, I think it is better to draw a clear distinction between religion and reality

You are still failing to see the point and I know very well it has no bases in scientific methodology, but and here is the big but.

It still needs to be taught as why it is wrong and a failed and flawed concept

Just as many aspects of concepts have been proven to be wrong over the many centuries of human history

The point is though to actually discuss this and not censur this, as what does that achieve?

Nothing, as then the still falwed belief goes unchallenged within teaching. As its simple rendered to religious teaching

Hence you fail to see the point mate

The best way to dispell poor and bad beliefs is to openly discuss them and teach why they are so poor and wrong

I mean Veya, you have told me you are open to beliving that the Sun is a living entity, kind of like a deity. A destructive deity

I think, that to me that is wrong, but you have a right to that view. Would you want to have an open discussion on that within science, or have someone simple censur this from ever being discussed?

Too often I am seeing today and more so again on the left, how they wish to construct a form of teaching that is not open to many ideas, no matter how poor and wrong they are. They simple want to have people shut down, when they should actually be open and challenge said beliefs. The moment you go down the road of censurship, goes against every single aspect of scientific teaching. As its always about continually challenging.

No your missing the POINT !!!
it is NOT science!!! it is not a science concept and IT has no place even being spoken of in the same breath as Science 

Fuck you Christians and Ex-Christians, I don't give a Fuck How Dumb you are Your Fairytale Bullshit IS NOT SCIENCE!!


You are WRONG the Problem is the Right trying to Put up FALSE ideas because of their own Personal Issues Dealing with REALITY !!! Which is NOT fucking creationism and as SUCH it has NO place in the Study of reality, we don't make a curriculum for one little group of Numbskulls, the Default is not Moron Christian Upbringing even if Yours was.

I suggest you get back in your pram if you are going to act like that Veya

You never took on a simgle point I said and are simple now ranting and demanding

So little point in continuing with you

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

I agree that everyone should be able to decide Eddie, but they should at least look at the evidence before they do and there lies the problem with people that do not believe in evolution.

They simple do not look at the evidence and the evidence is overwhelming

So granted, its up to everyone to decide, but poor decision making is made based off never ever listening to both sides of the arguments. I always do and hence why where once I was a Christian and never believed in evolution. I took a very bold step and actually started to read and research about it.

When I first joined sky news forum, many years ago. I was still very skeptical about evolution, having read Michael Cremo's views in books like Forbidden Archeology I had read. It took a poster, "I am King" who you may remember. Who tore me to pieces on his knowledge of science and evolution, being the fact he worked in biology. When people dismiss theories like evolution, they simple have never actually ever studied it or have an agenda to not want to take in the evidence, because they have a religious agenda

So the floor is really open to you to actually read up on this and then you can truely say you have and been able to make an active choice on your reasons on what you believe.

Hence why I think creationism should be taught to children and shown how poor and wrong it is, with undeniable data on this. As seen it took "I am King", far more intelligent on science than I am, to help me thus understand why I was wrong. Hence if people are closeminded and never look at the evidence. Then they are simple failing themselves.

Did you ever watch Richard Dawkins discussion with that awful Christian woman (I forget her name but she basically smiled and spoke like a robot for 60 minutes while Dawkins explained things that clearly went way over her head)?

She just kept repeating lines about there being 'not enough fossil evidence' and that was pretty much it. Things like that, along with 'I've never seen an ape turn into a man' guy and 'more likely we'd have come from mermaids' guy are perfect examples of people not looking into this even remotely.

I am King was a great poster, I miss minds like his on forums like this. Genuine thinkers.

I think a lot of the issue people have with evolution is a) it appears complex at a glance, and many people what 'simple' answers to life's big questions, and b) they strongly dislike the idea we share a base ancestor with monkeys, therefore questioning what it is to be human. So fear, ultimately. And a crying shame that is too.

He is a great poster and its a shame he is not on here

Got on really well with I am king

Yeah I think I remember that debate with Dawkins

Tommy Monk wrote:Can anyone here post the conclusive evidence that proves the theory of evolution?


And the last time I remember seeing 'I am king' posting, he was trying to back up the moon landings as true, but then disappeared after being shown some contradictory evidence that he was unable to refute...!

The fact we have fossil records that fit into a chronology of evolutionary states from basic primates to homosapiens.

The enormous amount of similarities between humans and other primates strongly points to a common ancestor.

The fact new fossils are never dated in such a way to contradict the evidence we have.

The fact most if not all animals are uniquely adapted to their local environment.

The fact we NEVER find fossils of currently existing animals that lived at the time of prehistoric animals, and vice-versa.

The fact also have examples of Blue Moon Butterflies and Italian Wall Lizards, just two examples of evolution we have observed in terms of their genetics actually evolving quickly through generations to better survive in their environments.

You see how many FACTS there are for evolution?

What is the evidence against?

Tommy Monk wrote:Can anyone here post the conclusive evidence that proves the theory of evolution?

