Negative Impacts on Society

Pardon? The theory of evolution is, if you will, an "interpretation" of the evidence -- yes. However, no one has offered the slightist hint of another scientific theory based on this evidence that explains the evidence. If you think you have another one you could open a thread to explain it. You can list a representation of the evidence that you are including (there is much to much to list all of it) and then show a cohesive alternative explanation.Evolution having occured is, of course, is the very real observable evidence. The theory (interpretation of the evolutionary changes we see) is based on this observable evidence. So your sentence above doesn't seem to make sense.To simplify, at various point in time spread over nearly 3.5 billion years the life forms on earth have been different. The nature of the changes with time supplies samples of life forms with a particular kind of pattern through both time and geography.You need to explain this pattern. Then you need to explain the relationship of living things to past life. Then you need to explain the relationships between extant living things. When you have it all sorted out then you have an alternative interpretation which you may put forward for testing against the current one.

You might want to browse over
Message 1 and then we can ask others to jump in and give examples.Guys and gals, to be fair I think we should try to stick with just quotes from the listed 'compentant' creationists, ok? I think they could go on the end of the above topic (or create a new one )I will demonstrate some modicum of discipline and avoid piling on.

There is a whole forum on the topic of dating Dates and DatingIf you think the evidence can 'go both ways' then do show us how.

There is a thread on that. Creation DOES need to be taught with evolutionI think that is one where I agreed it should be taught. It would be torn to pieces. But the political stink would be huge.Would creationists really like to see the issues in Dates and Dating discussed in detail? Would they like the errors of their material gone over in detail?I doubt it.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-29-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-29-2004]

Something which is not being pointed out here is that the variations are only a percentage of the raw date values. That is those without corrections. So ignoring the fluctuations still produces dates that are usable for the purposes here but not necessarily for archeological purposes.This stuff does, of course, all belong in the dates and dating forum. Not here.For any of those wishing to show how the dating methods are wrong there is one word that you seem to be ignoring: CorrelationUntil this is dealt with you haven't really touched the dating issues.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-10-2004]

[/qs]Ridiculous. Of course, our numbers are fractional, and these numbers, like .0221 are abstractions, not really literal.[/qs]This looks like you've picked the mantissa of Avogadro's number as an example. As I read this I can't believe what I'm reading so I must misunderstand you.Could you explain exactly what you mean here?

I agree with many who have been amazed that we can use our mathematics to model the universe. Was it Einstein who said that whatever else, God must be a mathematician?We recognize that what we have is, at best, a model.So what? That's what we've got. It works darn well (so far).

I won't comment here. This is all off topic.