Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

Uh-huh. So, essentially, what you're suggesting is that the majority of scientists are either dishonest or simpletons?What exactly is your experience in the sciences that leads you to conclude that scientists are ignoring counterindications in their data? I work with scientists every day - it's possible to make the argument that I am one myself, though I would not claim such a lofty title yet - and absolutely never in my experience has a scientist reached for data that simply wasn't there, or ignored a disproof of their hypothesis.Leveling a charge of fraud against an entire profession is a very bold move indeed and I would like you to explain exactly how it is you feel comfortable doing that. Are you trained in the sciences? Do you do science? Do you work with scientists in their laboratories? Or is this just behavior that you're assuming to be true of most scientists? Isn't he one of the lying, fraudulent, idiot scientists that you've just told us we need to take with a "grain of salt"?

Oh, ok. So when you level this charge that scientists as a rule ignore clear contradictions to their theories, you're just making that up. You've never actually seen any scientist do that; that's just how you imagine it. Gotcha. What, just because they were wrong? Did it occur to you, possibly, that the reason that the scientific consensus - which never was that there would be an ice age, by the way - concluded global warming when before it had not was because they discovered new evidence that prompted them to change their mind? Again, did it occur to you that the reason for this change was because, at the time you're talking about, evidence was unknown that later was known? No? Didn't occur to you at all? What makes you think they knew they lacked knowledge? Did it occur to you that they came to the conclusion that the evidence warranted, and that as the new evidence comes in, it's reasonable to come to new conclusions?The charge you leveled wasn't that scientists lack infinite knowledge; of course they don't. Science is done by humans who come to tentative conclusions based on what they know at the time. And that's why the conclusions are always tentative - sometimes we learn something new that changes our mind. And that's a good thing. Stasis is a feature, generally, of wrong ideas.The charge you leveled was that scientists knowingly ignore evidence that their theories are wrong. Again, is that a charge that you can substiantiate, or is that just something you're making up? Again, my experience with scientists - which is pretty considerable - is that I've never met a single one who would consider ignoring data simply because it would disprove their theory. Every single scientist I know has a considerably greater interest in getting it right than in proving their theories, and that's what we would expect - you often gain as much knowledge and acclaim from disproving a theory as proving it. Either way you learn something new. But if you fudge the data you learn nothing. Then why level a made-up charge of dishonesty? Remember that you just accused most scientists of knowingly falsifying their data or ommitting significant disconfirming evidence. Is that a charge you have evidence for, or are you just making things up? On what?

That's not adaptation; that's metamorphosis, a programmed body development in the organism. Insects metamorph no matter what environment you place them in; adaptation is inherently environment-dependant. Somehow I doubt it would be enough to satisfy your kind. Were we able to show you what you ask for, I doubt you would do anything but describe it as "adaptation", and complain that the worm did not evolve intelligence alongside.Would it satisfy you to see observed evolution of multicelluarlity from single-celled organisms?

Evolution doesn't posit creatures changing into other creatures; evolution describes how populations change over time by means of descent with modification. So your example is an example of science fiction; organisms don't "morph" in evolution, they give rise to offspring that are slightly different than themselves. Which is, of course, exactly what we observe. Hundreds. For instance, the observed development of multicellularity from previously unicellular organisms.

Because a population moved into an environment where adaptations such as legginess or flight were supremely beneficial.

I'm open to whatever possibilities you can provide evidence for.How about, instead of rolling up in here and psychoanalyzing a bunch of people you've never ever met, you read some posts first? How about instead of dismissing us as closeminded, you actually try to convince us with arguments and evidence?Or is invective the best that you have? How about you present some of that, ok?

Great post. Post of the Month material, in fact, except that the admins appear to be about seven days late in actually creating an August POTM thread.

Go through her classwork and start typing parts of it into Google. Doubtless she's committed academic dishonesty along the way. When you find something, petition to have her expelled.She doesn't have the right to launch an ideological crusade to get you fired. Professors aren't the only ones whose academic background can fall under intense scrutiny.

The discernable technological benefits are that biology makes sense in the light of evolution; geology makes sense in the light of the evolutionary timeline; and medicine makes sense in the light of genetics.To assert that evolution is a theory with no technological benefits is nonsensical. The benefits of evolutionary biology are found in every field that deals with the world of living things.

But it doesn't make any sense without evolution. It's not predictive or explanitory without evolution; without evolution it's just a kind of stamp collecting. And it's "earth physics" that provides a great deal of support for evolution. The evolutionary timeline is necessary to explain the features of Earth's geology and to use geology for practical purposes (oil exploration, for instance. No oil exploration company employs creationist or "Biblical" geology.) Genetics, again, is a part of evolution; and evolution is necessary to explain many of the features of genetics. To assert that evolution isn't useful to medicine is foolish.

Based on what evidence? And if that's true, why is it that we've never observed a photon travelling faster than that speed?You have a lot of ideas that don't bear any connection to the real world.

Nobody is. Does that tell you something, perhaps?

In fact, measuring the speed of light is so easy, it's regularly done in class by undergraduate physics majors. All it takes is some mirrors. In fact, you can do it at home with a microwave and some chocolate: Laman tidak ditemukan - Game Slot Gacor & Bandar Togel Toto ResmiIt's easy to measure the speed of light, and every time it'd done, they get the same result. What measurements have you done that lead you to believe it's faster? Light is known not to be electrons. You're really just making this up as you go along, aren't you?