Newly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists

Washington Post ^ | November 5, 2014 | Rachel Feltman

[Alter Kaker]

Researchers report that they've found the missing link between an ancient aquatic predator and its ancestors on land. Ichthyosaurs, the dolphin-like reptiles that lived in the sea during the time of the dinosaurs, evolved from terrestrial creatures that made their way back into the water over time.

But the fossil record for the lineage has been spotty, without a clear link between land-based reptiles and the aquatic ichthyosaurs scientists know came after. Now, researchers report in Nature that they've found that link — an amphibious ancestor of the swimming ichthyosaurs named Cartorhynchus lenticarpus.

"Many creationists have tried to portray ichthyosaurs as being contrary to evolution," said lead author Ryosuke Motani, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California Davis. "We knew based on their bone structure that they were reptiles, and that their ancestors lived on land at some time, but they were fully adapted to life in the water. So creationists would say, well, they couldn't have evolved from those reptiles, because where's the link?"

[Lexinom]

Great points you raise. I don't have time to engage every one of them at the moment, but I would like to ask about this.

You've criticized, among other things, the assumption of uniformity that underlies such things as radiometric dating. And yet different methods of dating have been shown to produce consistent results, and scientists working with the assumption of uniformity have been able to make predictions that bore fruit.

Are you aware of the procedure for procuring these dates? The lab typically asks the client what age he or she expects the sample to show. The lab then will do 30, 40, 50, or 60 tests until they get the desired number. The sad fact is that closed systems probably do not exist in nature (things leak in and out all the time), yet a closed system is the only environment that could facilitate an accurate measurement. In summary, radiometric dating is simply a guess that has as its starting point what the investigator thinks should be the age...

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The lab typically asks the client what age he or she expects the sample to show. The lab then will do 30, 40, 50, or 60 tests until they get the desired number.

Do you have a source for that? I can imagine a lab doing multiple tests to see if they converge on a consistent answer, but you're implying that they'll simply discard 50 tests that don't give the expected answer in favor of one that does. I'd like to see some support for that charge.

As for the expected age issue, here a self-described conservative Christian scientist explains why labs ask how old the client expects the rock to be. It's not as insidious as you think. (Scroll down to the first blue answer.)

[JimSEA]

Laws are about what is expected to happen given a certain set of circumstances. The law of gravity tells you what to expect if you, for instance drop a book. The theory of gravity on the other hand tells you why your book drops to the ground. They are really quite different things. In short, laws tell you what to expect and theories tell you why.

In science, every theory, law or hypothesis must be falsifiable. That is the problem with Intelligent Design or Creationism. Since can neither prove nor can it disprove the existence of God. That is up to faith. Natural phenomenons are the relem of science as they are observable.

[Lexinom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1GJjHXX0Ic

Here's one lecture that details the process...

Will look at your link later...

[BroJoeK]

DoughtyOne: "I merely said that you don’t get a horse from a squirrel or a maple tree from a sequoia."

Nor did any scientist ever say such a thing, and that is your basic problem: you don't know, or won't confess, the truth about scientific theory of evolution.

Fossils show the earliest actual mammals around 160 million years ago, small, insect eating tree climbing.
They were certainly not squirrels, but did perhaps fill some of the same ecological niches squirrel-like creatures fill today.

Fossils show the first identifiable ancestors of horses & rhinoceroses -- they were fox to sheep-sized creatures -- around 60 million years ago, relatively soon after dinosaurs' extinction.
The first clearly horse-like fossils -- dog sized -- appeared around 50 million years.
From that point on, each later fossil appears more and more like today's horses.

As for Sequoia trees, they are not even in the same order as Maple trees, arguably not even in the same phylum, meaning in no possible way did maples turn into sequoias.
Their common ancestors, which were far from either Sequoias or Maples, lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

DoughtyOne: "I don’t buy into evolution as the origin of the human species."

Fossil evidence for distinctly pre-human and human-like creatures goes back millions of years, and some more recent bones have been analyzed for DNA, showing they were very closely related to us -- close enough to be classified in the same species, and to have interbred.

As for God's role in our creation, Genesis tells us that He formed man from the "dust of the ground" and "breathed the breath of life" into us.
Seems to me, that is also what evolution theory tells us.

DoughtyOne: "I don’t buy into the idea that every animal came from some space spill on isle 6 or a lightening bolt in a pond."

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but so far as I know, no evidence has ever been found that all life on Earth is not somehow related, meaning descended from common ancestors.
What's certainly true is that we have, as yet, no confirmed theory on how life first arose on Earth -- whether home-grown, or imported from some other star-system, we don't know. Yet.

Therefore: at this point, almost any hypothesis is still a possibility.

DoughtyOne: "Science does not prove that was the case.
That’s the end of the story for me."

Literally, science does not "prove" any hypothesis, theory, or even observation.
The best science can hope to do is confirm by repeated experiments that a theory is not false.
So, do you begin to comprehend that science is not all-about "certainty"?
So we don't "believe" a scientific theory, we merely accept it as having been confirmed, pending some better confirmed explanation.
That's the way science works.

Nor does science require anybody to accept any of its hypotheses & theories.
The only real restriction is: you must not call your own religious ideas "science", because they are not.

[poindexters brother]

That's quite a claim. You really don't believe scientific questions can be settled? The flat-earth hypothesis is still plausible...?

The Earth is flat if your frame of reference is sufficiently small.

[BroJoeK]

BrandtMichaels: "...a very few are actually described as beneficial even though it represents a loss in the genetic code it can in rare instances produce slight beneficial results but often at a cost somewhere else in the normal life cycle."

A little research can produce a long listing of relatively recent DNA mutations which have proved somewhat beneficial -- my listing from memory: lactose tolerance with the introduction of dairying, sickle-cells to help protect against malaria, certain adaptations for high altitude, low oxygen survival, and on and on...
What they prove is that evolution begins immediately to adapt to new and more difficult environmental conditions.

So, what exactly is the difference between these short-term adaptations and long-term evolution?
Answer: that's it, a longer-term.
Short term beneficial mutations accumulate & accumulate over millions of years until separated populations can no longer interbreed, at which point we humans name them as different species.

BrandtMichaels: "Gradual decay of the DNA is one of the 101 signs of a young earth and universe and is thought to lead to species becoming extinct.
Basically the observational evidence of DNA indicates devolution."

