4th Grade "Science" Quiz - Were you there?

[rightwinger]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

All of them? You want your kids taught that Lord Krishna sleeps on a giant snake and the repeating cycle of the universe begins again when Lord Braham is born from the egg of life called Anda, which comes out of Krishna's navel?

Or, as Buddha taught, that the universe goes through an endless cycle of birth, destruction, rebirth? At a time of destruction, the existing creatures go to dwell in the Realm of Radiance to await the rebirth of the universe when they come back as human beings? (How's that for evolution!)

Or, that the earth is carried on the Great Turtle's back, as told by the Iroquois indians, or that it was birthed from a giant black egg, as some Chinese believe? Or, that the sun, moon and stars were vomited out by a giant diety, as the Bakuba Kingdom of the Congo thought?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. If we are to teach religious ideas about the origin of the universe, we must teach them all or be guilty of favoring one religion over another (see: 1st Amendment).

How about we just stick to known science and let the parents and churches teach whatever else they want their kids to learn and allow THEM to decide for themselves. Unless, of course, you want your kids being taught nothing else BUT religious dogma because by the time the schools get through teaching every conceivable religious explanation....why, the kids'll be out of high school!

No not all and not with the dogma attached. It needs to be simplified.

The three possibilities:

Creationism : a higher intelligence made us.
Evolution: we are the result of a series of mutations/adaptations
Ancient Alien Theory: life from another source came here and colonized Earth.

Those three in their base forms cover all. It could be easily taught,would back up everybody's personal beliefs,all three can be related to each other,and considering we really don't know it would leave all options open and be balanced and fair.

Fine, let each go through the same scientific rigors and we can discuss the scientific merits of each.

 

[LittleNipper]

No, it most certainly does not. There isn't a single sound and valid syllogism that confirms this. If it was so logical, there would be. All cosmological arguments for a first cause fail, and even if they succeeded, they still would only establish a first cause, not a god.

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

Why certainly there is proof of God. Say we have two nations. One nation follows scriptural principles and one nation totally fights against it. If the "Christian" nation becomes safe, wealthy, pleasant and a desirable place to want to live --- and the other nation becomes poorer, dangerous, disease ridden, and a place to flee from ---------- that would seem to indicate that there is something happening. Now, if this happens over and over, during the course of thousands of years a logical person should come to the conclusion that GOD is the answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

In order for me to assume this is genuine I would have to first assume that the sky is neon orange.

 

[FA_Q2]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

We should not teach children in public school a scientific theory based on a religious text, particular since that theory has been rejected by most scientist. Such a theory can certain be taught in private or parochial schools, but not in a public schools because it's a theory based on theology not science. If you want your children taught this belief, then you should look to a parochial school or your church.

BTW Evolution does not address the origins of life, only how that life evolved.

It wouldn't be taught with any religious text. Three basic theories,creationism,evolution and ancient alien theory. The dogma can be filled in at home to the families liking. Instead of arguing we should be accommodating each other but putting forward all theories and letting the individual decide which they believe to be true. All three are scientifically within the realm of possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(science)
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

Creationism--> is not a ‘theory.’ It is pure conjecture based on the religious tenants of many religions and other faith based sources. There is now observation and no repeatable experimentation.

evolution --> Is a valid theory. There are experiments, observable data and repeatable tests that challenge this theory. While being far from complete, it is well established as the best theory that we currently have.

ancient alien theory --> Again, not a theory. Based entirely on faith again as there is zero evidence to suggest that this is even remotely true.

Gravity is A THEORY! Creationism and Alien Creation are nowhere near that league.

So, what you are asking is that we give 2 faith based and unsubstantiated concepts equal footing with the mountains of evidence and observable data that we have for evolution? That makes zero sense. Perhaps we should also be teaching Copernicus’ theories of the universe next to modern cosmology, never mind that it has no basis in scientific fact…

Perhaps the real problem here is that schools don’t actually teach evolution. They tell you that we evolved from other forms of life through genetic mutation and that is about it. None of the actual evidence is really ever covered through high school so most people have a gross misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. That is also not to mention that we teach other things that are false as well like the idea of ‘kind’ and ‘family’ in biology where such definitions are moot after the discovery of DNA turned all those concepts on their heads.

 

[westwall]

On the contrary. Cosmologists tell us that all matter in the Universe was created in a huge explosion, an explosion that originated in a singularity the size of a proton. That's one half the size of an atom. They have no "proof" of this, they have calculations that can take us back to within 300,000 years (so they believe) of the Big Bang, but no closer.

