The Dangers Of Creationism In Education

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually no, I don't recall ever hearing about the phylogenetic tree (I guess my old adage that I learn something new everyday is true).

But I do not endorse it.

Well good for you. I'm sure jesus would be proud! "thou shalt not learn"

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Resorting to personal attacks now?

You have failed to give a satisfactory answer to any of my points aimed towards your points. So why not try that first?

Why not making points first?

I'm halfway around the world, I don't have daily internet access, so the last thing I'm going to do is teach some thirteen year old dumbass basic biology so he can quit thinking he makes valid points about evolution. Wait until August. Go read an effing textbook like the rest of the world instead of whining about it on the net.

Originally posted by Alliance
Why not making points first?

I'm halfway around the world, I don't have daily internet access, so the last thing I'm going to do is teach some thirteen year old dumbass basic biology so he can quit thinking he makes valid points about evolution. Wait until August. Go read an effing textbook like the rest of the world instead of whining about it on the net.

And I am not whining over here. I have mentioned some valid points that evolutionists can't refute. I have refuted the case of Darwin's finches and even Barnacles. And I have also mentioned some points regarding adaptability.

Lots of people over here do not understand properly about Theory of Evolution themselves. They claim that the Theory have been modified from before due to discovery of genetics, which may be true. However Darwin said that all advanced Life-forms evolved from a single celled organism. Some people in this thread deny this. So the problem lies in the advocates of Evolution like you who make contradictory statements and cause confusion.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Lots of people over here do not understand properly about Theory of Evolution themselves. They claim that the Theory have been modified from before due to discovery of genetics, which may be true.

It's not "this may be true", it is "that is certainly ****ing true".

That's how science works. You know nothing.

Oh joy, "half-shark, half-whale" boy is back.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not "this may be true", it is "that is certainly ****ing true".

That's how science works. You know nothing.

The Theory of Creation however remains the same.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh joy, "half-shark, half-whale" boy is back.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Because you say that I know nothing, it does not means that I know nothing. The field of genetics is still under research. This means that even more changes will be expected to occur in the Theory of Evolution, which will cause more issues.

The Theory of Creation however remains the same.

Yeah, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Because you say that I know nothing, it does not means that I know nothing. The field of genetics is still under research. This means that even more changes will be expected to occur in the Theory of Evolution, which will cause more issues.

The Theory of Creation however remains the same.

Creation isnt a theory.., its a fairy tale

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Looks like that an absense of a single word "appearance" in an old quote of mine has caused an emotional stress on your mind. Try to move on next time because your behavior shows that you have yet to mature, kid.

Your behavior shows that you're sorely out of your depth and a waste of time and space.

"Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?

Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?"
Followed by:
"What is it?

A mutated whale?" which has now been edited to:
"What is it?

A mutated shark?"

Then only after much ridicule at having posted such stupid statements and a link having been posted of what a whaleshark is, you began to claim that you were just commenting on the appearance of the animal, despite the questions heavily suggesting the contrary.

This is all in conjunction with the general lack of understanding of evolutionary processes, most glaringly in the above example being devoid of any knowledge of convergent evolution, all while claiming some extensive understanding or study of evolution; which probably merely consists of whatever you can find on creationist websites on teh interwebs. For some reason thinking that disappearing for a while would make everyone forget that you're an utter fool.

Run along pretender.

^ Then a Dung Beetle would be a beetle made of dung? 😆

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My behavior shows that I don't suffer fools well.

Your behavior shows that you're sorely out of your depth and a waste of time and space.

"Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?

Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?"
Followed by:
"What is it?

A mutated whale?" which has now been edited to:
"What is it?

A mutated shark?"

Then only after much ridicule at having posted such stupid statements and a link having been posted of what a whaleshark is, you began to claim that you were just commenting on the appearance of the animal, despite the questions heavily suggesting the contrary.

This is all in conjunction with the general lack of understanding of evolutionary processes, most glaringly in the above example being devoid of any knowledge of convergent evolution, all while claiming some extensive understanding or study of evolution; which probably merely consists of whatever you can find on creationist websites on teh interwebs. For some reason thinking that disappearing for a while would make everyone forget that you're an utter fool.

Run along pretender.

😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Then a Dung Beetle would be a beetle made of dung? 😆

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

The Theory of Creation however remains the same.

Yes, a layman's theory rather than a scientific theory

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Yes, a layman's theory rather than a scientific theory

Why do people think stagnate = good?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Because you say that I know nothing, it does not means that I know nothing. The field of genetics is still under research. This means that even more changes will be expected to occur in the Theory of Evolution, which will cause more issues.

The Theory of Creation however remains the same.

Theory n.

the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

The Theory of Creationism is not truly a theory. It's a beleif, a Hypthosis at best.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I think that I have made some valid points before but you failed to answer them. Now if you choose to ignore those points, then it is not my fault but yours and it shows your level of ignorance.

You talk about ignorance? Your level of understanding of biology is so juvinile you've had to edit your posts and repost requests. You haven't seen such ignorance from me. The only ignorant freak here is you. I know both evolution and ID. AND GUESS WHAT!!! I don't use retarded websites for brainless slugs. I learn from scholars. Can you say that? I think not.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And I am not whining over here. I have mentioned some valid points that evolutionists can't refute. I have refuted the case of Darwin's finches and even Barnacles. And I have also mentioned some points regarding adaptability.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Lots of people over here do not understand properly about Theory of Evolution themselves.

Thats why I am here.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
They claim that the Theory have been modified from before due to discovery of genetics, which may be true.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
However Darwin said that all advanced Life-forms evolved from a single celled organism. Some people in this thread deny this. So the problem lies in the advocates of Evolution like you who make contradictory statements and cause confusion.

Besides, get your damn facts straight.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali a Hypthosis at best. [/B]

Hypotheses are testable. So no, its not.