@Dan S de Merengue The “dumb twit from a creationist web site” that you quoted was one of many that carry on with the “kinds” argument. It is not an argument against evolution and you have just regurgitated it without knowing its profoundly stupid.

Also, nice quote mine. Any one reading this conversation will see that I was not “ adamant that science was about observation”. That's a straw man. There is plenty of evidence that reasonably shows that birds are descended from reptiles.

That is not belief, its logical examination of the evidence. On the other hand your attempts to argue are based on belief rather than intellect. I hope readers that were unsure can see now why religious dogma should not be in our schools. It produces dumbed down students.

Dan Dare,
Name calling is not highly intellectual and won't carry you very far.

I never (on this thread) quoted anyone (besides you). And I never spoke about 'kinds'. I think your imagination is getting the better of you.

However, you did talk quite adamantly about observation as important to science. I don't know why you're trying to wriggle out of it now.

"Observing, recording, predicting and testing is a process called science." - Dan Dare, above page 28.

OK cool we have some real genuine Creationists here

can I sideline the argument/discussion and ask:

(1)what happened to the thousands of species of trilobites please ?

They were flourishing in all the oceans of the world and would appear to be perfectly suited to no only surviving a world wide flood but as many of them were scavengers they should have increased in number rather than go extinct. ( Horseshoe crabs are not trilobites as one creationist tried to tell me true trilobites had eye lenses made from calcium carbonate)

(2) if dinosaurs died out in the "great flood" why did "modern" fish and marine mammals survive yet marine dinosaurs did not ( and please not rotting carcass or loch ness monster evidence the seas and oceans have been scoured trawled and studied for hundreds of years and there has not been one solid shred of evidence for surviving species of marine dinosaurs)

(3) how did coral survive "the flood" It spawns once a year, it cannot survive turbidity it needs constant sunlight to survive it cannot survive even small amounts if fresh water ( even slightly brackish water will kill it ) The coral spawn need perfect water and sunlight conditions to survive as well so they would have died. A massive world wide flood would have killed off all the worlds corals. If something supernatural happened to keep coral alive then why did trilobites not survive ?

Again to me it just does not make much sense, please explain it for me so I understand how this can happen.

Thanks Doug

I would seriously like to know how these things are explained as no creationist has ever come up with a decent explanation.

McReal,
Mendel's theories were ignored for decades after publication, possibly as they were thought to be out of step with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Later, when Mendel's work was rediscovered Darwinian evolution suffered a lull, for the two are not consistent.

Admittedly, the 1940s saw Darwinism rise in popularity when attemps were made to modify it to allign with Mendel's findings. Since then, evolution's triumph has wained, or at least has become increasingly controversial.

The problem in essence is that Mendel showed (from his experiments with flowering plants) that characteristcs are inherited from genes supplied by parent plants. Darwin's theory requires the acquisition of new characteristics not present in the parent population.  
 
Pericles,
Cain killed Abel in the field. No one saw him do it but Abel is still dead nevertheless.  And so what? Your point concerning Mary Nichols was not clear to me.
 
Dan Dare,
You might consider that it is reasonable that reptiles evolved into birds. Others may not. My point was that it is not an observation. No one observed any such thing.

Dan Dare "If we followed your suggestion we would teach nothing at all."

That was *my* point!
Have you been following this debate?

The theophobes have turned it into an argument about whether religion is *true* or not, and since its supposed truth cannot be "proven" THEREFORE it should not be taught in schools.
My point is that this argument would apply to ANY subject.

"No, they are not the best understandings possible for those people"

Yes they are. Or they wouldn't believe them.

"The “opt out” has already been discussed to death"

No it's been trivialised, when its the MOST important aspect of the whole debate.

Are you not drowning in enough bureacracy already without having to deliberately "opt-in" to school classes?

Again, this argument could be applied to ANY subject.
Why don't you have to "opt-in" to art, music, history, woodwork, sports?

Maybe there are parents who *don't* want their children in these classes, or students that don't want to attend them.

By *your* logic, ALL classes should be opt-in, otherwise you might be imposing something draconian on non-consenting victims.

"You can observe the current conditions of the universe"

And such observations have led many people to conclude it was created by a God.
Snap!
You are not disproving my statement.

All your tests do is determine the *probability*, not certainty, that any hypothesis is an adequate explanation.

It does not prove the hypothesis *IS* the explanation, and the only explanation.

Pericles "That's a whole lotta wrigglin' there, Shockadelic."

You're the ones wriggling.

1. Wriggling out of "opt in". Nobody has to attend.

2. Wriggling out of multi-faith. Pretending this is all about Christianity.

3. Wriggling out of parental responsibility.
ALL education is really a parental responsibility.
If parents have abdicated this, and transferred it to the state, then there's NO argument against state school instruction in ANY subject.

4. Wriggling out of the fact that NOTHING children are taught can ever be "proved" with 100% certainty.

5. Wriggling out of the lack of choice in other school subjects, which are all compulsory.

6. Wriggling out of the cost of many subjects that are hardly essential, yet no complaints about the cost to the taxpayer for soccer balls and tennis courts, French language instruction materials, pianos and drum kits, cooking utensils and woodwork tools.

7. Wriggling out of the fact that the vast majority of the public are religious (whether you like it or not) and have NO PROBLEM with this class.

"What we know today is far from "invalid", as it forms the foundation upon which we can evaluate new discoveries."

New discoveries that can invalidate what you now teach children.

"How tragic it must be to deny yourself this excitement, the sheer thrill of living in this world, still looking for elusive answers to impossible questions.
How sad to deny yourself an understanding, however slight, of how it has all grown over billions of years."

That post should have come supplied with a vomit bag.

Cut the corny emotional blackmail.
Nobody is being "denied" anything by attending (if they want) an optional class once a week.

"A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry"

And that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
As usual.