But DNA does not only "decay", rather because of natural selection, it also changes and adapts to changing natural conditions.
So even if nine out of ten -- or 99 out of 100 -- DNA mutations are harmful, those will not reproduce so well, and the one in a 100, or one in 1,000 mutations which is beneficial can reproduce more abundantly.
So the net effect is not "decay", but improvement and long-term increased complexity.
That is both what evolution theory and many confirmed observations (aka: facts) tell us.

BrandtMichaels quoting Sanford: "The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago."

But human & other genomes do not overall decay, instead they often grow slowly but steadily more complex, due to the effects of natural selection.
This is highly consistent with fossil records and DNA analyses suggesting life on earth began as vastly simpler organisms at least hundreds of millions of years ago.

[DoughtyOne]

I merely said that you don’t get a horse from a squirrel or a maple tree from a sequoia.

Nor did any scientist ever say such a thing, and that is your basic problem: you don't know, or won't confess, the truth about scientific theory of evolution.

You can pull out your crap sandwich, but I don't have to eat it, and I'm not going to.  Just help yourself.  I don't know?  I won't confess?  Confess what, that I don't buy into your nonsense?  The theory of evolution is taught in our schools.  It is tought as the origion of the human species over billiosn of years.  And what's more, it is taught exclusively that way, because no other "theory" is allowed in the school system.  So don't wax rhapsodic about what scientists do or do not claim.  That's B. S. and you know it.  If you don't know it, perhaps you should do some studying.  And that is your basic problem, you aren't really being truthful.  So when you have a moment, reflect on what is being taught in the schools, confess, and perahps we'll have something to talk about.  
Fossils show the earliest actual mammals around 160 million years ago, small, insect eating tree climbing.
They were certainly not squirrels, but did perhaps fill some of the same ecological niches squirrel-like creatures fill today.

Yawn.  Yes, I was in the third grade too.

Fossils show the first identifiable ancestors of horses & rhinoceroses -- they were fox to sheep-sized creatures -- around 60 million years ago, relatively soon after dinosaurs' extinction.
The first clearly horse-like fossils -- dog sized -- appeared around 50 million years.  From that point on, each later fossil appears more and more like today's horses.

Identifiable.  LOL, there you go, leaps of fantasy to patch together your smooth transition from amoeba to modern man.  Why we found this here fossil from 160 million years ago.  It's only 18 inches tall, but you can tell right away that it's a horse.  I know it looks more like a sloth right there, but honest, it was a horse.  The DNA shows true lineage.

You find stages, but you don't find a smooth transition.  It's like a movie.  In the movie the characters are talking in an office about going to a lab.  In the next scene they're in the lab.  You assume they went downstairs, walked outside, got in the car, drove side streets to a freeway, traveled down ten miles, got off the freeway, traveled by car on side streets, turned into a parking lot, got out of the car, went inside, went upstairs, went into an office, and wala, the next scene.  Sounds rather complicated, but in your version we're talking about billions of years, trillions if not quadrillions of turns, and suddently we're there, some small animal to horse.  Had to happen just like that.  Roll-em...

You extrapolate out these charming story lines, but you can't prove them.  There are certain building blocks in nature.  The genetic code is there.  Was it because these items came from the same amoeba, or because those building blocks were used by God during creation?  Well, frankly you don't know.  Can't disprove that can you.  Here you are setting me straight though.  Your theory, and that's all it is, by your own admission is nothing more than that.

As for Sequoia trees, they are not even in the same order as Maple trees, arguably not even in the same phylum, meaning in no possible way did maples turn into sequoias.  Their common ancestors, which were far from either Sequoias or Maples, lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

In a word, DUH!  You actually thought I meant that Maple Trees were around 500 million years ago, and they transitioned to Sequoias right?  No, I know what the theory is.  I don't buy the theory that there was a common ancestor.  You can't prove it, but here we are discussing this anyway.  You have a hypothesis.  That's all you've got..

I don’t buy into evolution as the origin of the human species.

Fossil evidence for distinctly pre-human and human-like creatures goes back millions of years, and some more recent bones have been analyzed for DNA, showing they were very closely related to us -- close enough to be classified in the same species, and to have interbred.

Pre-human..., human like..., close enough...  is there a pattern here?  Yes.  You don't know if they are truly prehuman, human like, or simple close enough... at all.

And yet here we are discussing the issue as if it was settled science.  It's no more settled science than the earth being flat was settled science.  It's a current thoery.  That's all it is, and that's all it will ever will be IMO.

As for God's role in our creation, Genesis tells us that He formed man from the "dust of the ground" and "breathed the breath of life" into us.

Seems to me, that is also what evolution theory tells us.

Except one thing, Evolution is being taught as fact, and the other theory is laughed at by the brillaint scientific community.  This the same community that holds certain beliefs in mind for decades calling anyone that doesn't agree with accepted theory to be an essential heretic, but on this one we're supposed to accept everything hook line and sinker.  NO!  I've watched as the two clever by half folks have had to backtrack and accept that they were wrong over and over and over again.  

I don’t buy into the idea that every animal came from some space spill on isle 6 or a lightening bolt in a pond.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but so far as I know, no evidence has ever been found that all life on Earth is not somehow related, meaning descended from common ancestors.

Funny, you addressed the issue spot on.  How did you do that without having any idea what that was supposed to mean?

Did all life come from the same source?  You statement here leaves that distinct possibility.  And frankly, that's what you guys believe.  You believe that based on common genetic codes.  Well the same thing could be the outcome of creation.  A supreme being having the genetic code knowledge, utilized that knowedge to bring forth vegitaion, living animals, man, and the other forms of life on earth using the same building blocks.  Can you explain to me why creation would have had to use different genetic codes with every living thing on the planet, no commonalities allowed?  To simplify, the answer is NO.

What's certainly true is that we have, as yet, no confirmed theory on how life first arose on Earth -- whether home-grown, or imported from some other star-system, we don't know. Yet.

No, you don't know yet, but you do know there are only about three theories for it, and none of them include God.  Ligthening, meteor, or volcanic activity...  I believe those are the three main theories today.

Therefore: at this point, almost any hypothesis is still a possibility.

Theory.  That's basically what this is.  Every bit of it.  There are many things you know, and as many or more things you don't.  That's the truth of it.

Science does not prove that was the case.  That’s the end of the story for me.

