Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools

[james bond]

There are many transitional fossils. You simply reinforce your profound ignorance by furthering falsehoods.

Haha. Yours are all questionable. Nothing that really counts as a common ancestor.

 

[Hollie]

Haha. Yours are all questionable. Nothing that really counts as a common ancestor.

The type of comment one expects from a science illiterate / religious extremist.

 

[Clyde 154]

So you're blaming the school system for YOUR Ignorance
Or the politics of Indoctrinated Religious FREAKS like YOU not allowing it in those schools.
Or both?

And once again...
A "scientific theory," is a well substantiated set of ideas, NOT mere conjecture/the common usage of 'theory,' that is the STUPID or DISHONEST numero uno among Ignorant godists.

160 years and many new sciences and NONE contradict it,
and all relevant ones help confirm it. (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc, etc)

`
`
`

Human evolution as presented by the Darwinian cultists suggests that vertical evolution is TRUTH. Yes there are differences in evolution. One type of evolution is a fact of science.........Horizontal Evolution, i.e., evolution within species, if man had not been created with the ability to adapt to his environment he would have became extinct the first time he came into contract with the common cold virus...etc., the first time there was a drastic climate change (evolution of skin color, etc.)

The type of evolution taught as truth yet has never been confirmed via any scientific method experimentation.....is Vertical Evolution, i.e., the change of one type of life form into a completely different creature. Such as suggesting but unable to prove that man evolved from primates.....by presenting the false premise that a commonality of DNA makes that a FACT.

Its a fact of science that ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE on earth share DNA to some extent. Simply because a primate was created with a DNA signature that includes over 90% of man's DNA is not evidence that a primate evolved into man.........or a fish evolved into a primate because of shared DNA...etc.,

For evolution to be true as taught by the Darwinian Cultists (vertical evolution into a different life form).........NEW INFORMATION would be required or added to a pre-existing DNA signature. There simply is no scientific evidence that proves that MUTATION adds information.

In Fact the scientific method proves that mutation deforms or takes away from an existing DNA signature. A mutated creature or a creature that was born with faulty DNA is not evolution. Much like the evolutionary cultist will present a picture of some deformed fish and claim that this creature was caught in a state of evolutionary transition.

Another fact to consider: Mr. Pasteur proved that Life can only be reproduced WITHIN SPECIES...i.e., that life can only stim from pre-existing life of the same species.

You presented a false premise and claimed that evolution has been proven true when the basic tenet of vertical evolution must by necessity begin with life stimming from non living matter. Yet each and every time that the scientific method is applied to that theory........its falsified not confirmed. If not simply present the experiment that proves that life was first created from non living matter. When you attempt to erect a building you cannot construct it on a false foundation.

But you will then claim that it does not matter if this basic tenet (abiogenesis) cannot be proven.........that does not stop vertical evolution from being true.

Now.......simply present the experiment based upon the Scientific Method that falsifies CREATION. Its abiogenesis that is falsified. Creation has never been falsified by any scientific experiment.

Logical Truth: If Abiogenesis is not found to be true.......then God cannot be dismissed as a possible cause of CREATION.

 

[Wuwei]

I've said many times that James Hutton and Charles Lyell admitted that evolution, evolutionary thinking, and uniformitarianism was based on the religion of atheism. It isn't based on basic science, but the religion of atheism. Uniformitarianism and evolution started out to contradict the Bible and creation science. Basic science would consider creationism and this is why it should be taught in schools as part of basic science.

I do admit I said many times that you and your side have their atheist science of evolution and beliefs while the creationists have their creation science and the Bible. We are on two different sides of science and religion. Why should I hate atheists for that? God hates sin, especially putting false gods/idols before him such as evolution and evolutionary thinking. He will take care of it during the rapture and global fire on Earth and the rest in the afterlife. It's his anger towards you and the atheists and not mine. Mine is only to present and argue creation science here. You have to recognize my side, too. We're not going to teach the rapture and end of the world.

Finally, there is no evidence for evolution because of there is no common ancestor. There are no transitional fossils. That fact destroys the lies of evolution.