So, you tell me....is it faith, or science, that we "believe" that all the matter in the universe originated from a point the size of half of an atom?

It is conjecture based loosely on observed data. The observation that all matter (for the most part) is traveling outward, the relative speed that it is traveling and the measurements that we take show us that it was once in a tight cluster. From there, we have observable data on gravity and how it works, a rough idea of the total matter that we can see and it is clear that the gravitational force is far more than needed for a singularity.

See, the difference here is that we have observable, natural phenomenon that this thesis is based on. There is data at the core of this. It is NOT faith.

Further, cosmetologists say that this is a POSSIBILITY. There is no faith in that because the idea is not something that we state as a truth, it is a POSSIBILITY and the best possibility that we have based on the observations. As soon as we have better possibilities, the old one will be tossed and replaced with the new one. Is faith the same? Of course not.

Are you going to trash your Christian faith because someone comes to you with a better one? Not likely, you have a strong faith in a Christian god. You might lose that faith one day, many have, and then move on to another faith but you do not hold that as a replaceable tenant in your life. Christianity is fact for you, not mere conjecture or theory. It is hard because you have FAITH in it.

I have no faith in science. When a better theory comes along, I trash my old thoughts and replace them with the new ones.

I realize that I am making the assumption that you are Christian here and you might not be. It does not matter, replace Christian with whatever faith you are and if you are not faithful you still get the idea.

I'm an agnostic actually. I have no faith, I am a scientist who has observed the physical world for over 45 years now as a professional. The observations you speak of are for the most part accurate but the very early universe is still a mystery. Mathematical constructs rule the theoretical realm because there is very little that is observable.

 

[laughinReaper]

All of them? You want your kids taught that Lord Krishna sleeps on a giant snake and the repeating cycle of the universe begins again when Lord Braham is born from the egg of life called Anda, which comes out of Krishna's navel?

Or, as Buddha taught, that the universe goes through an endless cycle of birth, destruction, rebirth? At a time of destruction, the existing creatures go to dwell in the Realm of Radiance to await the rebirth of the universe when they come back as human beings? (How's that for evolution!)

Or, that the earth is carried on the Great Turtle's back, as told by the Iroquois indians, or that it was birthed from a giant black egg, as some Chinese believe? Or, that the sun, moon and stars were vomited out by a giant diety, as the Bakuba Kingdom of the Congo thought?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. If we are to teach religious ideas about the origin of the universe, we must teach them all or be guilty of favoring one religion over another (see: 1st Amendment).

How about we just stick to known science and let the parents and churches teach whatever else they want their kids to learn and allow THEM to decide for themselves. Unless, of course, you want your kids being taught nothing else BUT religious dogma because by the time the schools get through teaching every conceivable religious explanation....why, the kids'll be out of high school!

No not all and not with the dogma attached. It needs to be simplified.

The three possibilities:

Creationism : a higher intelligence made us.
Evolution: we are the result of a series of mutations/adaptations
Ancient Alien Theory: life from another source came here and colonized Earth.

Those three in their base forms cover all. It could be easily taught,would back up everybody's personal beliefs,all three can be related to each other,and considering we really don't know it would leave all options open and be balanced and fair.

Fine, let each go through the same scientific rigors and we can discuss the scientific merits of each.

OK but I think you're going to find my take on this not what most expect.

Evolution everybody is familiar with

Creationism and Ancient Alien Theory: the possibility that a higher intelligence created man. Science has not been able to rule this out. Science can create a baby in a test tube. Science has created hybrids. Man has gone to the moon and currently looks for ways to travel further in space. Man can't rule out life as we know it wasn't created by a higher intelligence or was brought here,or what life was already here wasn't manipulated by a higher intelligence to become what we have today.

Open ended begining: that man does not know of a beginning and end to existence. IE. We can be one of an infinate number of universes.

Closed ended beginning: big bang is how universe was created there is an end that we have not found.

How our universe came into being is unknown but most agree it was a big bang. Nobody knows if the universe is a random creation or a deliberate creation as no known creator has been identified however as the food chain exemplifies,a top and bottom are likely. No one knows if the top of the universal food chain created the universe but until that top has been found it can't be ruled out.

 

[rightwinger]

No not all and not with the dogma attached. It needs to be simplified.

The three possibilities:

Creationism : a higher intelligence made us.
Evolution: we are the result of a series of mutations/adaptations
Ancient Alien Theory: life from another source came here and colonized Earth.