Literally, science does not "prove" any hypothesis, theory, or even observation.  The best science can hope to do is confirm by repeated experiments that a theory is not false.  So, do you begin to comprehend that science is not all-about "certainty"?
So we don't "believe" a scientific theory, we merely accept it as having been confirmed, pending some better confirmed explanation.  That's the way science works.

Oh yes, here you folks talk about uncertainty.  Then in the schools you teach the theory as if there is no other answer.  You're so deathly afraid that creationism will creep in, that you feel compelled to come here and prattle on about things you honestly can't prove at all.  You even admit as much.  Then you ask me to confess.  No, you confess.

Nor does science require anybody to accept any of its hypotheses & theories.  The only real restriction is: you must not call your own religious ideas "science", because they are not.

When they started selling Evolution as the only thoery allowed, they took the science right out of it.

I believe in creation.  I cannot prove my theory either.  My theory is not allowed to be taught.  Your theory is.

What are you big boys who can't prove a damn thing afraid of?

[Lexinom]

Thank you for your link. I've read the exchange in its entirety. I think it was well thought-out from Dr. Berger's viewpoint.

First, the objections to radiometric dating seem to be demanding a mythical “crucial experiment.” Crucial experiments, in which one experiment, by itself, establishes the truth or falsehood of an hypothesis, are not completely unknown, but their mythical, highly celebrated status stems from their rarity. Most scientific statements are based on a preponderance of the evidence; well-established ones are based on an overwhelming convergence of evidence. But (pace Popper) a few contradictory results do not instantly destroy a theory, nor can we expect a single “crucial experiment” to establish one in the presence of contradictory evidence.

I have no doubt that Dr. Berger wrote that with the most altruistic of intentions, and what follows is by no means directed against what he wrote per se but the underlying worldview from whence it stems and to which he must, as an imprimatured scientist, pay due obedience.

Looking at this, I see, "No crucial experiment exists, therefore evolution." IOW, "We don't know, but since we want evolution to be true, we're going to bias all conclusions in that direction, building on the shoulders of giants who have similarly biased their conclusions in that direction over the past 150 years and we'll call this 'preponderance of evidence.' We will give a weighting of zero to the underlying enmity against God motivating this bias, and we will likewise give a weighting of zero to special revelation, since we don't want it to be true and cannot accept it."

Fundamentally, people will believe what they wish to believe, whatever best supports their worldview (good vs. evil, live for God vs. live for myself). They will ridicule others with beliefs that diverge from their own. They will try to frame the debate in a manner favorable to their own conclusions. You do it. I do it. We all do it. None of us gets to pretend we come to the table free of our own internal biases, no matter how subtle. None are neutral in this long ongoing war between good and evil, and we do well to be frank and honest on that front.

[Lexinom]

obeisance

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Thank you for reading the link. I think you’re reading a lot into Dr. Berger’s motivations. For one, since he describes himself as a conservative Christian who had reservations about letting his letter be published on that blog, I’m surprised you think he would dismiss an underlying enmity against God if he thought it existed or was an important factor in the promotion of the ToE.

And I watched some of your link—enough to get to his explanation of the radiometric testing process, at least. (I don’t have an hour to give to it.) I only saw him discuss one example of multiple tests—Leakey skull 1470—but he impies, falsely I think, that the singular result he mentions was the one they were looking for. (All the book says is that they never got that particular result again, not that it was the one they hoped for.) He also cites the range of results in a way that the results were scattered throughout the range, while it’s also possible that they coalesced around a central value in a bell curve. I, frankly, just don’t know. From what I read, it does appear that the rocks around that skull (and they were dating the rocks, not the skull itself) presented a particularly challenging task, especially 40 years ago when it was found. I’d like to hear an actual scientist explain why the results were all over the map and how they arrived at the one they finally settled on. I don’t trust Dr. Patton to give a fair presentation.

[Lexinom]

Dr. Berger seems quite reasonable and is merely a man of his (our) time and his occupation. It's the long ages taken as dogma to which I take exception, not him personally.

Dr. Patton would assuredly, by his own admission, not give the topic a fair treatment. I humbly submit that few, if any, could. The bell curve/coalescing of data is a fair question as well - what, indeed, is the distribution? And what would the standard deviation of many such distributions against different samples from different sites look like? With billions of molecules in a typical sample (of which only a tiny fraction would be tested), it's difficult to say - and now I'm curious as well as to a typical distribution shape.

There are a myriad of facts supporting the young earth position. One is the geological column, specifically the coelacanth: thought to be extinct for 66 million years but caught 1938 (and over 600 caught since then). Despite the fact they are alive today, they are still regarded as marker fossils: If you find a coelacanth, you "know" the rock is 66 million years old. The same could be said of the Wollemi pine, a marker designating an "age" of 150 million years, found alive and well outside Sydney, Australia. To my mind at least, it's a non sequitur that we would continue to use these for dating when their extinction has been refuted.

Maybe, just maybe, the depth in the rock has more to do with suspension properties in a slurry of mud than with age...

In 1961 John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris penned a book entitled The Genesis Flood. In the book's forward, John C. McCampbell, an evolutionary geologist, acknowledged that Whitcomb's and Morris' framework fit with the facts and were a scientifically viable alternative to the current majority view.

Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called “Biblical catastrophism,” a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of the book’s forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the University of Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most sympathetic geology professors that could be found anywhere), expressed misgivings with a framework that threw a century’s worth of geology out the window. “I would prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of religion and geology, which retains the structure of modern historical geology, could be found,” he wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a compliment, Professor McCampbell credits Morris with “real independent thinking,” which he described as fast “becoming a lost art.” (GF, xviii)
(source)

Nicholas Steno, the father of stratigraphy, whose principles still form the basis of geology 450 years hence, attributed the fossils to the great Noachian deluge. I believe he even dedicated one of his works to the same (in the original at a museum in London).

There's the salinity of the dead sea, the depth of the oceans in consideration of annual erosion, the tiny amount of dust on the surface of the moon, the magentic fields strength of the earth (and of Mercury - did you know Mercury has a magnetic field but shouldn't being too small for a central dynamo - the only thing that can sustain magnetism for the timeframes in question? And Venus should have one but doesn't?)

The evidence for a young earth is quite abundant, and an alternative explanation for the geologic column readily available...

The point I wish to make is that observational science does not require either the long ages or the evolution of life from abiotic origins to press forward. A fair case could be made, in fact, that science, based on observable, measurable, and repeatable phenomena has been both distracted and hampered by the same where intelligent and competent men and women might have focused their energies elsewhere.

