4/4 Texas Lt. Gov. candidates want creationism in classrooms

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

Enjoyed the thread so far

#52 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

@Master_Live said:

@The-Apostle said:

I would've preferred being taught that rather than force-fed evolution. >_>

Come on Apostle, Evolution is backed by research and evidence; it is the unifying theory of biology. Creationism is fine for a religious studies class.

I'm not the most religious guy myself, but evolution is not a fact that is etched in stone.

Hence why it's called the "theory" of evolution.

It's also called the "theory' of gravity. With your logic, I suggest you jump off a building because theories are just bullshit anyways, right?

#53 Posted by HuggyBear1020 (445 posts) -

I'm a teacher in Texas, generally conservative on most issues, and even I have a problem with this. The students in my class are a captive audience, they are required by law to be there. I prefer to keep religion out of the classroom because I don't want my beliefs contradicting any students' beliefs or forcing other beliefs upon them. Teaching creationism is promoting one set of religious beliefs over all others, and this has absolutely no place in the public school classroom. If any parents wish for their children to learn more about creationism, they are more than free to send their kids to church and/or a private school that follows their belief system.

#54 Edited by Aljosa23 (23612 posts) -

Man this thread is cancer

The-Apostle is terrible

thread needs more whipassmt, though. Guy loves slurping off the GOP and Catholic priests so this is prob win win for him

#55 Posted by GIJames248 (2176 posts) -

Well, it's their state and school system, but I hope they mean intelligent design instead of creationism. At least ID jives with a lot of the data, while creationism is largely a theological and philosophically grounded (however successfully or unsuccessfully) position instead of a scientific one.

#56 Posted by lamprey263 (21022 posts) -

Well, it's their state and school system, but I hope they mean intelligent design instead of creationism. At least ID jives with a lot of the data, while creationism is largely a theological and philosophically grounded (however successfully or unsuccessfully) position instead of a scientific one.

intelligent design is just creationism's trojan horse

#57 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

we need more science it seems

#58 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7505 posts) -

I would've preferred being taught that rather than force-fed evolution. >_>

Christ, you really are a degenerate aren't you? Aren't you still on government welfare bitching about limited government?

#59 Posted by Jd1680a (5824 posts) -

Evolution is pretty much the study of change in life, life becomes adapted to its environment. Changes could be a new predator being introduced into an ecosystem, a microorganism causing disease, or temperature changes, it could be anything.

At a small scale, bacteria have shown to be highly adapted to its environment because its able to reproduce quickly. Penicillin was introduced in mass scale in the early 40s, About four or five years later Penicillin resistant bacteria began appearing and ten years later it becomes mostly ineffective. Most of the bacteria was killed by Penicillin while a small numbers still remain and continue to multiple and pass this immunity to the next generation of bacteria. This is pretty much evolution, changes in the environment lead to species of bacteria to be more adaptive so they could survive.

Another example is the Honduran Milk snake. Honduran Milk snakes are a mimic to the Coral Snake with the same colors but with different color patterns. if there was a predator like, a hawk, saw this pattern it would more then likely leave it alone. This would cause the adults to pass on this gene to the off spring allowing more off spring to survive to pass on its genes and so on. While other snakes that don't have the mimic to the Coral Snake would be more likely to get picked off by the hawk and that species would get pushed out by the Milk Snake for competition for food to the point it would go extinct.

If a scientist were to pick up a fossil and want to know the time frame this animal lived. The scientist can collect rocks from immediate surrounding areas to look for radioactive isotopes. Knowing the half life for each radioactive isotope. they were then determine the approximate time frame the animal lived and died. Of course they cant be super precise, they cant say it died 78,403,353 million years ago and it was on a Thursday in April, its approximate. Biologists been doing this for a long time for them to know what animals appeared in what time frame. so if they were to find a rock layer that only had trilobytes then they would know its Late Pre Cambrian.

