Hello again SoSIck
However, neither should evolution be taught as a scientific fact.
The problem is that there are facts of evolution, there are the facts that the theory of evolution is based on, the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Speciation has been observed. These are facts, not theory, not fantasy, not falsehood.
The problem is that the theory of evolution explains these facts, just as other scientific theories in other sciences explain the evidence those sciences are based on. The science of evolution demonstrates how well the theory explains these facts.
But then, you have already demonstrated\admitted that you have no idea what evolution really is haven't you?
You are using willful blindness and bizarre logic to say that the tooth fairy exists and that the world was sneezed up by the great whoknowswhateape, aomeba or trilobite.
Funny how you demonstrate it once again. It's like you can't help yourself.
Just because a fossil record exists is hardly proof that creation did not happen. Logically, it is proof that it did happen, it is proof of life.
Of course that is a possibility. Now let's test that concept. When does the fossil record say that creation occurred - at what level? How many "kinds" were involved? (What's a "kind?)
Ignoring accounts and factual records of christian history is hardly the way to win a creation/evolution debate.
So the fact that Jerusalem exists proves what? It proves that Jerusalem exists. We can validate that with other historical evidence, so this information is trivial as an addition to knowledge.
The fact that Kansas exists must also prove that the Wizard of Oz is true to eh?
Though i've been called a bigot and whoknows what here how many times, i think it's pretty obvious who the bigots are since they refuse to even explore that facts on the other side of the argument.
When you behave like a bigot you should expect people to notice.
As far as facts that support concepts go, finding facts that appear to support a concept is trivial, like the existence of Jerusalem. I can use a roadmap as evidence that the world is flat, I can use sunrise and sunset as evidence that the earth is at the center of the universe orbited by the sun, planets and stars. I can use fresh lava as evidence that the earth is young.
The existing of supporting evidence on its own does not validate a concept. The real issue, the test of ideas is how you deal with evidence that invalidates the concept.
We don't believe in a flat or geocentric earth because there is evidence that invalidates those ideas. Likewise there is evidence that the earth is old - how do you deal with that? Evidence of young parts of the earth do not invalidate the fact that the earth is old, but the evidence of old parts of the earth
do invalidate the concept of a young earth, just as much as the flat or geocentric earth are invalidated concepts.
So if you want to discuss facts we need to specify that the important ones to discuss are the ones that invalidate concepts, the others are trivial and a waste of time.
Enjoy.
Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