Noah's Ark is the next big find, in my opinion... I do not expect even that, though, would change minds because questions of origins ultimately come down less to facts than to emotion. Such has been my experience, anyway.

[FBD]

“I can live with the fact that I don’t know how long one of God’s days were.Works for me.For all I know his first day was 1 billion years for us.”

That's a scientific problem, if one is to believe the biblical version of creation. According to Genesis, God created the Sun on the 4th day.

But plants were (supposedly) made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes. Genesis (1:14-19). 1:11
Seems kinda bass-akwards to create plants before setting the solar system was set into place. But that's Bible science for you, questions about creation has almost always gotten skeptics branded as heretics.

[FBD]

Have you heard of the Thunderbolts project?
Excellent scientific documentaries, here's a link to one:
Symbols of an Alien Sky (Full Documentary)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY

Fascinating stuff.

[FBD]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/flame_lg.jpg

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

As you say, neither of us is likely to convince the other. But you seem to want to be on solid ground, and there are at least a few places where you're suffering from misinformation:

1. The coelacanth: the species that are still living are a different genus than the fossil ones. (Coelacanths are an order.) So it's as though all we had were fossilized moths, and we assumed they were extinct. Then someone caught a butterfly, and we realized that the order Lepidoptera was still around. That doesn't mean that the fossil moth species are necessarily not extinct, or that the fossils could therefore be younger than we thought.

2. Morris's book: I'm not sure how you get from "expressed misgivings with a framework that threw a century’s worth of geology out the window" to "acknowledged that Whitcomb's and Morris' framework fit with the facts and were a scientifically viable alternative to the current majority view." It seems to me that "threw a century’s worth of geology out the window" and "fit with the facts" have almost the opposite meanings.

3. Space dust: the idea that the moon should have a thick layer of dust came from an early guesstimate based on Earthbound measurements. Later measurements actually taken in space showed that that the expected accumulation should be small. Even Answers in Genesis now acknowledges,

During the 1960s and 1970s many creationists adopted the “moon dust” argument based on early calculations by some secular scientists, but more accurate information is now available.

[BroJoeK]

DoughtyOne: "I won't confess? Confess what, that I don't buy into your nonsense?"

No, confess/tell the truth about science and evolution.
You speak of it only with mocking distortions, never accurately, never as if you truly understand it.
So I'm beginning to think that not only do you not really understand it, you also don't want to understand it.
After all, serious understanding might inhibit your constant mocking.

DoughtyOne: "It is tought as the origion of the human species over billiosn of years.
And what's more, it is taught exclusively that way, because no other "theory" is allowed in the school system."

Incorrect. In many government schools, they do have classes in religion taught by religious people, and there they discuss Genesis all they wish.
But evolution is the only scientific theory accepted and therefore appropriate for science classes.
Genesis is not natural-science, period.
Indeed, it's the opposite of natural-science and is best discussed in houses of worship or classes devoted to spiritual matters.

DoughtyOne: "So don't wax rhapsodic about what scientists do or do not claim.
That's B. S. and you know it."

First, I would not necessarily consider grade school or high school teachers to be "scientists", and I wouldn't defend what they may or may not teach in class.
Second, I'm not "waxing rhapsodic", simply reporting the facts of what science is, and what it says.
But you obviously don't comprehend it, since all you can do is distort and mock.

DoughtyOne: "And that is your basic problem, you aren't really being truthful."

Of course I'm truthful, always. But you always refuse to understand, don't you?
For example, when you are presented with actual facts about ancient fossils, your only response is mockery:

DoughtyOne: "Yawn. Yes, I was in the third grade too."

DoughtyOne: "Why we found this here fossil from 160 million years ago.
It's only 18 inches tall, but you can tell right away that it's a horse."

So, you see, nothing but distortions and mockery -- you are a true disciple of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: never engage seriously, only personalize, distort and ridicule.

DoughtyOne: "You find stages, but you don't find a smooth transition."

Just as you won't find a smooth transition between wild wolves and domestic dogs, and yet we know for certain there were transitional forms.
The fact that we can't find all the transitions today doesn't mean they never happened.

DoughtyOne: "You extrapolate out these charming story lines, but you can't prove them."

I'll repeat: outside of mathematical theorems, science never "proves" any theory, the best it can do is confirm by observation and experimentation.
So evolution is an often confirmed scientific theory, the only scientific hypothesis on the subject which was ever confirmed.

DoughtyOne: "Was it because these items came from the same amoeba, or because those building blocks were used by God during creation? "

I'll repeat what I've posted before: I believe God created every living thing on earth, using evolution as one of His tools.
So I don't look for some exceptional sign of "intelligent design", because as far as I'm concerned, everything is His Intelligent Design.
And I don't dispute the science of evolution, since I think it fully displays God's creative genius at work.

DoughtyOne: "Here you are setting me straight though.
Your theory, and that's all it is, by your own admission is nothing more than that."

By your own admission here, you have no real concept of what science is, and what it does, and so the only thing you can think to do is distort and mock.
Yes, evolution is a confirmed theory, but all those various ideas about how life first arose on Earth -- those are not even theories, they are unconfirmed hypotheses, which means basically, highly informed speculations.
If they interest you, fine, but if they don't, then no harm has been done...

DoughtyOne: "You actually thought I meant that Maple Trees were around 500 million years ago, and they transitioned to Sequoias right?"

Because that's what you said, and now are trying to weasel out of it, pretending oh, you really knew all along that your words were just jabbering nonsense!
And next you'll pretend not to understand why I've called you dishonest -- by your own words!

DoughtyOne: "You have a hypothesis. That's all you've got.."

I'll repeat: evolution is more than hypothesis, it's a confirmed theory.
But various ideas about the origin of life on earth are just hypotheses, none of them yet confirmed theories.

DoughtyOne: "Pre-human..., human like..., close enough... is there a pattern here? Yes.
You don't know if they are truly prehuman, human like, or simple close enough... at all."

Both designations, "pre-human" and "human like" accurately describe fossil-bones older than the oldest known biologically modern humans, even those which were not our direct ancestors.

Here's what we do know for certain: the older the bones, the less human-like, while the newer bones look more and more like modern humans.
We also know that the DNA of such creatures as ancient Neanderthals and Denisovans is close enough to ours that they were not really separate species, but sub-species who could and did interbreed with our own ancestors.