Baloney. It's obvious in your posts that you have an enormous capacity for hatred for scientists that disagree with YEC; you hate all atheists; and even Chinese; and you disbelieve basic science. You have shown that many times.

.

 

[Wuwei]

I can't help it if you do not understand the ramifications of quantum mechanics. I got it from Stephen Hawking and his multiverse theory.

You don't understand the physical constants, laws, and forces. How can you think you understand multiverse theory.

 

[james bond]

The type of comment one expects from a science illiterate / religious extremist.

You need to stop bragging about yourself.

Let's look at the evidence. There are no transitional fossils. There are no common ancestors. There are and never were any bipedal apes. There is no long time as radiometric age has nothing to do with calendar age.

 

[james bond]

Baloney. It's obvious in your posts that you have an enormous capacity for hatred for scientists that disagree with YEC; you hate all atheists; and even Chinese; and you disbelieve basic science. You have shown that many times.

.

You lost the argument over long time and radiometric age, so are now crying like a baby and using racism as an attack. In an s&t forum yet. It didn't take long. Your posts have gotten too emo and continued to be filled extreme anger and frustration.

 

[Hollie]

You need to stop bragging about yourself.

Let's look at the evidence. There are no transitional fossils. There are no common ancestors. There are and never were any bipedal apes. There is no long time as radiometric age has nothing to do with calendar age.

There are many transitional fossils. Your ignorance is no excuse.

There are many common ancestors. Your ignorance is no excuse.

No bipedal apes? Religious extremists may substitute.

We have ''long time'... at least for various dating methods.

Your various gods should get their stories straight.

 

[james bond]

You don't understand the physical constants, laws, and forces. How can you think you understand multiverse theory.

I understand because I brought up the fine tuning parameters which you and the atheist science side had no response for. Initially, Stephen Hawking used multiverses or parallel universes to counter the fine tuning, but it ran into problems with Einstein's TOR.

In his final research, he's gone from quantum mechanics before the big bang to string theory because of the math and Einstein's TOR.

'"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking.

The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory: a branch of theoretical physics that attempts to reconcile gravity and general relativity with quantum physics, in part by describing the fundamental constituents of the universe as tiny vibrating strings. Their approach uses the string theory concept of holography, which postulates that the universe is a large and complex hologram: physical reality in certain 3-D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2-D projections on a surface.

Hawking and Hertog developed a variation of this concept of holography to project out the time dimension in eternal inflation. This enabled them to describe eternal inflation without having to rely on Einstein' theory. In the new theory, eternal inflation is reduced to a timeless state defined on a spatial surface at the beginning of time.

"When we trace the evolution of our universe backwards in time, at some point we arrive at the threshold of eternal inflation, where our familiar notion of time ceases to have any meaning," said Hertog.

Hawking's earlier 'no boundary theory' predicted that if you go back in time to the beginning of the universe, the universe shrinks and closes off like a sphere, but this new theory represents a step away from the earlier work. "Now we're saying that there is a boundary in our past," said Hertog.

Hertog and Hawking used their new theory to derive more reliable predictions about the global structure of the universe. They predicted the universe that emerges from eternal inflation on the past boundary is finite and far simpler than the infinite fractal structure predicted by the old theory of eternal inflation.

Their results, if confirmed by further work, would have far-reaching implications for the multiverse paradigm. "We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes," said Hawking.

This makes the theory more predictive and testable.

Hertog now plans to study the implications of the new theory on smaller scales that are within reach of our space telescopes. He believes that primordial gravitational waves – ripples in spacetime – generated at the exit from eternal inflation constitute the most promising "smoking gun" to test the model. The expansion of our universe since the beginning means such gravitational waves would have very long wavelengths, outside the range of the current LIGO detectors. But they might be heard by the planned European space-based gravitational wave observatory, LISA, or seen in future experiments measuring the cosmic microwave background.'

Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang

Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.

phys.org

You would've brought up Hawking's final work already to top what I had you known any of Hawking's work, so it PROVES it is YOU who does not understand. LMAO.

 

[james bond]

There are many transitional fossils. Your ignorance is no excuse.

There are many common ancestors. Your ignorance is no excuse.

No bipedal apes? Religious extremists may substitute.

