PWCCA, this forum is evolution/creation, it is not about every area of history and all the discrepancies, which would cause us all to go through everything with a fine tooth comb, without really knowing who has gotten it right. This is different, we are talking here about a belief being taught as science. This area is one of the most vital because it comes down to our origins. Evolution should be very easily proven with plenty of transitional forms as Russ and Claymore have pointed out.

This is science we are talking about here, this is not written/oral history or taking someone's word for it that was there and arguing which one got the facts straight and lining them all up and coming to a conclusion.

We are talking here about science teachers putting across an idea of what they think happened in the beginning with absolutely ZERO oral / written history or facts, just assumptions....it would be one thing if the basics were correct and the details could be argued with....But we cannot even prove that any of it ever happened in the first place.

Has anybody seen evolution in progress? It has been told that it happened so slowly over billions of years that we are just not able to observe these slow subtle changes. yet when there were problems with that idea due to how survival would continue if certain areas were still unevolved and could not exist properly unless they were in place at once, I have heard it said that it happened too quickly. Whatever the idea, it is ideal for the evolutionist. If you have a theory that you want to be put across as fact, even if that theory cannot be tested, observed, or studied, just tell everybody it occurs too slowly or quickly. But then if they want us to believe it happened at all? Tell us it happened over many billions of years. This way it goes beyond recorded history into "never never land". The space and time where all sorts of incredible fiction (put across as science) to explain our origins, universe, planetry alignment, day and night, time itself, DNA, human emotions, intelligence and so forth can suddenly be explained by the men in white coats who were not even there. Amazing really, we have the moon to light us by night and the sun to light us by day, yet all this just arrived by ...chance? Seasons, fruits, vegetables, animals, plants, all just evolved by chance random events. You take away one aspect of what we require for life and death is the eventual result. So they want us to believe that life originated from non life, or something without animation/intellect that not only could start life off, but could sustain it.

The evolutionist MUST rely on billions of years to put across this theory. That way if you put enough time on something, you can come up with anything. An unbelieveable idea can then suddenly seem possible. The improbable, becomes possible given enough time.

If in fact the earth is as old as they tell us, why are we not inundated/overwhelmed with fossil evidence of transitional forms? Why are they still searching and in the meantime telling us its fact? Why have there been so many hoaxes of missing links if they are so cock sure of their theory?

Why is a theory being taught or put across as science in a classroom? Science is something you can test, study, observe. Does someone have the right to stand in front of a classroom and use lies/uncertainties to support his theory and put it across as fact? One example of this was a young guy on here who (and I cannot believe this) STILL quoted the long since disproven fake of the embryo evolution. This guy started talking about gill slits in the embryo. It has been known for decades that embryos never have "gill slits". These pharyngeal clefts, as they are called, or "throat pouches" never have any breathing function and are never 'slits" or openings. They develop into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands and middle ear canals - none of which has anything to do with breathing under water or even above the water. And as for the guy's idea of a tail? This is the coccyx, important muscle attachments. All these things are part of a developing human being. But you see the evolutionist agenda here and attempting to have us believe that it's going through a fish stage?? So either we get the apes or fish. They must fit anything to support their theory, even if it means lying. Plenty of lies, we all know about the long line of ape to man hoaxes. Talk about desperate, they cannot even find a viable missing link. Billions of years? The entire earth should be a literal museum.

The guy who hoaxed this embyo evolution theory "Haeckel" used drawings NOT photos to put across this lie. What happened? It goes into the textbooks and the young students take it onboard as fact. In fact, his drawings bore little resemblance to real embyos and came from his own imagination, which was all done to promote evolution. The sad thing is, even though they were proven fake, they continued to pop up in the science textooks regardless. But is this the fault of people who have been taught these things as fact? Of course not. They are simply told this is so, why should they think otherwise? Teachers are in a position of trust, particularly in science because this is the stuff of reality/fact.

National Geographic is another example of an agenda. On the front of one their magazines where they were displaying ancient foot prints (fully humanly formed) and plenty of animal prints found, they drew a picture to animate this. So in the animal foot prints, they drew the animals, much like what we see today.....yet in the human looking footprints what did they draw? A creature that resembled half baboon and half human. Yet nobody questions it, they accept that this is what we must have looked like. Rather than consider much else, the student in the science room simply accepts what he is told and the amount of study that goes into it, exams etc, to suddenly have their theory questioned/challenged is actually quite a devastating concept and often not up for question. To them, evolution is science and creation is religion. But in actual fact it takes faith to believe in an event you didn't see, and you cannot study. Therefore it is a religion also. But they do not accept that. In fact, a growing number of students have been exposed to both views and are now challenging their teachers in class (much to the alarm of the science teachers). One book that was helping this was "refuting evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati. If one view can be taught in the science room on an event that nobody observed, then why can't the creation view be taught? You see the bias here?

They are basically attempting to fit things into their own belief system, rather than simply giving the facts and allowing the students to think for themselves. I believe that science should simply be taught as it is, "science" and nobody's theory should be forced down anybody's throat as fact. Let's allow the students to come to their own conclusions based on the science that can be studied, tested, observed. Of the stuff that we are not sure of, let's leave that up to the student.

I believe in God by faith, that is my choice. But I do not find that what I observe around me causes me to doubt this, rather for me it further confirms it. But again, I do not force that down someone's throat in a science room. Why does the evolution religion have such free reign? because there is a very real agenda behind the evolution theory. So far they have not been able to give one example of one kind becoming another.

As none of us were there in the beginning to see what occured, then do any of us have the right to call our idea science? There is nothing wrong with science, but science does NOT rely on evolution, true solid science does very well on its own without the requirement for man's theory to be fitted in as fact. And an antigod theory does not suddenly become scientific because it excludes intelligent design, just as creation does not necessarily become unscientific because intelligent design is involved. Both faiths rely on what we observe around us.

Again, keep science as science and your theory and my faith? Do not even NEED to come into it. Where the facts lead a person is the main thing! Students should not be treated as monekys in the science room, but rather intelligent human beings with the huge capacity to learn based on honest science. Dumbing down a student to push across a theory and keeping lies in the textbooks, does not advance science, rather it distorts it and frustrates honest learning. If scientific observable FACTS leads a person to intelligent design or evolution? So be it. But keep the bias out of it.

There cannot really be any real admissions as such to the fallacy of the evolution theory because this would mean rewriting all the textbooks. So even a long since disproven fake is preferable to them to keep in a science textbook, rather than admitting "we really dont know".