In the future please quote me accurately. I did not say damned evolutionists.
You said dammed (sic) lie of evolutionists. Lies don’t get damned, liars do. Since you are accusing evolutionists of uttering damned lies, the damnation can only refer to them.
The main reason is they, like you have been educated in a system that presents evolution as a proven fact. They will not allow any opposing ideas. That is not education. That is indoctrination.
Quite incorrect. At the university level, it’s about research. They’re doing the hard work of discovering evidence, cataloging it, and interpreting it.
What is expensive about teaching evolution? It is no more expensive than teaching English.
Again, incorrect. English requires reading materials. The discoveries made about evolution have required thousands upon thousands of person-years of hard research in the field, the collection and storage of literally millions of fossils.
Since that is what they have been taught all their lives, they believe it. Evolution is presented as science and we accept that what science says is true.
Again incorrect. They “believe” it because they can follow the chain of scientific evidence. I’m guessing that you cannot.
Why are you bringing religion into this discussion? This abut science, not religion.
Creation is NOT science, and never was. It is an untestable claim about something that some think happened in some untestable way by some unknowable agency. It would be difficult to get much further away from science, actually. I brought religion into the argument because, quite simply, creation implies religion because it invokes zero science.
That simply isn't true. They change a virus a bit, it remains a virus and they claim that is evidence of evolution, and sadly you believe it. Do you really not understand that evolution requires a change of species.
One cell of a movie film is changed remarkably little from the ones immediately preceding and following it – yet watching the movie you will see rather a great deal of change. It does not actually require all that much imagination, frankly, to see how species can diverge from a single ancestor, to the point of not being able to interbreed again, which further speeds up the process of evolution.
They have NEVER seen a mutation causing a change of species. They have never seen natural selection causing a change of species. Yet evolution use those to things to try and support evolution.
Because there hasn’t been time. If you look at only the first frame of a movie and stop looking for the rest, you’ll never spot any changes either.
Our speculation is far more logical than your fantasy speculation. Courts do not test evidence. hey take the testimony of evolutionists. Most of them have been uneducated in the pubic school system just like you were.
Only if your vision is severely limited. And courts do indeed test evidence. In Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, the defense was allowed to produce any evidence they cared to bring to the table – before a Christian judge – to have it weighed. Their primary witness was Michael Behe, author of
Darwin’s Black Box.
And may I point out something Behe himself, champion of ID, said: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments of calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”
I have not mentioned religion. Stick to the subject.
In the Dover case, the judge stated (in his decision), “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.” So in arguing for ID, you are arguing for religion.