We have ''long time'... at least for various dating methods.

Your various gods should get their stories straight.

#1 is a deliberate lie or is such a superficial argument that no reply is necessary.

#2 is a bigger lie.

All of your previous arguments end up in frustration, anger, and yet another ad hominem attack.

What dating methods? Who was it that found these long times? What year?

I only have one God and the Bible which you deliberately misconstrued here. Your statement has been exposed as another lie.

I know that I'll die knowing the WHOLE TRUTH of s&t up until the time while you and your ilk will go knowing that you believed in lies of evolution and evolutionary thinking.

 

[Hollie]

I understand because I brought up the fine tuning parameters which you and the atheist science side had no response for. Initially, Stephen Hawking used multiverses or parallel universes to counter the fine tuning, but it ran into problems with Einstein's TOR.

In his final research, he's gone from quantum mechanics before the big bang to string theory because of the math and Einstein's TOR.

'"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking.

The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory: a branch of theoretical physics that attempts to reconcile gravity and general relativity with quantum physics, in part by describing the fundamental constituents of the universe as tiny vibrating strings. Their approach uses the string theory concept of holography, which postulates that the universe is a large and complex hologram: physical reality in certain 3-D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2-D projections on a surface.

Hawking and Hertog developed a variation of this concept of holography to project out the time dimension in eternal inflation. This enabled them to describe eternal inflation without having to rely on Einstein' theory. In the new theory, eternal inflation is reduced to a timeless state defined on a spatial surface at the beginning of time.

"When we trace the evolution of our universe backwards in time, at some point we arrive at the threshold of eternal inflation, where our familiar notion of time ceases to have any meaning," said Hertog.

Hawking's earlier 'no boundary theory' predicted that if you go back in time to the beginning of the universe, the universe shrinks and closes off like a sphere, but this new theory represents a step away from the earlier work. "Now we're saying that there is a boundary in our past," said Hertog.

Hertog and Hawking used their new theory to derive more reliable predictions about the global structure of the universe. They predicted the universe that emerges from eternal inflation on the past boundary is finite and far simpler than the infinite fractal structure predicted by the old theory of eternal inflation.

Their results, if confirmed by further work, would have far-reaching implications for the multiverse paradigm. "We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes," said Hawking.

This makes the theory more predictive and testable.

Hertog now plans to study the implications of the new theory on smaller scales that are within reach of our space telescopes. He believes that primordial gravitational waves – ripples in spacetime – generated at the exit from eternal inflation constitute the most promising "smoking gun" to test the model. The expansion of our universe since the beginning means such gravitational waves would have very long wavelengths, outside the range of the current LIGO detectors. But they might be heard by the planned European space-based gravitational wave observatory, LISA, or seen in future experiments measuring the cosmic microwave background.'

Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang

Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.

phys.org

You would've brought up Hawking's final work already to top what I had you known any of Hawking's work, so it PROVES it is YOU who does not understand. LMAO.

There is no godly ''fine tuning'' you can present. Your claim that Hawking ''proved'' fine tuning is just another example of religious extremists making false claims.

 

[Wuwei]

You lost the argument over long time and radiometric age, so are now crying like a baby and using racism as an attack. In an s&t forum yet. It didn't take long. Your posts have gotten too emo and continued to be filled extreme anger and frustration.

Ah, the troll speaks again. Those are old troll tricks. The one who cries like a baby and is so emotional is the same one who accuses others. Try harder. It didn't work in the past and it doesn't work now.
.

 

[Hollie]

#1 is a deliberate lie or is such a superficial argument that no reply is necessary.

#2 is a bigger lie.

All of your previous arguments end up in frustration, anger, and yet another ad hominem attack.

What dating methods? Who was it that found these long times? What year?

I only have one God and the Bible which you deliberately misconstrued here. Your statement has been exposed as another lie.

I know that I'll die knowing the WHOLE TRUTH of s&t up until the time while you and your ilk will go knowing that you believed in lies of evolution and evolutionary thinking.

That saliva-slinging tirade was disturbing.