What constitutes conclusive evidence? There is no such thing.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Can anyone here post the conclusive evidence that proves the theory of evolution?

What constitutes conclusive evidence?  There is no such thing.

Seeing a monkey turn into a man?

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Can anyone here post the conclusive evidence that proves the theory of evolution?


And the last time I remember seeing 'I am king' posting, he was trying to back up the moon landings as true, but then disappeared after being shown some contradictory evidence that he was unable to refute...!

The fact we have fossil records that fit into a chronology of evolutionary states from basic primates to homosapiens.

The enormous amount of similarities between humans and other primates strongly points to a common ancestor.

The fact new fossils are never dated in such a way to contradict the evidence we have.

The fact most if not all animals are uniquely adapted to their local environment.

The fact we NEVER find fossils of currently existing animals that lived at the time of prehistoric animals, and vice-versa.

The fact also have examples of Blue Moon Butterflies and Italian Wall Lizards, just two examples of evolution we have observed in terms of their genetics actually evolving quickly through generations to better survive in their environments.

You see how many FACTS there are for evolution?

What is the evidence against?

You obviously don't know the difference between proven scientific fact and unproven speculative theory/fiction...!


Because you are trying to pass off the latter as being the former...!


Here's an Interesting read for you...


https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup/


There are 10 parts to this... Part 1 here...


https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci/


Links to following parts are contained within the article pages...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Can anyone here post the conclusive evidence that proves the theory of evolution?


And the last time I remember seeing 'I am king' posting, he was trying to back up the moon landings as true, but then disappeared after being shown some contradictory evidence that he was unable to refute...!

The fact we have fossil records that fit into a chronology of evolutionary states from basic primates to homosapiens.

The enormous amount of similarities between humans and other primates strongly points to a common ancestor.

The fact new fossils are never dated in such a way to contradict the evidence we have.

The fact most if not all animals are uniquely adapted to their local environment.

The fact we NEVER find fossils of currently existing animals that lived at the time of prehistoric animals, and vice-versa.

The fact also have examples of Blue Moon Butterflies and Italian Wall Lizards, just two examples of evolution we have observed in terms of their genetics actually evolving quickly through generations to better survive in their environments.

You see how many FACTS there are for evolution?

What is the evidence against?

You obviously don't know the difference between proven scientific fact and unproven speculative theory/fiction...!


Because you are trying to pass off the latter as being the former...!


Here's an Interesting read for you...


https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup/


There are 10 parts to this... Part 1 here...


https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci/


Links to following parts are contained within the article pages...

Firstly, the source:

"Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Evolution News and Views is a part of The Discovery Institute which is a non-profit Christian public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. (1/29/2017)

Source: http://www.evolutionnews.org/"


Secondly:

The first article does NOT disprove anything. It mainly just talks about gaps. Yet the oldest fossils of man's oldest ancestors unquestionably predate the later ones. This is way too convenient to be chance.

The article also acknowldges explosions in variations of life, eg the Cambrian, therefore acknowledging evolution of some kinds.

The article only questions gradual and pure Darwinian evolution. Which means it cannot truly question evolution at its core. In fact, most evolutionists today do not even discuss it in purely 'Darwinian' terms. Which means your source is discussing something irrelevant and behind modern science.

The second article questions the theory of the primordial soup. But even that doesn't question evolution itself, just one single possible theory of the starting point. Again proving the actual core fact of evolution happening is left unchallenged.

Much of it then comes back to 'gap filling' and this is to be expected for a Christian source such as this. The evidence isn't 'simple' so they cannot accept it.

The missing link claims are pointless, since most life that dies decomposes or is destroyed one way or another. We cannot posdinly expect a clean chain of fossils of every transitional stage.

Still, if a theory adequetly explains something AND all the evidence amassed confirms it, then that is almost always enough to state the theory as fact.

So, having read your article, I'll put forward some questions to you:

1) if evolution didn't happen, why isn't there more evidence of overlaps between evolved species and their ancestors?

2) if evolution didn't happen, how do you explain evolution witnessed today (e.g. in the lizard and butterfly above)?

3) if evolution didn't happen, what do YOU suppose did?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
The fact we have fossil records that fit into a chronology of evolutionary states from basic primates to homosapiens.

The enormous amount of similarities between humans and other primates strongly points to a common ancestor.

The fact new fossils are never dated in such a way to contradict the evidence we have.

The fact most if not all animals are uniquely adapted to their local environment.

The fact we NEVER find fossils of currently existing animals that lived at the time of prehistoric animals, and vice-versa.

The fact also have examples of Blue Moon Butterflies and Italian Wall Lizards, just two examples of evolution we have observed in terms of their genetics actually evolving quickly through generations to better survive in their environments.

You see how many FACTS there are for evolution?

What is the evidence against?

You obviously don't know the difference between proven scientific fact and unproven speculative theory/fiction...!

Because you are trying to pass off the latter as being the former...!


