Victory for evolution in Texas

[Arkadin]

http://ncse.com/news/2011/07/victory...n-texas-006802

The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In 14-0* vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers--and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC.

A surprise, but a wonderful one at that.

[RACJ]

I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird "evolve" the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not "know" that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life's riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck! Rob

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by RACJ

I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird "evolve" the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not "know" that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life's riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck! Rob

I suggest you do some up-to-date reading and not from anti-evolution sources since there is nothing accurate in their writings.

[RACJ]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

I suggest you do some up-to-date reading and not from anti-evolution sources since there is nothing accurate in their writings.

I'll make a note that you have not attempted to answer my "simple" questions. Rob

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

I suggest you do some up-to-date reading and not from anti-evolution sources since there is nothing accurate in their writings.

Okay--so answer his two questions. Please.

[chris62]

A very long time waiting for his reply.
RACJ wins.

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by RACJ

I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird "evolve" the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not "know" that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life's riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck! Rob

First off, I don't seem to understand how any of this debunks evolution.

One of the big reasons hummingbirds flap their wings so fast is due to the weak structure of their feet.

I think the reason, in your mind, evolutionist cannot plausibly answer is simply that your questions or examples make not much sense, at least to me. Are you referring to brain development and the genes that survive influencing that?

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by chris62

A very long time waiting for his reply.
RACJ wins.

Actually, I was reading up on hummingbirds since I'm not too familiar with them.

[chris62]

Fair enough

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by RACJ

I oppose keeping our young people ignorant and uncritical in their thinking. There are hundreds of questions that opponents have for naturalists that cannot be plausibly answered. Such as, how did a hummingbird "evolve" the ability to flap its wings 200X per SECOND during mating? Give us the answer, one step at a time. Another: Please explain how an organism, the miracle of it coming to life in the first place conceded, came to hear sounds so acutely that it can distinguish thousands of different sounds from each other. Nothingness does not "know" that there is anything to hear, obviously.
There are unlimited examples of life's riddles that cannot be explained by modification through descent. Evolutionary theory is a train wreck! Rob

In fact, I should be the one challenging you to show how these things disprove evolution. I would say the burden of proof is more on you. Perhaps you can also help me understand how this disproves anything since I seem to be having a hard time understanding you.

You understand that things didn't just happen overnight, but took a significantly long time to get to where they are now. Everything is based on survival.

[Dan Daly]

When someone advances a theory, the burden falls on them to prove it, not on others to disprove it.

Here's a question for the evolutionary theory advocates:

How did life evolve from non-living things?

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

When someone advances a theory, the burden falls on them to prove it, not on others to disprove it.

Here's a question for the evolutionary theory advocates:

How did life evolve from non-living things?

Actually there are two questions that the evolutionsts never can answer:

How did somethng come from nothing?
How did life spring from non-life

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by chris62

A very long time waiting for his reply.
RACJ wins.

Hardly. How do phycisists turn make lumps of solid metal (uranium or plutonium) cause gugantic explosions capable of destroying cities? Can you explain every detail of the chemistry and physics to me? No? Well then, I guess nuclear wepaons do not and never have existed. I win. No, asking a highly technical question about an esoteric subject (many many entire books have been written on the subject of the evolution of flight in birds, and I am sure whole books on the evolution of humming birds, have been written). Why would any run of the mill person who is not trained in biology be able to explain that?

Why doesn't RACJ explain what is ecpetional about the hummingbird that would make standard ecolutionary theory not apply to it? Does he, I wonder, even understand the idea of evolution by means of natural selection? I'm sceptical, if he thinks he can just any random person a difficult question the significance of which he cannot explain himself and upon not hearing a satisfactory answer which he probably wouldn't understand even if he did get it, and then consider it a "win."

Anyway, I'm Texas is moving beyond teaching pseudoscience in the classrooms.

[Dan Daly]

You understand that things didn't just happen overnight, but took a significantly long time to get to where they are now. Everything is based on survival.

This is exactly where many people have problems accepting evolution. You say that things don't happen overnight and take a very long time to develop. YET, there are many things which are highly complex and require all of the elements of the system to be working together in order to function. Such as the wings on a hummingbird- or a human heart. A slow gradual evolution of the system does not make sense, because a non-beating heart or wings that don't flap fast enough for the hummingbird to fly would be a DETERIMENT to survival. And in your own words- everything is based on survival.

The "it takes a really long time" argument from evolutionist also excuses them ever providing proof for the theory. We can see someone breed dogs and develop certain traits in a new breed. We can see turtles on different island develop into slightly different turtles. This process, often called mircroevolution, is demonstrable and repeatable. The advocates of evolution claim the process is the same for MACROevolution- or evolution from one species into another, but can't offer proof because it takes too long to occur.

Yet, the common man knows that micro and macro evolution are NOT the same thing. The new short haired breed of poodle that was developed from other dogs- is STILL A DOG. We are told fish evolved into amphibians....but no one has ever seen a fish turn into a frog. Or a frog hatch out of a fish egg.

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by estesbob

Actually there are two questions that the evolutionsts never can answer:

How did somethng come from nothing?
How did life spring from non-life

That's quite a stretch though to draw conclusions about the falsity of evolution from scepticism about the origins of life. Biologists themselves are intenseley debating the subject, but no answer they come to can ever be trult verified because live originated on earth maybe 3 billion years ago, and none of the dating techniques can go back that far (I think the farthest back they can date fossils is a little over 2 billion years, could be wrong though). That question has little bearing however, on the evolution of simple organisms to the complex ones that exist today over te course ofthe last 2 and a half billion years.

And evolution doesn't require the creation of new material, chemically speaking.