Of course, if you wish to believe that humans suddenly appeared out of the dust, with no pre-human ancestors, then that is your choice, go right ahead.
Just don't call your beliefs a form of "science", because they are not.

DoughtyOne: "And yet here we are discussing the issue as if it was settled science.
It's no more settled science than the earth being flat was settled science."

In my lifetime there were still people who claimed the earth is flat, and perhaps some still do.
So, for those people, the "science" is certainly not "settled", and will never be.
But the term "settled science" does not refer to whether or not you believe it -- your beliefs are irrelevant to science.
No, the term "settled science" simply means that most scientists accept the idea, and nobody is seriously still working to falsify it.

DoughtyOne: "Evolution is being taught as fact, and the other theory is laughed at by the brillaint scientific community."

Evolution is a theory confirmed by many, many facts, as many as any theory in science.
And there is no competing scientific theory on the subject.
Yes, many years ago, there was some scientific debate about the biological mechanism for change, but those were long ago resolved.
So today there is only one scientific theory, and that is evolution.
Yes, some people do still dispute evolution, but not on strictly scientific grounds.
Rather, they use pseudo-scientific arguments to support their religious convictions, arguments which are patently ridiculous and don't qualify as "science".

DoughtyOne: "This the same community that holds certain beliefs in mind for decades calling anyone that doesn't agree with accepted theory to be an essential heretic, but on this one we're supposed to accept everything hook line and sinker. NO!
I've watched as the two clever by half folks have had to backtrack and accept that they were wrong over and over and over again."

"Two clever by half"? Are you sure?
I'll grant you that even the most brilliant scientists don't always make the very best debaters, and even the very best debaters will never convince someone like yourself, who refuses to acknowledge even the basics, instead focusing on distortions and mockery.

DoughtyOne: "Funny, you addressed the issue spot on.
How did you do that without having any idea what that was supposed to mean?"

Probably coincidence, because I claim no great skill at decoding your mocking & distorting comments.

DoughtyOne: "Did all life come from the same source?
You statement here leaves that distinct possibility.
And frankly, that's what you guys believe.
You believe that based on common genetic codes.
Well the same thing could be the outcome of creation.
A supreme being having the genetic code knowledge..."

I'll repeat: I believe it was the outcome of God's creation, through His genetic code which evolved to make every living thing on earth, since everything which we consider truly alive has some form of DNA.

DoughtyOne: "No, you don't know yet, but you do know there are only about three theories for it, and none of them include God.
Ligthening, meteor, or volcanic activity...
I believe those are the three main theories today."

Somewhere recently I saw a listing of six or eight different hypotheses -- none are confirmed theories -- which did include "panspermia", meaning perhaps life arrived from outer space, aboard a comet or even alien space ship.
Whether such an alien could ever be considered our God, of course that's a matter which natural-science cannot address.

DoughtyOne: "Theory. That's basically what this is. Every bit of it."

No, you still don't understand!
Those are not confirmed theories, they are unconfirmed hypotheses, which means basically informed speculations.
No scientists claims to know for certain how life first rose on Earth.

DoughtyOne: "Oh yes, here you folks talk about uncertainty.
Then in the schools you teach the theory as if there is no other answer."

But there is no other scientific theory concerning evolution.
Your creationism is a religious doctrine which is properly taught in places of worship, places where one religion's doctrines will not come into conflict with others.

DoughtyOne: "You're so deathly afraid that creationism will creep in, that you feel compelled to come here and prattle on about things you honestly can't prove at all.
You even admit as much.
Then you ask me to confess.
No, you confess."

FRiend, you are only forgiven and excused from telling the truth if you honestly don't know it.
But you have now been told and taught in considerable detail, and yet your only responses have been to distort, mock and ignore the facts in favor of your own doctrines.
I said in my very first post to you that you have a serious problem with truth-telling, and you need to work on overcoming that -- yet you refuse.

So let me end this as I always do: you are entitled to believe whatever you wish to believe regarding scientific matters -- flat earth, young earth, recent deluge... whatever you want -- just so long as you don't pretend your religious convictions have something to do with science, because they don't.

DoughtyOne: "I believe in creation. I cannot prove my theory either.
My theory is not allowed to be taught.
Your theory is."

But your "theory" is not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief which is taught in every church in the world every Sunday and usually several other days of the week as well.
But by US law, your religion is not allowed to be taught in government run science classes, among other reasons because if they allowed your religious beliefs, then they would also have to provide for the beliefs of everybody else.
Probably not a good idea.
Best to teach such ideas in churches which are specifically intended for that purpose.

[DoughtyOne]

Pathetic.

[Brother Cracker]

[DoughtyOne]

I won't confess? Confess what, that I don't buy into your nonsense?

No, confess/tell the truth about science and evolution.  The sad part is, you can't grasp that I did tell the truth about evolution and science.
You speak of it only with mocking distortions, never accurately, never as if you truly understand it.  I needn't address every aspect of science or evolution to prove I understand it, but look at you here.  It's as if you're care calling me a blasphemer.
So I'm beginning to think that not only do you not really understand it, you also don't want to understand it.  And that's an even worse sin huh.  I understand it.  I merely reject the part about evolution being the origin of the human species.
After all, serious understanding might inhibit your constant mocking.  If I agree with you, I am learned and quite intelligent.  I disagree with you and exemplify being inhibited and ignorant.  What if I understand exactly what your pushing, and reject it forthright.

DoughtyOne: "It is tought as the origion of the human species over billiosn of years.  And what's more, it is taught exclusively that way, because no other "theory" is allowed in the school system."

Incorrect. In many government schools, they do have classes in religion taught by religious people, and there they discuss Genesis all they wish.  You may find some.  Evolution is taught in all of them.
But evolution is the only scientific theory accepted and therefore appropriate for science classes.  No it is not scientific to explain that man is the product of eveolution, when you can't prove it.  You're not even close to doing so.  THEORY!
Genesis is not natural-science, period.  And scientists have not proven that man is the product of evolution.  So once again we have the religion of science vs the Christian religion.
Indeed, it's the opposite of natural-science and is best discussed in houses of worship or classes devoted to spiritual matters.  Once agin for those who are unable to grasp it the first time, at least Christians admit to needing faith to belive what they do.  Those in the religion of science can't admit to themselves that they have to have faith also, to believe what they do.  So keep telling me what Christians believe can't be considered science, when your belief system itself can't be proven by science.  It is okay to preach man was the product of evolution even though that can't be proven, but it's not okay to preach that man was the product of Creation, something else that cannot be proven.

