DSM explains how Xian fundimentalism is in the Amer Const

And I am amazed by the number of people who think that evolution is a theory, and a weak one at that. Actually evolution is a well known, proven (both by fossil record and laboratory experiments), observed (in nature) fact. Denying the existence of evolution is the same as denying the existence of gravity. What is being discussed in the scientific community are the mechanisms of evolution, various means of selection (natural, sexual, gene, species, group, etc.), not evolution itself. Similarly, Lamarck's theory was a (wrong) theory of evolution, it is not an alternative to evolution, it is an alternative to Darwinism. 

Creationism is not thought in schools simply because it is WRONG. Biology is a hard science which has its facts. Calling evolution 'a theory' and promoting creationism is like calling the round earth a theory and asking for the flat earth theory to be thought in schools. If you find this appalling, that's your problem.  

DSM,

Although I am confident that I can smash your argumentation easily (since you asked, yes, I've been studying evolution, since you've been born, probably), I won't discuss creationism with a 'protestant taliban' (thanx to Mixcoatl) like you, since I believe that you just studied some crackpot creationist 'scientists' from American bible belt 'universities' instead of any real scientists, and stated that you would believe the bible even when you see proof to the contrary, anyway. I already believe that you are an irrational person, and I don't want to waste my time trying to show you the truth through reason (i.e. discussion). 

But, if anyone else wants to promote creationism, flat earth, Lamarck's theories, or deny evolution, gravity, man made global warming etc., please feel free to create a new thread and notify me. 

For once Beylerbeyi and I could not be in greater agreement.

Look sir!

The variation seen now can only happen within the preexisting possiblities hardcoded into the DNA.  The DNA limits what can happen.  This is the reason flower breeders cannot obtain certain colors of some flowers (like blue daffodils).  This is the reason why dogs produce nothing but dogs.  The genes allow certain variation, and the possibilities are NOT altered by breeding.  They can be altered by mutation, but no one has EVER seen a mutation that increased genetic information.  It only loses part.

And dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago.  They lived for the most part before the flood, and gave rise to the dragon myths after the flood.

Here.  If anyone wants to look at Creationist sites, go to my website and look under Creation:

http://coecs.ou.edu/Daniel.S.Myers/Creation.htm

They are perfectly logical.  I cannot vouch for all of them, not having looked through all of them in depth, but from what I have seen I agree with them.  Try Answers in Genesis first--excellent articles.

Actually replacing the existense of evolution is the same as replacing the existence of gravity. Whose to say we're not all attached to the earth by invisible strings. Can you prove that wrong?

And tell me Tobodai, what proves that specks of light in the sky aren't candles. Put in the sky by a supreme creator who makes them appear as if they were billions of light years away. Whose to say that are sky doesn't reach out past our solar system (nothings gone past it yet). Give me a good example and don't base it upon the assumptions and guesses of scientists (non-religious ministers).

dont tell me you by that crock of sheisse too!

well lets see now, space certainly extends beyond the solar system because alot of old probes have flown outside of our most outer regions and left the gravity of the sun once they were diactivated, our instruments and measurement makers can cleary detect more than visual residue when things such as pulsars show up, including the many cosmic particles that come in waves from such things and collide with Earth, thats certainly more than visual flair.  I also dont think candles in the sky would folllow orbiatal patterns and have little planets orbiting them that effect their gravitiational pull.

Its also pretty damn strange to think all that vastness is just some tableau for our own amusement, its likely we are jsut one of many specks of life throughout teh universe and theres no proof we have a special social system in any way.

Theres one point you may have though, that human kind will never pass out of the soalr system before we end up blowing ourselves up, but the reason is that we are surrounded by large ice fragments that would be a danger too a person pioting something out there, it wouldnt exactly be liek a Star Wars astroid field, but still quite an obstacle 

your making way to many assumptions about here now, as I stated before I do not worship evolution nor take all science as truth, my argument is not that the scientist knows all or can know all, its that he at least (most of the time) looks for evidence, rather than using a dusty old tome, although I do admit some scientists just believe things they accept as standard truths without a re-evaluation.

Also I have said before that just because I dont believe in religion, doenst autopmatically mean I worship at the science altar either.

yes thats what I think, they both are just assumptions, though there certainly is an existence of Darwinian theory, ever heard of Lucy from Ethiopia I think it was?  Though I agree there are foten too few links found in this chain, there still are some, like the horse that used to be small and silly and live in Montana.

ALso crops and agriculture just by human intervention ca n face a sort of natural (or unnatural) selection in a small amount of time.  Personally Ibeliev in evolution, but not the orthodoxy that states everything is randomized, we dont find things that maladaptive, I think its an evolution based on part chance but mostly a slow but deliberate process of adaptation or migration to ones enviroment not by some selection, but purely based on need.  God Im bad explaining things.