The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Autodidact]

I'm not sure what the problems are that they are teaching, however off the top of my head I would teach:
lack of convincing fossil evidence

And I'm sure you're familiar with that fossil evidence and can explain why it's not convincing? Because, for some reason, the entire science of Biology finds it compelling.

doesnt explain lifes origins

Why would it? It also doesn't explain atomic nuclii, Mongolian weather patterns or black holes, cuz that's not what it's about.

doesnt take the supernatural into account

If it did, it wouldn't be science. Here's a hint: before debating science, learn what it is.

relys on assumptions

Uh huh, like all of science. The assumption that the natural world exists and it is possible to learn about it through observation, stuff like that. The same assumptions that you use every day of your life.

there is no alternative competing theory to keep it honest

Among the subjects about which you know nothing but give opinions on anyway we will now add: history of science. ToE beat out the competing theory, Lamarckism, because the evidence supported it.

rampant with fraud and presuppositions

You are a liar. Stop lying, it turns people away from Jesus.

threats of career endings if not propogated by teachers

sorry, this isn't English.

 

[Autodidact]

Concerning teacher qualifications, you will have to take that up with the schools. Let us know how it goes and how many you get fired.

Did that, won. Kitzmiller v Dover

 

[Autodidact]

They shouldn't but it should be taught as one of the problems with the ToE.

If it's a "problem," it's a problem with ALL OF SCIENCE. It's part of the scientific method, that thing you claim to accept.

Again, before claiming to accept something, maybe you should learn what it is. Little suggestion for you.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I would seriously recommend the book "The Greatest Show on Earth" By Richard Dawkins. I am most of the way through, and it is specifically geared for presenting the evidence for evolution to a layperson.

As far as the rest of your points go, they are pretty meaningless. If there is no other theory out there with the ability to present a risk to the current basis of the ToE in order to keep ToE on its toes (couldn't resist), it should go to show just how excellent a theory it is at explaining the evidence it interperates.

 

[Man of Faith]

If you don't know what a "kind" is, how on earth do you know whether you observe it or not? You wouldn't be just plain old lying, would you? Then please, tell us what these "kinds" are that you're observing.

If you actually observed nature, which of course is what Biologists do, you would also observe species.

O.K., here's how I (and Biology) define species: a breeding population of organisms that are capable of breeding with each other and producing viable offspring.

Now would you define "kinds". Cuz it's kind of hard to get much out of a term that you can't define, don't you agree?

I don't observe species reproducing, I observe kinds. When I see a cat have cats I can tell they are the same kind of animal, but with my lack of scientific knowledge I can't tell that they are the same species or not.

 

[Alceste]

Let's say for discussion sake that there is a supernatural world beyond our existence. The Bible creation story could now be correct, and that is a problem for the ToE.

No, even if there was a supernatural world beyond our existence, the Bible creation story could not possibly be correct, and poses no problem for ToE because ALL THE EVIDENCE contradicts the Genesis story and supports ToE. Remember, Auto has been trying to get through your thick skull that we all agree god exists and made everything in this thread: the Theory of Evolution only explains - based on sound conclusions drawn from all the available evidence - HOW he did it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

but with my lack of scientific knowledge

bingo

 

[Man of Faith]

Great! Define "kind."

When you look at an animal having offspring, look to see if the animal looks like the same kind of animal as their parents, for example did a dog have a dog, or did a snake have other snakes? That is the definition of kind, the same kind of animal.

 

[Autodidact]

Let's say for discussion sake that there is a supernatural world beyond our existence. The Bible creation story could now be correct, and that is a problem for the ToE.

Of course. Also the Navajo creation myth, the Inuit, the Bantu, the Chinese and the Hawaiian. Without the scientific method, how can we sort out which of these is correct?

Let's say for discussion sake that there is a supernatural world beyond our existence, how would you discover or study it?

Earlier, you got concerned that I was getting worked up. Here's why. Science has done more to advance humanity than any other human invention. You are attacking its very foundation. While asserting that you accept science, you are trying to subvert and even destroy it. It is fundamental to the scientific method that the supernatural, if any, is outside its scope. By asking science to allow for it, you are attacking the foundation of civilization. And yeah, I get a little concerned about that.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I'm not sure what the problems are that they are teaching, however off the top of my head I would teach:

Sooooo did you just make it up?

lack of convincing fossil evidence

There's tons of coherent fossil evidence, including transitional fossils. Can the same be said for Creationism?

doesnt explain lifes origins

Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life. It deals with the change and introduction of species over time. (And genisis doesn't explain life's origin's either. It's pure speculation.)

doesnt take the supernatural into account

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Science deals with the natural, if anything supernatural was ever discovered, than it would be considered natural. We can never know of the supernatural b/c it most likely doesn't exist.

relys on assumptions

Wrong again, it relies on supported theories compiled together to make one big theory. There's so much objective evidence for evolution, it would blow your mind, if you acknowledged it. Creationism relies on assumptions and faith. Unreasonable, unjustified conclusions and a strong adherance to those conclusions.

there is no alternative competing theory to keep it honest

rampant with fraud and presuppositions

They've all been exposed and disregarded though, that's how we know of them.

threats of career endings if not propogated by teachers

Question mark?