Those three in their base forms cover all. It could be easily taught,would back up everybody's personal beliefs,all three can be related to each other,and considering we really don't know it would leave all options open and be balanced and fair.

Fine, let each go through the same scientific rigors and we can discuss the scientific merits of each.

OK but I think you're going to find my take on this not what most expect.

Evolution everybody is familiar with

Creationism and Ancient Alien Theory: the possibility that a higher intelligence created man. Science has not been able to rule this out. Science can create a baby in a test tube. Science has created hybrids. Man has gone to the moon and currently looks for ways to travel further in space. Man can't rule out life as we know it wasn't created by a higher intelligence or was brought here,or what life was already here wasn't manipulated by a higher intelligence to become what we have today.

Open ended begining: that man does not know of a beginning and end to existence. IE. We can be one of an infinate number of universes.

Closed ended beginning: big bang is how universe was created there is an end that we have not found.

How our universe came into being is unknown but most agree it was a big bang. Nobody knows if the universe is a random creation or a deliberate creation as no known creator has been identified however as the food chain exemplifies,a top and bottom are likely. No one knows if the top of the universal food chain created the universe but until that top has been found it can't be ruled out.

You lack a certain thing called evidence

There is plenty of evidence about evolution

 

[Mr Natural]

I voted "other" because I find it real hard to believe that the test is on the level.

And if it is for real, I feel sorry for the kids going to that school.

And even sorrier for the kid that aced it.

 

[laughinReaper]

Fine, let each go through the same scientific rigors and we can discuss the scientific merits of each.

OK but I think you're going to find my take on this not what most expect.

Evolution everybody is familiar with

Creationism and Ancient Alien Theory: the possibility that a higher intelligence created man. Science has not been able to rule this out. Science can create a baby in a test tube. Science has created hybrids. Man has gone to the moon and currently looks for ways to travel further in space. Man can't rule out life as we know it wasn't created by a higher intelligence or was brought here,or what life was already here wasn't manipulated by a higher intelligence to become what we have today.

Open ended begining: that man does not know of a beginning and end to existence. IE. We can be one of an infinate number of universes.

Closed ended beginning: big bang is how universe was created there is an end that we have not found.

How our universe came into being is unknown but most agree it was a big bang. Nobody knows if the universe is a random creation or a deliberate creation as no known creator has been identified however as the food chain exemplifies,a top and bottom are likely. No one knows if the top of the universal food chain created the universe but until that top has been found it can't be ruled out.

You lack a certain thing called evidence

There is plenty of evidence about evolution

No their is not. What you have is random bones of the ape family but what you don't have is proof that one became the other. A wolf and a Chihuahua are from the canine family but are completely different breeds. It can not be proven that the different bones evolved or are similar but different breeds. Nor can it be proven that we are or are not created hybrids by a higher intelligence and said bones are the product of that hybridization. All you have is old bones and one possibility when there are multiple possibilities. Honestly ruling out other positions without proving then incorrect is crappy science.

 

[Derideo_Te]

OK but I think you're going to find my take on this not what most expect.

Evolution everybody is familiar with

Creationism and Ancient Alien Theory: the possibility that a higher intelligence created man. Science has not been able to rule this out. Science can create a baby in a test tube. Science has created hybrids. Man has gone to the moon and currently looks for ways to travel further in space. Man can't rule out life as we know it wasn't created by a higher intelligence or was brought here,or what life was already here wasn't manipulated by a higher intelligence to become what we have today.

Open ended begining: that man does not know of a beginning and end to existence. IE. We can be one of an infinate number of universes.

Closed ended beginning: big bang is how universe was created there is an end that we have not found.

How our universe came into being is unknown but most agree it was a big bang. Nobody knows if the universe is a random creation or a deliberate creation as no known creator has been identified however as the food chain exemplifies,a top and bottom are likely. No one knows if the top of the universal food chain created the universe but until that top has been found it can't be ruled out.

You lack a certain thing called evidence

There is plenty of evidence about evolution

No their is not. What you have is random bones of the ape family but what you don't have is proof that one became the other. A wolf and a Chihuahua are from the canine family but are completely different breeds. It can not be proven that the different bones evolved or are similar but different breeds. Nor can it be proven that we are or are not created hybrids by a higher intelligence and said bones are the product of that hybridization. All you have is old bones and one possibility when there are multiple possibilities. Honestly ruling out other positions without proving then incorrect is crappy science.