Here's an Interesting read for you...

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup/

There are 10 parts to this... Part 1 here...

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci/

Links to following parts are contained within the article pages...

Go away, Tommykins...

Linking to creationist/"ID" anti-science propaganda sites doesn't provide you with the evidence you so earnestly hope for..

Once again you prove yourself to be one of the thickest dullards on here.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:this does lead into the problem les alludes to
Creationism has no basis in scientific methodology (a Scientist Can't teach it, because they can't go through the methodology that 'proves' it) you simply can't compare them. Science is a process of observation and 'evolving' Theories (even Darwinism is already superseded by more detailed/accurate Theories), Creationism is because this fairytale says so. 

Biblical Creationism should be compared to Hindu Creationism etc
they have similarities, I think it is better to draw a clear distinction between religion and reality

You are still failing to see the point and I know very well it has no bases in scientific methodology, but and here is the big but.

It still needs to be taught as why it is wrong and a failed and flawed concept

Just as many aspects of concepts have been proven to be wrong over the many centuries of human history

The point is though to actually discuss this and not censur this, as what does that achieve?

Nothing, as then the still falwed belief goes unchallenged within teaching. As its simple rendered to religious teaching

Hence you fail to see the point mate

The best way to dispell poor and bad beliefs is to openly discuss them and teach why they are so poor and wrong

I mean Veya, you have told me you are open to beliving that the Sun is a living entity, kind of like a deity. A destructive deity

I think, that to me that is wrong, but you have a right to that view. Would you want to have an open discussion on that within science, or have someone simple censur this from ever being discussed?

Too often I am seeing today and more so again on the left, how they wish to construct a form of teaching that is not open to many ideas, no matter how poor and wrong they are. They simple want to have people shut down, when they should actually be open and challenge said beliefs. The moment you go down the road of censurship, goes against every single aspect of scientific teaching. As its always about continually challenging.

NO 
you do not teach Flawed concepts unless you want to keep them alive !!!!
We don't teach Maths by saying 2+2= 9  because it's WRONG 100% WRONG just like Creationism
Stop Promoting and Spreading WRONGNESS 


Get it through Your Christian Propaganda Warped Skull 
IT's a fariytale anyone with any respect for Science WOULD NEVER suggest Polluting Science to cater for some Christian Dullards!!! 
it's not being censured it not a FUCKING THING AT ALL!!! it has NO basis in reality so NO presence in SCIENCE !!!!!


Dumb asses like YOU are the reason there are Dumb asses like Tommy


And Everything I have said about the Sun Has Gone MILES over your head if you think that is even remotely what i have ever said
As Ben Pointed out in another thread about turning solar energy into Fuels, ALL ENERGY goes back to the Sun that's it and that's more than enough to be deity by any objective measurements.

Firstly...


Posting up some waffle from a bullshit 'fact checker' web site, as being the authority on what is/isn't fact, is simply irrelevant waffle...!


Secondly...


Article quotes experts saying fossils show examples of fully formed species... none showing origin in transitional form...


And the cambrian period shows the huge number of new species suddenly appearing... again fully formed... and no evidence of transitional change from anything before...





So where is this conclusive evidence that you claim...?

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What constitutes conclusive evidence?  There is no such thing.

Seeing a monkey turn into a man?

But for the time it takes, we've already seen that.

Tommy Monk wrote:And the cambrian period shows the huge number of new species suddenly appearing... again fully formed... and no evidence of transitional change from anything before...

You sound very much like extraterrestrial intervention, as shown on that TV show, Ancient Aliens.  They say that evolution is nothing more than aliens taking people up into their flying saucers and performing experiments on them that advance the capability of their bodies.  Is that your theory?

They disavow evolution, too.

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly...


Posting up some waffle from a bullshit 'fact checker' web site, as being the authority on what is/isn't fact, is simply irrelevant waffle...!


Secondly...


Article quotes experts saying fossils show examples of fully formed species... none showing origin in transitional form...


And the cambrian period shows the huge number of new species suddenly appearing... again fully formed... and no evidence of transitional change from anything before...





So where is this conclusive evidence that you claim...?

So no answers to any of the questions?

Problem is, every 'transition' would pretty much be its own species.

E.g.    Species A exists. Evolution over perhaps millions of years leads to the existences of Species F, an ancestor of Species A. Species A is long gone by this point. Millions more years pass and Species K exists, its ancestor is the now nonexistent Species F. Each species in between IS a transition between one previously existing species and the ones that will follow.

NO fossils may be found of Species C or Species J (which doesn't mean there never will). But we do in the meantime find fossils of Species D and Species G.

To evolution deniers, this just creates more missing links (i.e. where is the fossils between Species F and G), when in reality they fit an established evolutionary timeline.

So a clean line of 'transitions' is near impossible to find for reasons I already gave.

Any answers to any of the questions, tommy? Or are you just going to keep throwing up articles you think support your claims?