 

[Autodidact]

That is pretty correct, except I am still fuzzy about what is a genii and a family.

Great. We'll start from there.

You did notice that you don't have a coherent hypothesis, let alone a competing theory, right? You can't even articulate what it is you're trying to persuade us of?

So just in case anyone was reading this thread and trying to decide who to believe, I'm sure you've succeeded in persuading them to reject your position.

And you assert that it's necessary to accept your position in order to be Christian.

So, basically, you're driving people away from Christ with every post.

One of the many dangers of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is that it drives people away from Jesus. What you're saying is that to be Christian, you have to reject scientific truth. Not very successful evangelizing tool, is it?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Let's say for discussion sake that there is a supernatural world beyond our existence. The Bible creation story could now be correct, and that is a problem for the ToE.

No MoF, does not follow. If you assume a supernatural world then you have to decide what is in it; Zeus, Thor, Odin, LGM, FSM, what? Why out of all the mythological creatures we have invented is YOURS the only one in this supernatural world? And what evidence do you have that your favorite invisible fairy god-father is the ONLY one?

 

[MSizer]

Let's say for discussion sake that there is a supernatural world beyond our existence. The Bible creation story could now be correct, and that is a problem for the ToE.

????

And let's say for discussion sake that there is iced cream at the core of the planet. Then it could be true that volcanoes will some day spew holt molten iced cream. That is a problem for the ToE for sure. We'll have to start evolution right from scratch to adapt. And let say for discussion sake that water isn't really water, and maybe no plants are really edible, you know, just for discussion sake, because then if that were true, the ToE would have some problems indeed.

 

[Alceste]

I don't observe species reproducing, I observe kinds. When I see a cat have cats I can tell they are the same kind of animal, but with my lack of scientific knowledge I can't tell that they are the same species or not.

YES YOU CAN. We've told you the definition of the word "species". That is all you need to know to get an idea of what is or isn't one. If you see a cat having a cat (and the offspring can also have cats), you KNOW they are the same "species". It can not be otherwise, because that's the definition of the word "species". If a boy lion and a girl panther can not (or will not) make baby "panions", you know they are different species.

Now, you know there are 5000 species of lizards that can not interbreed with each other, and I'm still waiting for you to explain how that happened in only 4000 years, despite the fact nobody has ever observed a pair of lizards give birth to a new form of lizard that can not breed with the previous generation.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't observe species reproducing, I observe kinds. When I see a cat have cats I can tell they are the same kind of animal, but with my lack of scientific knowledge I can't tell that they are the same species or not.

If you don't observe species reproducing, you're not looking. Have you ever noticed that cats give birth to baby cats? While panthers, on the other hand, have baby panthers, and lions always have baby lions?

Wait, are you saying that each species of cat is a different kind?

Kind of hard to tell, when you don't know what a kind is, isn't it?

 

[ragordon168]

I don't observe species reproducing, I observe kinds. When I see a cat have cats I can tell they are the same kind of animal, but with my lack of scientific knowledge I can't tell that they are the same species or not.

so if a lion mates with a tabby cat (don't point out the physical thing its just an example) and no offspring is born they are different kinds even though they are both members of the cat family?

 

[Man of Faith]

Of course. Also the Navajo creation myth, the Inuit, the Bantu, the Chinese and the Hawaiian. Without the scientific method, how can we sort out which of these is correct?

Let's say for discussion sake that there is a supernatural world beyond our existence, how would you discover or study it?

Earlier, you got concerned that I was getting worked up. Here's why. Science has done more to advance humanity than any other human invention. You are attacking its very foundation. While asserting that you accept science, you are trying to subvert and even destroy it. It is fundamental to the scientific method that the supernatural, if any, is outside its scope. By asking science to allow for it, you are attacking the foundation of civilization. And yeah, I get a little concerned about that.

Don't worry, I'm not advocating that science and technology needs to be curtailed, your enemy on that is the global warming enthusiasts. The ToE can't be tested and verified like gravity can. I can test gravity and test that my computer is working, but I can't reproduce the history of the earth, so it's going to take faith either way. I just prefer the faith of the Bible over the faith of the scientists.

 

[Autodidact]

When you look at an animal having offspring, look to see if the animal looks like the same kind of animal as their parents, for example did a dog have a dog, or did a snake have other snakes? That is the definition of kind, the same kind of animal.

The definition of "kind" is kind? See any problem with that? Anything at all?

Now it sounds like you're equating "kind" with species. When your thinking is so fuzzy, it's hard to know what the heck you're saying. That's why we define our terms.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Don't worry, I'm not advocating that science and technology needs to be curtailed, your enemy on that is the global warming enthusiasts. The ToE can't be tested and verified like gravity can. I can test gravity and test that my computer is working, but I can't reproduce the history of the earth, so it's going to take faith either way. I just prefer the faith of the Bible over the faith of the scientists.

That takes some higher thinking skills.

 

[Gunfingers]

I don't observe species reproducing, I observe kinds. When I see a cat have cats I can tell they are the same kind of animal, but with my lack of scientific knowledge I can't tell that they are the same species or not.

You mentioned earlier that all lizards are of the same "kind". Does that mean this guy can reproduce with this gal? Because despite both of them being of the "kind" lizard, they have significant genetic differences that prevent them from sucessfully reproducing.