DoughtyOne: "So don't wax rhapsodic about what scientists do or do not claim.  That's B. S. and you know it."

First, I would not necessarily consider grade school or high school teachers to be "scientists", and I wouldn't defend what they may or may not teach in class.  Nice try.  Good grief you will twist in fifteen different directions rather than face the truth.
Second, I'm not "waxing rhapsodic", simply reporting the facts of what science is, and what it says.  Science as it relates to evolution, is a fraud.  Evolutionists point to science to make their claims.  The facts simply don't back up their claims.
But you obviously don't comprehend it, since all you can do is distort and mock.  Sure I'm mocking you.  You tell me what can and can't be proven.  None the less you allow evolutionists to teach that evolution was the origin of the human species.  Then you go so far as to defend them doing so, because it's based on science.

DoughtyOne: "And that is your basic problem, you aren't really being truthful."

Of course I'm truthful, always. But you always refuse to understand, don't you?  No.  You're not even truthful with yourself.

You told me you can't help what science teachers present in school classrooms.  Then you defend them teaching the theory of evolution there, because it's scientific.  Even so, scientific evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was the origin of the human species.  Yet this is exactly what is taught and we both know it.  So lets face it, what is taught under the label evvolution in our schools is not based on hard science.  It is based on faith in an unproven theory.  It is not science.  It is the religion of science.  It is a faith based system, just like Christianity is.

For example, when you are presented with actual facts about ancient fossils, your only response is mockery:  I smile when you use Biblical terms to disrespect what is taught in the Bible, then accuse me of not respecting your religion.

DoughtyOne: "Yawn. Yes, I was in the third grade too."

DoughtyOne: "Why we found this here fossil from 160 million years ago.  It's only 18 inches tall, but you can tell right away that it's a horse."

So, you see, nothing but distortions and mockery -- you are a true disciple of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: never engage seriously, only personalize, distort and ridicule.  LOL, you don't miss a trick do you.  I'm now a disciple of Saul Alinsky because I call you on your unGodly premise that evolution was the origin of the human species.  So I have to said 15 hail Darwins now?.

DoughtyOne: "You find stages, but you don't find a smooth transition."

Just as you won't find a smooth transition between wild wolves and domestic dogs, and yet we know for certain there were transitional forms.  You try to impress with a known transition within a species, and hope this will convince folks that man came from a single celled organisim billions of years in the process.  And you wonder why I mock you.

The fact that we can't find all the transitions today doesn't mean they never happened.  Nor does it mean they did.  And yet, what is taught in every science class in the nation?  And further, what happens to a child who outright rejects this pipe dream?  Do they get an "A" in the class?

DoughtyOne: "You extrapolate out these charming story lines, but you can't prove them."

I'll repeat: outside of mathematical theorems, science never "proves" any theory, the best it can do is confirm by observation and experimentation.  Okay, then we agree.  It cannot prove man was a product of evolution.  When did it confirm it?

So evolution is an often confirmed scientific theory, the only scientific hypothesis on the subject which was ever confirmed.  But it hasn't been confirmed.  We see mutation within species.  We do not see new species formed.  That has not been confirmed.  It is one theory.  A theory it remains..

DoughtyOne: "Was it because these items came from the same amoeba, or because those building blocks were used by God during creation? "

I'll repeat what I've posted before: I believe God created every living thing on earth, using evolution as one of His tools.

Do you realize how absurd that is?  I generally don't get into religious debates, but this absurdity cannot be addressed without it.

Christians believe in Jesus Christ.  They believe in Him as their salvation.  They believe they will have eternal life based on their acceptance of Him as their personal Savior.  It's an act of faith.

Why does it matter what Jesus did?  What was the value of Him dying?  Why did He have to die?

If God did not create man outright, the Bible is a complete sham.  Man living in the garden, sinning, choosing Satan over God to be the ruler of this earth, that's what is on the line here.

Jesus died to purchase our souls back.

So if evolution was the origin of Man, then Christianity breaks down at every single point.

If God put building blocks out there that in billions of years became man, then he was not created in God's image.  He was not created by God.  The amoeba was.

You can't stradle the fence on this one.  You either believe in God, Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, or you believe in the Amoeba, evolution, and man all on his own.

God has told us through His word what his version of religion is.

Evolution is Satan's version.

Satan always presents us with an alternative to the truth.  The break-down is in discerning which version is the truth.

So I don't look for some exceptional sign of "intelligent design", because as far as I'm concerned, everything is His Intelligent Design.  Bud, you are so far off the beaten path, you don't know which way is up.  You're off in the primordial muck.
And I don't dispute the science religion of evolution, since I think it fully displays God's creative genius at work.  No, it merely destroys the premise of God's creative genius.

DoughtyOne: "Here you are setting me straight though.  Your theory, and that's all it is, by your own admission is nothing more than that."

By your own admission here, you have no real concept of what science is, and what it does, and so the only thing you can think to do is distort and mock.  LOL, you're so confused you now claim I admitted to having no real concept of science.  You charged me with that.  I never stated I didn't understand the tenets of science.  To tell the truth, I recognize it's positive and negative sides a lot better than you do.  I point out the weaknesses of science and evolution, and you conveniently label it "mocking".  

Yes, evolution is a confirmed theory, but all those various ideas about how life first arose on Earth -- those are not even theories, they are unconfirmed hypotheses, which means basically, highly informed speculations.  If they interest you, fine, but if they don't, then no harm has been done...  "...not even theories..."  You know what, one point that you could make is that I do not have the scientific vernacular down as good as you do.  In layman's terms, those are theories.  To raise this issue, is basically to admit that these ideas are so idiotic, that it tarnishes the reputation of science and evolution to admit to them.  So off you scamper hiding behind scientific terms to hope it confuses people to what you actually believe.  If evolution is the answer, then either lightening, a meteor, or volcanic activity had to have caused the spark of life.  There's only one other idea out there, and God is the answer.  And you have displayed your inability to have faith in that over another theory.

DoughtyOne: "You actually thought I meant that Maple Trees were around 500 million years ago, and they transitioned to Sequoias right?"