We now know that the Sun isn't the only star in the universe that does have orbiting planets. The Earth is far from the only planet in the universe that have life on it. Each of these planets wont be exactly like Earth so life there would have to be adapted to what ever condition. This is where Evolution is the only way to explain how life can be adapted other places in the Universe. For a bible that gives a half page explanation and public schools in Texas that will only say that God did it, isn't a good answer. That would mean that God and the Bible goes well beyond the planet Earth when we know that Earth is nothing more then a dust grain in the Universe. Which means creationism have no credibility.

#60 Posted by themajormayor (25250 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

@DarkGamer007: Again, evolution is not a fact. It's a theory.

I'm not religious, and I'm not atheist either.

I'm more in the agnostic camp. As in, I believe our tiny little human brains can't even begin to comprehend how the universe functions and how life or time itself originated.

Scientists are humans no different than you or me. More educated? Sure, but these are the same people who till this day still can't tell me whether a tomato is a fruit or a fucking vegetable.

Yes they can and they will tell you that it is a fruit.

#61 Edited by Planeforger (15319 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

Yes, science TRIES to explain.

Just as religion TRIES to explain.

Bottom line, neither one brings solid, concrete proof to the table to support their arguments.

Either you're trolling, or you don't understand the scientific method.

Sure, both religions and scientists attempt to answer all of our questions about the universe, but the methodologies are completely different.

Religions (such as they can be generalised):

  • Assert that something is true (such as the existence of gods, the origins of mankind, and so on)
  • Develop a system of rules typically based in fantastical myths (which tend to be embodied in texts like the Bible, and other stories)
  • Spend the rest of their lifespan insisting that the original assertions are true, and attempt to answer all tricky questions by reference to the rules listed in their mythologies/texts

Another important thing about religions is that they never admit to being wrong - even though, statistically speaking, they're essentially always wrong (Every distinct religion in human history has asserted something different and mutually exclusive from one another, therefore either every single religion in human history is incorrect, or every single religion but one is incorrect. Either way, that leaves a 99.999whatever chance of any particular religion being wrong).

Meanwhile, scientists:

  • Observe something about the world and ask questions based on those observations
  • Develop hypotheses that attempt to answer those questions, based on knowledge acquired by earlier scientists
  • Test these hypotheses to determine whether the world actually works in the way expressed in the hypothesis
  • Assess how strongly the evidence supports their hypothesis
  • Establish scientific theories, if the evidence supporting their hypothesis is strong

Importantly, scientists are open to criticism - proving these theories wrong with empirical evidence is actually a fantastic thing. Every incorrect theory gives mankind a stronger picture of how the universe works.

So...not to oversimplify things, but religion "TRIES" to explain things about the universe by saying "Our deity did this, and our religious text proves that - we don't need to question it any further."It assumes that the answers provided in the past are correct, and is resistant to evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, science "TRIES" to explain things about the universe by saying "We have theories and hypotheses on why this happens, but we're going to keep testing until we work it all out." It is welcoming to evidence to the contrary, it is entirely open to overturning old ideas (even hugely popular ideas like "the earth is flat" or "the universe revolves around the earth"), and it holds onto theories until better theories are developed.

I'll let you decide which one is a more logical and useful approach to understanding our world, but the answer seems pretty obvious to me.

#62 Edited by Sword-Demon (6599 posts) -

To have government officials (who serve a government that is supposed to have church and state separated) force the teachings of a single religion upon those who may or may not follow that religion (in a country built upon the ideology of religious freedom) is ridiculous.

Hows about we let science teachers teach science in science class, and let the parents teach their kids about whatever religion they choose to follow...

#63 Posted by jimkabrhel (15382 posts) -

I didn't think it was possible to lose more respect for some OT posters, but it's happened in this thread.

It isn't your belief in creationism that bothers me so much, Apostle. It's your laziness at not looking into the science behind evolution.

#64 Posted by foxhound_fox (85279 posts) -

I do wonder if people do this just for the attention rather than a genuine desire to be this goddamned stupid.

#65 Edited by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

Didn't the US recently get a shitty rank on math and science for some thing or another

#66 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

Didn't the US recently get a shitty rank on math and science for some thing or another

They've been getting shitty rankings on those things for a while now.

