Evolution...

**R13** · May 24th, 2009, 04:08 PM

What's you're stance on it?

Do you believe it? Or not? Should it be taught in schools? Should creationism be?

I think it should be, has a lot more factual scientific evidence behind it..esp when compared to Adam and Eve.

Figured this might be an interesting topic.

**1inStripes** · May 24th, 2009, 04:17 PM

I don't know why both can't be taught to be honest. The biggest thing about teaching evolution is that you also must teach in depth mutation. Generally too many "evolutions" are genetic mutations passed on, which isn't accounted for.

**starbuck** · May 24th, 2009, 04:52 PM

seems like a thread just to start an argument to me

**Gotch** · May 24th, 2009, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by starbuck

seems like a thread just to start an argument to me

Sure does.

Originally Posted by Burton13

What's you're stance on it?

Do you believe it? Or not? Should it be taught in schools? Should creationism be?

I think it should be, has a lot more factual scientific evidence behind it..esp when compared to Adam and Eve.

Figured this might be an interesting topic.

For now I'll simply counter with another question.

Do you believe the theory of recapitulation should have been (should be) taught in schools in support of evolution? For years it was taught as a cornerstone of evolutionary evidence.

This is of course the theory that the human embryo goes through the various stages of evolution during its development. Without going to sources I believe this theory goes back to around 1825 or so, then about 40/50 years later German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel detailed the theory and called it "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

This was taught as fact for decade upon decade. I was taught this as fact. You can still find current references to the theory as being true in some encyclopedias. I recently spoke with a young pharmacist (just recently graduated) who believed this to be true.

So what is the truth? Just after the turn of the century the science of Embryology had disproved this theory and at least by 1925 it was widely known to be false among those in the field of Embryonic science.

But......

It continued to be taught as fact. Not for a year, not for a decade, not for half a century, no, it continued to be taught widely until the 90's at least, and obviously is still today taught to some degree!

If anyone wants to check the facts a good place to start would be the work of Dr. Jan Langman. Who is this "Langman", a crazy creationist? No, this is Dr. Langman as in the Langman award for outstanding achievement in the field of Embryology.

The truth is that there is no argument here. The theory is false, it is proven false, it has been known to be false for almost a century, yet it is/was taught as fact.

Now that the background is out of the way, on to the point.

There had to be a motive for this I would think? What was the motive for knowingly propagating a lie for nearly a century?

Does this lie draw other things into question? I think it does. This required a *HUGE* conspiracy to pull off, it really did. To teach a known lie for a century took motive, effort, people in a position to make it happen, and a complete disregard for the truth.

I think it draws into question the honesty of these people on each and every issue.

How can I say "these people"? Well who was out there correcting the lie? It took so many people to carry this out, it is astounding to me.

**R13** · May 24th, 2009, 08:36 PM

Its not a thread to start an argument, it's for debate and there's a difference. If you aren't interested in it, then don't read or post in it..no one's making you. There's been some hot-button topics posted on here recently and everyone who was doing the actual debating, didn't resort to attacks, name-calling and such..the idiot or two who comes in and makes a dumb comment isn't considered a part of the debate.

Why should it be? If some part of a theory is proven wrong, it should have been thrown out. I don't think it's some big conspiracy, just a lack of understanding about the subject. It's been rejected by almost every modern scientist and in the later years wasn't accepted by most, so why would it be taught as truth? The Theory of Evolution hasn't been debunked, so why should it not be taught? It isn't completely understood, because science has took a long time to develop and for us to understand...but we'll continue to understand it better as time goes on. It is accepted as fact/truth and it will continue to be accepted as that until proven otherwise. Creationism has absolutely nothing factual to back it up with, nothing-notta-zip. And IMO has been debunked actually considering that we now know how old the earth is, the fossils and when we know humans actually walked around and it wasn't with dinosaurs. It shouldn't be taught in school because it comes straight from the Bible(religion) and it isn't really supported by anything but just "belief". We don't teach fairly tales in school and Adam/Eve, a talking snake and a magical tree shouldn't be an exception. Look at Liberty University(which buckeye told me about) and their 3,000 year old dinosaur bones, we know that they weren't here then but they twisted/disgraced science to make it seem that way...what's the difference in the example you gave?

**1inStripes** · May 24th, 2009, 08:41 PM

I wonder how the "facts" of how old the Earth is is actually tested? Scientists have ran information that "dates" things with certain machines and etc, but how accurate are they truly. We do not know, so even "facts" are "guesstimates".

**R13** · May 24th, 2009, 08:53 PM

That's completely right, but how long have we really been doing those test and how long have we even had the capabilities to do that? We're still fairly young when it comes to science and we're only going to move forward with technology. There are a lot of different numbers out there, but its not that grossly gaped..and I don't know if we'll ever know that exact number, but it's somewheres in between.

**1inStripes** · May 24th, 2009, 09:02 PM

So should we be teaching something that we do not know is right then?

**Diets17** · May 24th, 2009, 09:16 PM

Pretty interesting article here.

Missing Link Found: Scientists Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man's Earliest Ancestor | World News | Sky News

**Gotch** · May 24th, 2009, 09:20 PM

Once a liar, always a liar. If one commits perjury the rest of their testimony is questionable. The evolutionist movement clung to recapitulation for decades and decades after it had been disproved. And apparently it's still being taught to some extent.

There are numerous such example, like the gluing of the peppered moths to the trees in the famous UK study. Get caught lying....no problem, it doesn't mean that evolution is not true. No it doesn't, but it does mean that many of the proponents of the theory are liars and the silence of the rest says volumes about their character as well.

Where in the bible does it say how old the earth is?

You don't have to be a young earther to believe in intelligent design.

Many in the creationist movement are misled as well, but it lacks the widespread and universal organization of lies that exist and have existed in the evolutionary movement.

In my opinion, and I've been interested in this subject for twenty some years, there is more actual evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. In fact mutation is about it on the evolutionist side that isn't questionable and dubious, and it isn't in question at all. Mutation exists....but it is not in any way proof or even real evidence of evolution.

Trying to goad another into a reaction by being condescending about their beliefs is in very poor taste and is juvenile. Me personally, I'm only concerned about the teaching of the New Testament.