Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
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.
Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote: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.
Biology would exist with Darwin's theory; Geology is just earth physics; and medicine never needed Darwin's theory when DNA was discovered.
Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
Biology would exist with Darwin's theory;
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.
Geology is just earth physics;
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.)
and medicine never needed Darwin's theory when DNA was discovered.
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.
A fact is something that is true. We can know that something is true if there is a lot of evidence that supports it.
There is a lot of evidence to show that evolution is true. So evolution is probably a fact.
We should teach children facts that are true, especially when those facts are important in understanding why the world is the way it is. Evolution is important because it explains just about everything in biology. Children should be taught about evolution.
Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
A theory (aka strong conclusion) which brings with it no discernable technological benefits cannot be a fact.
Sorry but the age of the universe is not a theory. It is though, a very strong conclusion, strong enough to use the description I included.
While in science we never "prove" anything conclusively true, we can disprove things.
Those things which are proven to be false, must be abandoned. That includes things like a Young Earth or Universe. They are simply wrong and so we put them aside.
Second, the theories such as the Theory of Evolution (as opposed to the Fact that Evolution happened) certainly do have "discernable[sic] technological benefits". The whole field of Genetics is based on the Theory of Evolution; all of modern geology is based on an old earth; all of astronomy is based on an old Universe. The fact that we can use other animals to test new drugs is based on the fact that they are related to us.
While the Theory of Evolution is only the best explanation so far of how Evolution happened, and that we know the theory will change as new information comes to light, we will not go backwards to those things that have been shown to be false.
Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:Second, the theories such as the Theory of Evolution (as opposed to the Fact that Evolution happened) certainly do have "discernable[sic] technological benefits". The whole field of Genetics is based on the Theory of Evolution; all of modern geology is based on an old earth; all of astronomy is based on an old Universe. The fact that we can use other animals to test new drugs is based on the fact that they are related to us.
The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution. While it is true that most geologists have the premise of an old earth, a young earth geology fits in well with Gold's theory of a hot biosphere. Secondly, astronomy borders on psuedoscience by giving us theories of light years and black holes. I subscribe to the nuclear plasmologist's theory of astronomy. There was no big bang, the universe gave no indication of when it began but life on earth began suddenly.
Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model. No light years, no fossil fuels, no black holes. C has always been about the max speed of an electron. (I believe photons are much faster than 186K-miles/sec.)
There will never be overwhelming proof of an old earth at this rate.
Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
I meant a nuclear plasmologist's theory. I wish I knew the guy's name. He discovered galaxies, "gas clouds", stars all exhibit plasma matter like behavior.
The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution.
Sorry, but DNA was simply another step in the field of Genetics. Unfortunately for the Biblical Creationists and the Young Earth supporters, it is just another nail in the Coffin of Ignorance called YEC and Biblical Creationism. Two really big things came with the discovery and partial decoding of DNA. One is the fact that every living thing is related. But the second biggest thing is that DNA totally destroyed any hope that there was ever a world-wide flood or a single creation where all kinds were made in a short period of time.
In one very short period of time the Noachian Flood and Special Creation were totally disproved by the most unexpected means.
If either of those had been true, there would be indications of such a bottleneck in the DNA and the bottleneck would be the same for EVERY species. Well, bottlenecks can be seen, but they are all at different periods in the past.
Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model.
Again, since no one has EVERY presented a Young Earth Creationist Model, it doesn't much matter. In addition, simply fitting with some model does not add much support. What supports the absolute FACT of Evolution and Old Earth, even older Universe, is that many, many different lines of question all lead to the same conclusions.
Young Earth or Biblical Creationism should only be taught in schools as examples of really bad science and as clear examples both of how Science rejects pseudoscience and as how ignorant people can be persuaded to believe absolute nonsense.
The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution. While it is true that most geologists have the premise of an old earth, a young earth geology fits in well with Gold's theory of a hot biosphere. Secondly, astronomy borders on psuedoscience by giving us theories of light years and black holes. I subscribe to the nuclear plasmologist's theory of astronomy. There was no big bang, the universe gave no indication of when it began but life on earth began suddenly.
Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model. No light years, no fossil fuels, no black holes. C has always been about the max speed of an electron. (I believe photons are much faster than 186K-miles/sec.)
There will never be overwhelming proof of an old earth at this rate.
Sounds like a nut to me, fooj. Too bad you don't remember his name.
You shouldn't accept a scientific "theory" just because it leads to the conclusions you want. You should examine it to see whether the data actually supports it. This plasma junk -- what do mainstream scientists say about it? Why don't you like the evaluations of the mainstream scientists? Are they factually incorrect? Illogical? Or are the conclusions just the sort of conclusions you don't want to accept?
I meant a nuclear plasmologist's theory. I wish I knew the guy's name. He discovered galaxies, "gas clouds", stars all exhibit plasma matter like behavior.
quote:Sorry, but DNA was simply another step in the field of Genetics. Unfortunately for the Biblical Creationists and the Young Earth supporters, it is just another nail in the Coffin of Ignorance called YEC and Biblical Creationism. Two really big things came with the discovery and partial decoding of DNA. One is the fact that every living thing is related. But the second biggest thing is that DNA totally destroyed any hope that there was ever a world-wide flood or a single creation where all kinds were made in a short period of time.
The worldwide flood was not dependent on any DNA bottlenecks. Rather bottlenecks would prevent a good outcome from a flood which is described in genesis. (eg, fresh water mixing with salt water). The flood merely curtained the mountains or hills; and there was an ideal gene pool from which everything spring. DNA became limited by change in atmosphere, and inbreeding became a problem. I don't believe most fossils are flood related though, since the earth was cleaved after the flood. This happened because of the waters on the high place (translated heaven) broke.
quote:Young Earth or Biblical Creationism should only be taught in schools as examples of really bad science and as clear examples both of how Science rejects pseudoscience and as how ignorant people can be persuaded to believe absolute nonsense.
I think you are overeacting. If it is not plausible fact as you say, noone will waste their time teaching it. You also have failed to show how genetics can be random. Since the tools for decoding are in the organism and since 'primates' are not like bugs, they could not have speciated into human beings. There is no mechanism in the sperm of apes and primates to suggest the ability to speciate.
quote:Again, since no one has EVERY presented a Young Earth Creationist Model, it doesn't much matter. In addition, simply fitting with some model does not add much support. What supports the absolute FACT of Evolution and Old Earth, even older Universe, is that many, many different lines of question all lead to the same conclusions.
I think it is relevent to point out when an unusual model is forced into an old-earth chronology, when it points the other way.
™ Version 4.2