#67 Posted by Evdne971 (209 posts) -

People disagreeing must come from the dumbest states.

I feel sorry for you guys

#68 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36560 posts) -
#69 Edited by GIJames248 (2176 posts) -

@lamprey263:

@GIJames248 said:

Well, it's their state and school system, but I hope they mean intelligent design instead of creationism. At least ID jives with a lot of the data, while creationism is largely a theological and philosophically grounded (however successfully or unsuccessfully) position instead of a scientific one.

intelligent design is just creationism's trojan horse

Not certain schools of thought in the ID community, I'm sure some ID advocates are really just posturing Creationists in disguise, but a lot of them are much more restrained and differentiated from creationism.

#70 Edited by Nibroc420 (13546 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Zelda187 said:

@Master_Live said:

@The-Apostle said:

I would've preferred being taught that rather than force-fed evolution. >_>

Come on Apostle, Evolution is backed by research and evidence; it is the unifying theory of biology. Creationism is fine for a religious studies class.

I'm not the most religious guy myself, but evolution is not a fact that is etched in stone.

Hence why it's called the "theory" of evolution.

It's also called the "theory' of gravity. With your logic, I suggest you jump off a building because theories are just bullshit anyways, right?

Uhh..

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation isn't a theory.

#71 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Zelda187 said:

@Master_Live said:

@The-Apostle said:

I would've preferred being taught that rather than force-fed evolution. >_>

Come on Apostle, Evolution is backed by research and evidence; it is the unifying theory of biology. Creationism is fine for a religious studies class.

I'm not the most religious guy myself, but evolution is not a fact that is etched in stone.

Hence why it's called the "theory" of evolution.

It's also called the "theory' of gravity. With your logic, I suggest you jump off a building because theories are just bullshit anyways, right?

Uhh..

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation isn't a theory.

It's both a theory and a law.

#72 Posted by Nibroc420 (13546 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Zelda187 said:

@Master_Live said:

@The-Apostle said:

I would've preferred being taught that rather than force-fed evolution. >_>

Come on Apostle, Evolution is backed by research and evidence; it is the unifying theory of biology. Creationism is fine for a religious studies class.

I'm not the most religious guy myself, but evolution is not a fact that is etched in stone.

Hence why it's called the "theory" of evolution.

It's also called the "theory' of gravity. With your logic, I suggest you jump off a building because theories are just bullshit anyways, right?

Uhh..

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation isn't a theory.

It's both a theory and a law.

#73 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7505 posts) -

@deeliman said:

It's both a theory and a law.

Just stop trying to act like you know anything about science. Newton's law of gravitation is merely a facet of the theory of gravity. It only works at macroscopic levels and its merely an approximation. Its quite obvious you don't understand the difference between the two.

#74 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@Nibroc420: You should take some science lessons, so you might be informed about something for once in your life.

#75 Edited by Nibroc420 (13546 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420: You should take some science lessons, so you might be informed about something for once in your life.

Maybe if you took your own advice, you'd understand the difference between scientific law, and scientific theory.

#76 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420: You should take some science lessons, so you might be informed about something for once in your life.

Maybe if you took your own advice, you'd understand the difference between scientific law, and scientific theory.

I did take science lessons, and that's the reason why you look like an uninformed idiot right now and I don't.

#77 Edited by Nibroc420 (13546 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420: You should take some science lessons, so you might be informed about something for once in your life.

Maybe if you took your own advice, you'd understand the difference between scientific law, and scientific theory.

I did take science lessons, and that's the reason why you look like an uninformed idiot right now and I don't.

Troll more.

#78 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7505 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420: You should take some science lessons, so you might be informed about something for once in your life.

Maybe if you took your own advice, you'd understand the difference between scientific law, and scientific theory.

He simply stated that gravity is also a theory. Its a correct statement.

#79 Edited by Guybrush_3 (8304 posts) -
@Zelda187 said:

@Aljosa23: Learn what the definition of "theory" is. It's basically an educated guess.

