Still Waiting!!

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)



How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

 

[esalla]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Who cares, you are an obsessive compulsive loon

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)



How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Why are you dodging the question?

We aren't talking about well known scientists.

We are talking about your claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools as a scientifically verified fact.

I've already stipulated that the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory of the development of life on earth just as the big bang is the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe but neither have been proven to be fact as of yet for many of the same reasons.

You have said over and over that schools are teaching that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact but you have presented not a single excerpt from any widely used public school text of any grade level that actually states unequivocally that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

And I am not demanding silence. In fact, I am asking you to answer a question but as of yet you have refused to answer it in this thread and the other thread you created on this very subject.

 

[Synthaholic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

This does not answer the question asked.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)



How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Why are you dodging the question?

We aren't talking about well known scientists.

We are talking about your claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools as a scientifically verified fact.

I've already stipulated that the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory of the development of life on earth just as the big bang is the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe but neither have been proven to be fact as of yet for many of the same reasons.

You have said over and over that schools are teaching that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact but you have presented not a single excerpt from any widely used public school text of any grade level that actually states unequivocally that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

And I am not demanding silence. In fact, I am asking you to answer a question but as of yet you have refused to answer it in this thread and the other thread you created on this very subject.

Why are you dodging the question?

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

This does not answer the question asked.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

 

[Synthaholic]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)



How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Why are you dodging the question?

We aren't talking about well known scientists.

We are talking about your claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools as a scientifically verified fact.

I've already stipulated that the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory of the development of life on earth just as the big bang is the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe but neither have been proven to be fact as of yet for many of the same reasons.

You have said over and over that schools are teaching that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact but you have presented not a single excerpt from any widely used public school text of any grade level that actually states unequivocally that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

And I am not demanding silence. In fact, I am asking you to answer a question but as of yet you have refused to answer it in this thread and the other thread you created on this very subject.

Why are you dodging the question?

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

I'm not

I have already stipulated that evolution is nothing but a theory and that it has not been scientifically proven to be a fact. I have even stated some of the reasons it is not a scientifically proven fact and that it may never be.

So in that one thing I agree with you.

But it is you who have stated multiple times that evolution is being taught in public schools as a scientifically verified fact.

But as yet you have not provided any proof of that statement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)



How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Why are you dodging the question?

We aren't talking about well known scientists.

We are talking about your claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools as a scientifically verified fact.

I've already stipulated that the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory of the development of life on earth just as the big bang is the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe but neither have been proven to be fact as of yet for many of the same reasons.

You have said over and over that schools are teaching that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact but you have presented not a single excerpt from any widely used public school text of any grade level that actually states unequivocally that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

And I am not demanding silence. In fact, I am asking you to answer a question but as of yet you have refused to answer it in this thread and the other thread you created on this very subject.

Why are you dodging the question?

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

I'm not

I have already stipulated that evolution is nothing but a theory and that it has not been scientifically proven to be a fact. I have even stated some of the reasons it is not a scientifically proven fact and that it may never be.

So in that one thing I agree with you.

But it is you who have stated multiple times that evolution is being taught in public schools as a scientifically verified fact.

But as yet you have not provided any proof of that statement.

Of course I have.

You choose to ignore the truth.

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)



How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Why are you dodging the question?

We aren't talking about well known scientists.

We are talking about your claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools as a scientifically verified fact.

I've already stipulated that the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory of the development of life on earth just as the big bang is the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe but neither have been proven to be fact as of yet for many of the same reasons.

You have said over and over that schools are teaching that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact but you have presented not a single excerpt from any widely used public school text of any grade level that actually states unequivocally that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

And I am not demanding silence. In fact, I am asking you to answer a question but as of yet you have refused to answer it in this thread and the other thread you created on this very subject.

Why are you dodging the question?

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

I'm not

I have already stipulated that evolution is nothing but a theory and that it has not been scientifically proven to be a fact. I have even stated some of the reasons it is not a scientifically proven fact and that it may never be.

So in that one thing I agree with you.

But it is you who have stated multiple times that evolution is being taught in public schools as a scientifically verified fact.

But as yet you have not provided any proof of that statement.

Of course I have.

You choose to ignore the truth.

No you have not.

You posted some 19th century crap that you have not proven to be in public school text books that are being used today.

You also posted an excerpt that gave an illustration of the changes in animal life over time. Nowhere in those excerpts did it say evolution has been scientifically proven to be to be fact.

So until you can reference an actual text book that is widely used in public schools today that unequivocally states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a scientifically verified fact, your statement is unproven and not a fact but rather just a theory.

See what I did there?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY are literally beyond astronomical! The odds of of them RANDOMLY forming a functioning cell are beyond human comprehension. Speaking of which, is your comprehension, your sense a self a function of random chemical interactions?

Think about that

 

[Blues Man]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

How many different ways do I have to tell you that evolution is just a theory?

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.