Because that's what you said, and now are trying to weasel out of it, pretending oh, you really knew all along that your words were just jabbering nonsense!  I don't have to weaslel out of anything.  If I didn't word it precisely enough for you, I could care less.  We both know what the theory of evolution presents.  If you couldn't grasp what I was intending to say, then too bad for you.

And next you'll pretend not to understand why I've called you dishonest -- by your own words!  To be completely honest, I'm very comfortable with you thinking anything you want about me.  If you see no conflicts in your own expressions of belief, I welcome your opinions of me.  One could pretty much accept that I would find it an honor for you to disagree with me stridently.

DoughtyOne: "You have a hypothesis. That's all you've got.."

I'll repeat: evolution is more than hypothesis, it's a confirmed theory.  No, it really isn't.  You have faith that it does, but it doesn't.  You can't come to terms with it, but that's okay.
But various ideas about the origin of life on earth are just hypotheses, none of them yet confirmed theories.  Exactly!  You do actually get this subconciously.  NONE OF THEM YET CONFIRMED  And yet, taught in every science class today, as if proven and without dispute.

Double-speak...

DoughtyOne: "Pre-human..., human like..., close enough... is there a pattern here? Yes.  You don't know if they are truly prehuman, human like, or simple close enough... at all."

Both designations, "pre-human" and "human like" accurately describe fossil-bones older than the oldest known biologically modern humans, even those which were not our direct ancestors.  And yet, you used the terms to buttress the idea evolution was the origin of the human species.  Here's how you put it.

Fossil evidence for distinctly pre-human and human-like creatures goes back millions of years, and some more recent bones have been analyzed for DNA, showing they were very closely related to us -- close enough to be classified in the same species, and to have interbred.

Don't lecture me about the proper use of terms, when you're using them to advance a theory that can't be proven, and I address that on point.  You may not like how I address it, but tough.

Creation could provide an alternative answer for what seems like ancestral markers to you.

Here's what we do know for certain: the older the bones, the less human-like, while the newer bones look more and more like modern humans.  Yes, and what else could account for that?  Well, the fact is that these may or may not be links in an evolutionary chain at all.  They may have similar characteristics, but does not prove a certainty.  Any of these supposed links, may or may not have morphed to eventually become what we know of to be man today.  You have started out with that premise, and each step along the way, things are evaluated favorably if they will buttress your theory.  Viewed negatively, any of these might have several reasoned alternative scenarios.

We also know that the DNA of such creatures as ancient Neanderthals and Denisovans is close enough to ours that they were not really separate species, but sub-species who could and did interbreed with our own ancestors.  Says who?  You guys are a laugh a minute.  Jump to conclusions much?  What you have found are similarities.  Whether these entities were related by procreation is purely speculative.  Creation could account for what you are grasping at straws to prove.

Of course, if you wish to believe that humans suddenly appeared out of the dust, with no pre-human ancestors, then that is your choice, go right ahead.  Let me guess.  This is not an example of mocking.  And since God's word does provide the account of creaton of manin His image by the hand of God, who is it that you would be mocking?  Oh that's right.

Just don't call your beliefs a form of "science", because they are not.  Because science is your only one true God.  Yes, I know.  So anything that buttresses the concept of creation, is now hereby declared to be unscientific by none other than you.

DoughtyOne: "And yet here we are discussing the issue as if it was settled science.  It's no more settled science than the earth being flat was settled science."

In my lifetime there were still people who claimed the earth is flat, and perhaps some still do.  Yawn
So, for those people, the "science" is certainly not "settled", and will never be.  Yawn
But the term "settled science" does not refer to whether or not you believe it -- your beliefs are irrelevant to science.  Well that's certainly not irrelevent to you, when it comes to creation science.  You dismiss it out of hand.  And this provides no small amount of pride to you.

No, the term "settled science" simply means that most scientists accept the idea, and nobody is seriously still working to falsify it.  Oh yes, the high priests of Science have spoken.  All bow on bended knee.  Nevermind what they can't prove, just keep those science classes with evolution going strong.

DoughtyOne: "Evolution is being taught as fact, and the other theory is laughed at by the brillaint scientific community."

Evolution is a theory confirmed by many, many facts, as many as any theory in science.  Evolution is a theory that cannot prove man came from some incidental spark of life that occured naturally.  Other than that, it's a swell patchwork of self-serving way stations that provide an alternative theory and nothing else.  Sadly, the dogmatic self-flatulation squad can't quite accept this, even though they know it to be true down deep inside.

And there is no competing scientific theory on the subject.  Since there is no settled science on the subject of Evolution as the origion of the human species, it stands right there with creation as one explanation for life as we know it.  So at the end of the day, what is being taught has not been scientifically proven at all.  Competing science?  LOL.

Yes, many years ago, there was some scientific debate about the biological mechanism for change, but those were long ago resolved.  To the followers of someone other than God.  I agree.  See, we have some common ground.

So today there is only one scientific theory, and that is evolution.  Except, that it cannot be proven to be the origin of the human species.  So it is just laughable what you extrapolate it out to be.  It is also laughable that you allow it to be taught as the one true scientific theory, when it cannot be proven scientifically  Hello, anybody in there?.

Yes, some people do still dispute evolution, but not on strictly scientific grounds.  That is your opinion.  In my estimation it is a flawed opinion.  Science does not prove what you are peddling.

Rather, they use pseudo-scientific arguments to support their religious convictions, arguments which are patently ridiculous and don't qualify as "science".  And Evolution does not qualify as science either, when it comes to what is being taught in our schools.  And no matter how you spin it, you lose on this one.  You have no proof how life spontaneously came forth.  Strike one.  You have no continual examples of man along the supposed evolutionary trail.  You have certain creatures you claim are the missing links, but there are not examples all along the way.  One example every 25, 50, 100, 150 million years, does not a compelling lineage make.  Strike two.  And a leap of faith has to take place, for you to buy in.    Strike three.  And then you announce that it's settled science.  That's preposterous and you know it.

DoughtyOne: "This the same community that holds certain beliefs in mind for decades calling anyone that doesn't agree with accepted theory to be an essential heretic, but on this one we're supposed to accept everything hook line and sinker. NO!  I've watched as the two clever by half folks have had to backtrack and accept that they were wrong over and over and over again."

"Two clever by half"? Are you sure?  Yep.