The Big Bang "theory" basically says that all of life on Earth, from a microorganism to a blade of grass to intelligent life originated from a giant fucking explosion.

Sorry, I don't just automatically accept those "theories" as facts.

And lets just say that's true. Science still can't explain to me where all that black matter came from, how the first star formed in the sky, how the first speck of dust appeared in space or how time itself originated.

Hell, even Einstein once famously said that to totally dismiss the idea of a "God" or higher power existing is just foolish.

The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about how life began.

Black matter? I think you mean dark matter, and science can't explain it yet. It's been pretty well explained how stars form (including the first ones). The big bang theory actually does explain that matter came from a singularity (including dust) and there is a shit ton of evidence to back it up.

You should probably learn what the theories are and what they say before you blindly dismiss them, because otherwise you just look like an idiot.

#80 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8304 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420: You should take some science lessons, so you might be informed about something for once in your life.

Maybe if you took your own advice, you'd understand the difference between scientific law, and scientific theory.

Tell me, what is the difference?

#81 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3583 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Zelda187 said:

@Master_Live said:

@The-Apostle said:

I would've preferred being taught that rather than force-fed evolution. >_>

Come on Apostle, Evolution is backed by research and evidence; it is the unifying theory of biology. Creationism is fine for a religious studies class.

I'm not the most religious guy myself, but evolution is not a fact that is etched in stone.

Hence why it's called the "theory" of evolution.

It's also called the "theory' of gravity. With your logic, I suggest you jump off a building because theories are just bullshit anyways, right?

Uhh..

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation isn't a theory.

It's both a theory and a law.

you need to read a book....

#82 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3583 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@deeliman said:

@Nibroc420: You should take some science lessons, so you might be informed about something for once in your life.

Maybe if you took your own advice, you'd understand the difference between scientific law, and scientific theory.

Tell me, what is the difference?

laws can be described by math.

ex. F=ma newtons second law.

E = U + K First law of thermodynamics

F=gGm/D^2 Newton's law of Universal gravatation. (which Nibroc doesn't understand what it means) it describes the relationship between gravatational force, mass and distance. It doesn't actually explain what gravity is.

#83 Posted by hoola (6422 posts) -

This is why a more decentralized education system would be for the best. You would have more impact on your child's education and be more involved with the school. But as we have it right now, big government do-gooders from the state (and more and more the federal government) come in and take over funding and the curriculum (which is what happened in my city) so that way people who live hundreds of miles away from you determine what your child learns in school. Then you get a bunch of wackos trying to teach their fantasies in the classroom as facts of real life and there is nothing you can do about it on the local level.

#84 Posted by lostrib (26254 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

@Aljosa23: Learn what the definition of "theory" is. It's basically an educated guess.

The Big Bang "theory" basically says that all of life on Earth, from a microorganism to a blade of grass to intelligent life originated from a giant fucking explosion.

Sorry, I don't just automatically accept those "theories" as facts.

And lets just say that's true. Science still can't explain to me where all that black matter came from, how the first star formed in the sky, how the first speck of dust appeared in space or how time itself originated.

Hell, even Einstein once famously said that to totally dismiss the idea of a "God" or higher power existing is just foolish.

In the context of the Theory of Evolution, theory does not mean what you think it means.

#85 Edited by jimmyjjohn (4 posts) -

"I believe that in fairness we need to expose students to both sides of this," said Dewhurst, who is currently seeking a fourth term as lieutenant governor, according to the outlet. "That's why I've supported including in our textbooks the discussion of the biblical account of life and creation, and I understand there are a lot of people who disagree with me, and believe in evolution."

Thanks

Free Video Loops

#86 Edited by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

Only if we start teaching that Islam, Atheism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Hydaelynism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Haruhiism, Satanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Daedraism, Christianity, Druidry, and The Nine are all equally likely and probable in whatever religious class/place of worship.

It's a science class. Unless you can show some peer reviewed information whatever thing you'd like shown in it should stay out.