Evolution is well established and proven scientific fact. The "old bones" are only one aspect of the science. In addition there is biology and genetics which both support evolution. Perhaps if you actually studied the subject matter instead of just mindlessly rejecting it you would have a better understanding of how the process does in fact work. Mankind has been using biology to breed both plants and animals that are better suited to our needs. This is simply taking advantage of the evolutionary process and shaping it to meet our own ends.

 

[laughinReaper]

You lack a certain thing called evidence

There is plenty of evidence about evolution

No their is not. What you have is random bones of the ape family but what you don't have is proof that one became the other. A wolf and a Chihuahua are from the canine family but are completely different breeds. It can not be proven that the different bones evolved or are similar but different breeds. Nor can it be proven that we are or are not created hybrids by a higher intelligence and said bones are the product of that hybridization. All you have is old bones and one possibility when there are multiple possibilities. Honestly ruling out other positions without proving then incorrect is crappy science.

Evolution is well established and proven scientific fact. The "old bones" are only one aspect of the science. In addition there is biology and genetics which both support evolution. Perhaps if you actually studied the subject matter instead of just mindlessly rejecting it you would have a better understanding of how the process does in fact work. Mankind has been using biology to breed both plants and animals that are better suited to our needs. This is simply taking advantage of the evolutionary process and shaping it to meet our own ends.

No that's the popular opinion you've been spoon fed. What you don't have is absolute proof that ape A. gave birth to new species ape B. I find your premise on hybridization interesting. Ancient Alien theory puts forward that beings of a higher intelligence may have done hybridization experiments on us hence the progression of the human species. Can we prove it? No but then again neither can you prove evolution happened.

 

[laughinReaper]

Fine, let each go through the same scientific rigors and we can discuss the scientific merits of each.

OK but I think you're going to find my take on this not what most expect.

Evolution everybody is familiar with

Creationism and Ancient Alien Theory: the possibility that a higher intelligence created man. Science has not been able to rule this out. Science can create a baby in a test tube. Science has created hybrids. Man has gone to the moon and currently looks for ways to travel further in space. Man can't rule out life as we know it wasn't created by a higher intelligence or was brought here,or what life was already here wasn't manipulated by a higher intelligence to become what we have today.

Open ended begining: that man does not know of a beginning and end to existence. IE. We can be one of an infinate number of universes.

Closed ended beginning: big bang is how universe was created there is an end that we have not found.

How our universe came into being is unknown but most agree it was a big bang. Nobody knows if the universe is a random creation or a deliberate creation as no known creator has been identified however as the food chain exemplifies,a top and bottom are likely. No one knows if the top of the universal food chain created the universe but until that top has been found it can't be ruled out.

You lack a certain thing called evidence

There is plenty of evidence about evolution

Show me your 100%proof positive that evolution is fact. You can't because all that can be proven is there were once different breeds of ape that are now extinct. Truth is humans have commonalities with other mammals as well yet you don't claim we evolved from dogs or pigs.
What can't be proven by evolution is whether the bones of prior apes like Neanderthals are actually us or really close cousins.

Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences | eHow.com
Although chimpanzees are the nearest relatives of humans, a number of other mammals also share significant amounts of DNA with humans. Portions of the human chromosome 6 have a match in DNA samples from pigs, cows and domestic cats. Dogs, rats, mice and even chickens also share DNA sequences with humans. Since mapping of the human genome and those of other animals continues, more correspondences are expected to emerge.

 

[laughinReaper]

We should not teach children in public school a scientific theory based on a religious text, particular since that theory has been rejected by most scientist. Such a theory can certain be taught in private or parochial schools, but not in a public schools because it's a theory based on theology not science. If you want your children taught this belief, then you should look to a parochial school or your church.

BTW Evolution does not address the origins of life, only how that life evolved.

It wouldn't be taught with any religious text. Three basic theories,creationism,evolution and ancient alien theory. The dogma can be filled in at home to the families liking. Instead of arguing we should be accommodating each other but putting forward all theories and letting the individual decide which they believe to be true. All three are scientifically within the realm of possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(science)
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

Creationism--> is not a ‘theory.’ It is pure conjecture based on the religious tenants of many religions and other faith based sources. There is now observation and no repeatable experimentation.

evolution --> Is a valid theory. There are experiments, observable data and repeatable tests that challenge this theory. While being far from complete, it is well established as the best theory that we currently have.

ancient alien theory --> Again, not a theory. Based entirely on faith again as there is zero evidence to suggest that this is even remotely true.

Gravity is A THEORY! Creationism and Alien Creation are nowhere near that league.