I'll grant you that even the most brilliant scientists don't always make the very best debaters, and even the very best debaters will never convince someone like yourself, who refuses to acknowledge even the basics, instead focusing on distortions and mockery.  You know, it's great wasting time talking with you here.  I realize neither of us will get anywhere with the other, but I don't like letting someone make misrepresentations and claim it is science related.  As I do this, I don't do it without noticing what you are doing.  You try to dismiss the other person's point, by calling them distortions and mockery, when your theories are repleat with real distortions and mockery.

Science has not proven evolution to be the origion of the human species.  It's a theory.  Evolutionists try to sell their beliefs based on science, but at the end of the day, they are theories and that's all they are.

So you come here and demand that science be the only true gage of what is true or not.  Then you support the teaching of evolution as the origin of the species, which is not scientifically provable at all.  Not without a shadow of a doubt you can't.  And if there is one, you've got a massive problem on your hands.  And so, you do.

This science clap trap claim is baseless.

DoughtyOne: "Funny, you addressed the issue spot on.   How did you do that without having any idea what that was supposed to mean?"

Probably coincidence, because I claim no great skill at decoding your mocking & distorting comments.  And yet somehow you struggled through.  Gosh what a person.  A true scientist through and through... oh excuse me, no mockery warning in advance.

DoughtyOne: "Did all life come from the same source? 
You statement here leaves that distinct possibility. 
And frankly, that's what you guys believe.
You believe that based on common genetic codes.
Well the same thing could be the outcome of creation.
A supreme being having the genetic code knowledge..."

I'll repeat: I believe it was the outcome of God's creation, through His genetic code which evolved to make every living thing on earth, since everything which we consider truly alive has some form of DNA.

And yet evolution takes Divinity and Humanity out of it.  We are not the sons of God, created in His immage.  We are the sons of an amoeba all the way up to ape-like creatures and beyond, because God couldn't possibly have created us as Genesis states.

There goes God the Father, Jesus His Son, the Holy Spirit, Satan and his angels, the Test of Man in the Garden, the reason for Jesus to die for us, all right out of the process in every meaningful way connected to Christianity

And you can't see it.

DoughtyOne: "No, you don't know yet, but you do know there are only about three theories for it, and none of them include God.
Ligthening, meteor, or volcanic activity...
I believe those are the three main theories today."

Somewhere recently I saw a listing of six or eight different hypotheses -- none are confirmed theories -- which did include "panspermia", meaning perhaps life arrived from outer space, aboard a comet or even alien space ship.
Whether such an alien could ever be considered our God, of course that's a matter which natural-science cannot address.

Well, through the confirmation of Evolution as the origin of the species, you think you have proven something though don't you

DoughtyOne: "Theory. That's basically what this is. Every bit of it."

No, you still don't understand!  I understand a lot more here than you think I do.  It's just that you are dismissive of anyone who isn't bowing at the alter of the religion of science.

Those are not confirmed theories, they are unconfirmed hypotheses, which means basically informed speculations.  Speculation?  So speculation is now the scientific hurdle to be taught exclusively in our nation's schools.

No scientists claims to know for certain how life first rose on Earth.  No, just that it did, and not as the Biblical accounting tells us it did.

DoughtyOne: "Oh yes, here you folks talk about uncertainty.   Then in the schools you teach the theory as if there is no other answer."

But there is no other scientific theory concerning evolution.  And to me, there is no other truth than God's word.  I am a Christian.  I am not a member of the religion of science.

Your creationism is a religious doctrine which is properly taught in places of worship, places where one religion's doctrines will not come into conflict with others.  And yet, your doctrine is the one being taught in our schools exclusively, because it cannot come into contact with any alternative theories.  So the schools are your temples, and Christian's temples are exactly what they claim to be.

DoughtyOne: "You're so deathly afraid that creationism will creep in, that you feel compelled to come here and prattle on about things you honestly can't prove at all.
You even admit as much.
Then you ask me to confess.
No, you confess."

FRiend, you are only forgiven and excused from telling the truth if you honestly don't know it.  Is this your way of claiming abstention due to you're refusal to acknowledge your membership in the religion of science.

But you have now been told and taught in considerable detail, and yet your only responses have been to distort, mock and ignore the facts in favor of your own doctrines.   But you have now been told and taught in considerable detail, and yet your only responses have been to distort, mock and ignore the facts in favor of your own doctrines.

I said in my very first post to you that you have a serious problem with truth-telling, and you need to work on overcoming that -- yet you refuse.  And this from a person who admits he can't provide proof of the inception of life on the planet, can't prove man is the offspring of Evolution, and can't account for what is or isn't taught properly in our scholls as it relations to evolution.  None the less, he assures me it is reasoned to preach his ideology in our schools, but can't see any reason to preach mine there.

So let me end this as I always do: you are entitled to believe whatever you wish to believe regarding scientific matters -- flat earth, young earth, recent deluge... whatever you want -- just so long as you don't pretend your religious convictions have something to do with science, because they don't.  And sence what is being taught in our schools today can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then you have no right to be presenting what you are there to the exclusion of anything else.  And claiming science has anything to do with it, sans proof, you have a massive double-standard on your hands..

DoughtyOne: "I believe in creation. I cannot prove my theory either.
My theory is not allowed to be taught.
Your theory is." But your "theory" is not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief which is taught in every church in the world every Sunday and usually several other days of the week as well.  And your theory is not scientific either.  It's a belief derived from faith in the religion of science.  You cannot prove what they are teaching.  Yet they continue to teach it, to the exclusion of anything else.  If creation did take place, your science goes right out the window.  So far, you are only able to grasp the Christian religion's theory going out the window, you are so blinded to reality.

But by US law, your religion is not allowed to be taught in government run science classes, among other reasons because if they allowed your religious beliefs, then they would also have to provide for the beliefs of everybody else.
Probably not a good idea.  Honestly, the way you folks think, it's just strange.  You call others dishonest.  You call other liars.  You claim science is the true measuring stick.  It never dawns on your it has become your god.  You measure beliefs by scientific methods only.  God's word means nothing.  You believe in science over God's word.  You have no faith in God, but a rock solid faith in science.  You do not want other poeple's regligious dogma taught in our schools.  If it's the religion of scientific's dogma which ultimately can only be deemed right if you have massive faith in it, you think that's reasoned.  

Best to teach such ideas in churches which are specifically intended for that purpose.  Yes, and of course leave the Evolution-centric temples alone, to conform to Satan's plan.

I get it.  A lot of others do to.