 

[Wuwei]

I understand because I brought up the fine tuning parameters which you and the atheist science side had no response for. Initially, Stephen Hawking used multiverses or parallel universes to counter the fine tuning, but it ran into problems with Einstein's TOR.

The fine tuning of physics laws is an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is awesome -- the values of the constants and the fundamental forces that allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA. The rest of your post is just a copy and paste.

I have studied physics over decades and am awed by the nature of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.

To me the great mysteries are why the universe follows mathematics to the most minute detail; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds; and consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this.

The difference between you and me is that you want to focus on an "intelligent designer" with whatever liturgy you use; and copying and pasting cherry picked passages of science that you don't really understand. You reject all physics that does not mesh with your strict interpretation of the Bible. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory. There is no point in considering a "designer" or "first cause" simply because it falls outside any logical path of investigation. You get your design from the bible. I get mine from detailed investigation with an open mind. My religion is a continually transforming deism. You are stuck with an ancient text that you take literally.

Some of my relatives are YEC. We love each other. We can live in harmony in our separate beliefs. But you have a deep vitriol when nobody agrees with your insistence that science is consistent with YEC. You want to cross the line and troll those who are much more science-savvy. You want to vilify scientists and denigrate science that you don't understand. It just doesn't work.

 

[Wuwei]

That saliva-slinging tirade was disturbing.

The god fearing troll is getting desperate.

.

 

[james bond]

The fine tuning of physics laws is an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is awesome -- the values of the constants and the fundamental forces that allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA. The rest of your post is just a copy and paste.

I have studied physics over decades and am awed by the nature of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.

To me the great mysteries are why the universe follows mathematics to the most minute detail; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds; and consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this.

The difference between you and me is that you want to focus on an "intelligent designer" with whatever liturgy you use; and copying and pasting cherry picked passages of science that you don't really understand. You reject all physics that does not mesh with your strict interpretation of the Bible. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory. There is no point in considering a "designer" or "first cause" simply because it falls outside any logical path of investigation. You get your design from the bible. I get mine from detailed investigation with an open mind. My religion is a continually transforming deism. You are stuck with an ancient text that you take literally.

Some of my relatives are YEC. We love each other. We can live in harmony in our separate beliefs. But you have a deep vitriol when nobody agrees with your insistence that science is consistent with YEC. You want to cross the line and troll those who are much more science-savvy. You want to vilify scientists and denigrate science that you don't understand. It just doesn't work.

Lol. Just give it up. You don't belong in the s&t forum b/c of your religious nutgoober atheism. I know you've lost your honor and everything at the end. You are too creepy and ignorant so you can be ignored in s&t.

 

[Wuwei]

Lol. Just give it up. You don't belong in the s&t forum b/c of your religious nutgoober atheism [YEC mania]. I know you've lost your honor and everything at the end. You are too creepy and ignorant so you can be ignored in s&t.

Well the troll is on a rampage with his ad hominem rant. That's all you have left.

What I think, but don't have the same deep bitterness that you have, is exactly the same as your quote above where I crossed off "atheism" and substituted "YEC mania". Your tired old troll tool, "you-are-what-I-am" is way overused.

,

 

[Sinajuavi]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Teachers are afraid to teach it because of the backlash from ignorant students and parents. Most people in this country know very little of science and are not competent to decide anything about evolution, nor for that matter global warming or matters related to a pandemic.

Science ignorance is one of our greatest national problems. You don't see this crap going on in Germany, China, etc.

 

[Sinajuavi]

You're just repeating the biology or ToE. Thus, it's a THEORY. It clearly states it is a theory. If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.

Instead, what I am discussing is human evolution which did not happen and isn't taught in schools. Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?

You do not know what "theory" means. And your post is full of nonsense. Look at Lucy's pelvis. That is NOT a chimp pelvis. Nor are her knees. Nor the position of the foramen magnum. All are hominin. You know nothing about this, and so the ONLY intelligent thing you can do relative to this topic is shut up.

 

[Sinajuavi]

The truth is people weren't taught human evolution. Human evolution isn't a fact. Even Darwin didn't say that. Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor. That kills it right there. And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you? Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?

Oh there are plenty of ape traits among humans, and also there are many humans whose behavior suggests the presence of some jackass DNA