#87 Posted by junglist101 (5428 posts) -

I like threads like this. They help me figure out who the morons are.

#88 Posted by -Rhett81- (3536 posts) -

"I believe that in fairness we need to expose students to both sides of this," said Dewhurst, who is currently seeking a fourth term as lieutenant governor, according to the outlet. "That's why I've supported including in our textbooks the discussion of the biblical account of life and creation, and I understand there are a lot of people who disagree with me, and believe in evolution."

Thanks

Sport Motion Graphics

"Both" sides? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

#89 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -

Creationism isn't science. It shouldn't be anywhere NEAR a science class.

#90 Edited by playmynutz (5562 posts) -

My biology professor told the classroom God is not real because of biology. I don't see any conflict between bio and God.

Religion should continue to be taught in history class. Not sure what is creationism.

#91 Edited by THUMPTABLE (1794 posts) -
#92 Edited by lostrib (26254 posts) -
#94 Edited by TheFlush (5324 posts) -

Creationism doesn't use the scientific method, so it has literally NOTHING to do with science, so it also doesn't belong in science class.
Just stick it in some cultural class or something.

#95 Posted by gamerguru100 (10087 posts) -

The US government should pardon Texas and let it peacefully secede. Let's see how long they last on their own.

#96 Posted by Brain_Duster (313 posts) -

@TheFlush said:

Creationism doesn't use the scientific method, so it has literally NOTHING to do with science, so it also doesn't belong in science class.

Just stick it in some cultural class or something.

Yep.

#97 Edited by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

I also believe evolution is aload of bullshit, evolution is just another religion. Have you actually looked into it, and question it? Or is everyone so brainwashed that they just think what other people think. Freemasons control our history, it is there to hide the truth from us. Here is a very good article using scientific fact to disprove evolution.

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Even when they taught us at school this shit, I thought it was alaod of bullshit but got brainwashed into believing it since everyone else believed so.

If you have an open mind, and are not afraid of truth then read this. But so many of you are so closed minded like machines, that you won't even look at it, and go herp derp your an idoit, you do not understand science, even though they don't understand it fully themselves, they just repeat what the system told them to think.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html#sthash.xB8H87Is.dpuf

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution. Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...) - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html#sthash.xB8H87Is.dpuf

#98 Posted by lostrib (26254 posts) -

I also believe evolution is aload of bullshit, evolution is just another religion. Have you actually looked into it, and question it? Or is everyone so brainwashed that they just think what other people think. Freemasons control our history, it is there to hide the truth from us. Here is a very good article using scientific fact to disprove evolution.

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Even when they taught us at school this shit, I thought it was alaod of bullshit but got brainwashed into believing it since everyone else believed so.

If you have an open mind, and are not afraid of truth then read this. But so many of you are so closed minded like machines, that you won't even look at it, and go herp derp your an idoit, you do not understand science, even though they don't understand it fully themselves, they just repeat what the system told them to think.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html#sthash.xB8H87Is.dpuf

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution. Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...) - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html#sthash.xB8H87Is.dpuf

What the fuck is this shit. Holy crap. And do people still not understand what a scientific theory is?

#99 Edited by Master_Live (12286 posts) -

@ultimate-k said:

I also believe evolution is aload of bullshit, evolution is just another religion. Have you actually looked into it, and question it? Or is everyone so brainwashed that they just think what other people think. Freemasons control our history, it is there to hide the truth from us. Here is a very good article using scientific fact to disprove evolution.

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Even when they taught us at school this shit, I thought it was alaod of bullshit but got brainwashed into believing it since everyone else believed so.

If you have an open mind, and are not afraid of truth then read this. But so many of you are so closed minded like machines, that you won't even look at it, and go herp derp your an idoit, you do not understand science, even though they don't understand it fully themselves, they just repeat what the system told them to think.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html#sthash.xB8H87Is.dpuf

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution. Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...) - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html#sthash.xB8H87Is.dpuf

Stop bullshitting, you give me a peer-reviewed research paper attempting to disprove the theory of Evolution and I will read it. Come on buddy, bring it.