Both or neither.

47% is a majority. I don't know how many people agree with me that Creation should be taught in public schools. Someone should take a poll. I'm just saying they should leave room for error on there part in saying that it WAS evolution by at least showing the Creation theory to the class. I admit this country, sadly will probably never teach Creation. I also admit that I have absolutly no idea on how to calculate the probablility of MACRO-EVOLUTION, but JohnF, it is not a fact, we do not know for sure it happened, just like with Creation. I am interested in how someone would go about 'trying' to calculate probability of MACRO-EVOLUTION. I will not hesitate to admit that micro-evolution happens daily.

There is a legit arguement for all of those. ( young earth, global flood theory, ect) How do YOU think they are rubbish. probably becauuse you don't agree with them! I agree that the bible can't be taught in the U.S. , but those legit theories CAN. again I just wish we could mention them, so that kids could know that it is a possiblity. get more specific on why they are not legit theories.

give more detail on "complete renunciation of these ideas"

What there is is legitimate counter-evidence for them. For instance a young solar system is falsified by the orbital motion of asteroids and the global flood is falsified by paleobotany. The same way we conclude that any model is rubbish: the don't consistently explain the data. For instance how does a global flood explain sorting in the fossil plant record?

ok... but since evolution is not 100% proven and in such a heated debate with creation I would suggest it being a Origin Theory Class, or something like that. That would be Grrrr8T!

Yet global flood also would help explain the seemingly old look to Earth. also: in support of young earth______ The existence of comets as an argument for a recent creation is examined. Most creationist presentations of this topic are out of date. To rectify this situation, the tremendous amount of work on the origin and evolution of comets by evolutionary astronomers over the past two decades is reviewed. While it was once thought that the Oort cloud could account for all comets, computer simulations have clearly shown that short-period comets cannot originate from the cloud, so the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain the origin of the short period comets. The alleged discovery of the Kuiper belt is discussed, while the status of the Oort cloud as a theory is questioned. It is concluded that the existence of comets is still a valid argument for a recent creation of the Solar System.

Did your truth detector run out of batteries? Anything less than 50% is a minority, strictly speaking. What theory? Care to share with us the precise contents of this "theory"?BTW - "God did it" is not a scientific theory. We know for a fact that evolution happens. Just like we know for a fact that this pile of dirt will get bigger if I keep shovelling soil on it. One shovel-full is the equivalent to a "micro-evolutionary" step. Lots of shovels-full amount to a "macro-evolutionary" change. If we know for a fact that shovels-full will pile the dirt higher (i.e that evolutionary changes occur), we can know for a fact that after enough shovels-full, this pile will soon become a hill and eventually a mountain (i.e. macro-evolution happens). Great! Now, tell us what boundaries there are that prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. To help you understand that the distinction between micro and macro evolution is basically arbitrarily quantitative and not qualitative, perhaps you should also consider what barriers exist that would prevent a pile of dirt from becoming a hill and eventually a mountain given enough shovels of soil. When does a hill become a mountain?[This message has been edited by ::, 01-18-2004]

If they're is a 48%, a 30%, a 2%, and a 20% it is still a majority.

I'd say it's 100% as proven as any other scientific theory, like relativity or the germ theory of disease. That is to say, it's as proven as it gets. There's no serious scientific controversy about the validity of the theory of evolution.

Ok, I mean't macro-evolution is not 100% proven - micro is.

Ok, I meant macro-evolution is not 100% proven - micro is.

No, it really wouldn't. For instance, it wouldn't explain why plants become "less evolved" as you head down in the fossil layers. It wouldn't explain geologic strata that can only be formed under specific situations that wouldn't occur during a flood. I don't know anything about comets. What I do know is that the spin situation of the asteriod belt is not consistent with a recent creation 6000 years ago. They've been there way too long.

Moving the goalposts, are we?Anyway, there's no difference between micro and macro. It's like saying that walking to the store is microwalking, and walking ten miles is macro-walking. It's the same process over different amounts of time.

No - that's what I meant all along - who would be stupid enough to argue against evolution? No - bacteria 'evolving' into a new subspecies is different than bacteria/organism to human.
It may be the same process but it is totally different - even in theory.

Yes, if you think about plant seeming less 'evolved' as you move down fossil layers it would explain the global flood. After the flood, the plants would be in new environments, climates, ect, so they would have to adapt to the new surroundings.How do you KNOW they have "been there way to long"? 6,000 years is a long time, definitly not recently. Well I guess it depends on whether you've been poisened with the BILLIONS OF YEARS bs.The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’. The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.
Comets disintegrate too quickly
Not enough mud or salt on the sea floor
The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
Many strata (mountainous area) are too tightly bent
Helium in the wrong placesI can go on, would you like me to?
___________________________________________
The EARTH IS SIX TO TEN THOUSAND YEARS OLD
___________________________________________{Shortened those long lines of "underscores", to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-19-2004]