So, what you are asking is that we give 2 faith based and unsubstantiated concepts equal footing with the mountains of evidence and observable data that we have for evolution? That makes zero sense. Perhaps we should also be teaching Copernicus’ theories of the universe next to modern cosmology, never mind that it has no basis in scientific fact…

Perhaps the real problem here is that schools don’t actually teach evolution. They tell you that we evolved from other forms of life through genetic mutation and that is about it. None of the actual evidence is really ever covered through high school so most people have a gross misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. That is also not to mention that we teach other things that are false as well like the idea of ‘kind’ and ‘family’ in biology where such definitions are moot after the discovery of DNA turned all those concepts on their heads.

Evolution is pure conjecture. Remains that have common links with humans does not prove that we evolved from them. Kinda curious what indisputable observations do you have? What indisputable evidence should be taught in school? It doesn't exist. What you have is species with commonalities and 0 evidence that one became the other. You also can't prove a higher intelligence did or didn't make hybrids that you have mistaken for evolved creatures. Evolution is just as much faith based as Creationism and Alien theory. Need I remind everyone that science can be wrong. Science once thought the sun traveled around the earth and our solar system was the center of the universe. Problem with that type of thinking is it prevents the advancement of science.

 

[laughinReaper]

I voted "other" because I find it real hard to believe that the test is on the level.

And if it is for real, I feel sorry for the kids going to that school.

And even sorrier for the kid that aced it.

I'm a creationist and if that test is real it's an embarrassment.

 

[westwall]

It wouldn't be taught with any religious text. Three basic theories,creationism,evolution and ancient alien theory. The dogma can be filled in at home to the families liking. Instead of arguing we should be accommodating each other but putting forward all theories and letting the individual decide which they believe to be true. All three are scientifically within the realm of possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(science)
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

Creationism--> is not a ‘theory.’ It is pure conjecture based on the religious tenants of many religions and other faith based sources. There is now observation and no repeatable experimentation.

evolution --> Is a valid theory. There are experiments, observable data and repeatable tests that challenge this theory. While being far from complete, it is well established as the best theory that we currently have.

ancient alien theory --> Again, not a theory. Based entirely on faith again as there is zero evidence to suggest that this is even remotely true.

Gravity is A THEORY! Creationism and Alien Creation are nowhere near that league.

So, what you are asking is that we give 2 faith based and unsubstantiated concepts equal footing with the mountains of evidence and observable data that we have for evolution? That makes zero sense. Perhaps we should also be teaching Copernicus’ theories of the universe next to modern cosmology, never mind that it has no basis in scientific fact…

Perhaps the real problem here is that schools don’t actually teach evolution. They tell you that we evolved from other forms of life through genetic mutation and that is about it. None of the actual evidence is really ever covered through high school so most people have a gross misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. That is also not to mention that we teach other things that are false as well like the idea of ‘kind’ and ‘family’ in biology where such definitions are moot after the discovery of DNA turned all those concepts on their heads.

Evolution is pure conjecture. Remains that have common links with humans does not prove that we evolved from them. Kinda curious what indisputable observations do you have? What indisputable evidence should be taught in school? It doesn't exist. What you have is species with commonalities and 0 evidence that one became the other. You also can't prove a higher intelligence did or didn't make hybrids that you have mistaken for evolved creatures. Evolution is just as much faith based as Creationism and Alien theory. Need I remind everyone that science can be wrong. Science once thought the sun traveled around the earth and our solar system was the center of the universe. Problem with that type of thinking is it prevents the advancement of science.

No, evolution is well known and there is ample evidence to support it. The Gallapagos islands are an excellent microcosm of how and why evolution occurs. The Wallace line in Australasia is yet another example of evolution and evolutionary processes in operation.

 

[rightwinger]

OK but I think you're going to find my take on this not what most expect.

Evolution everybody is familiar with

Creationism and Ancient Alien Theory: the possibility that a higher intelligence created man. Science has not been able to rule this out. Science can create a baby in a test tube. Science has created hybrids. Man has gone to the moon and currently looks for ways to travel further in space. Man can't rule out life as we know it wasn't created by a higher intelligence or was brought here,or what life was already here wasn't manipulated by a higher intelligence to become what we have today.

Open ended begining: that man does not know of a beginning and end to existence. IE. We can be one of an infinate number of universes.

Closed ended beginning: big bang is how universe was created there is an end that we have not found.

How our universe came into being is unknown but most agree it was a big bang. Nobody knows if the universe is a random creation or a deliberate creation as no known creator has been identified however as the food chain exemplifies,a top and bottom are likely. No one knows if the top of the universal food chain created the universe but until that top has been found it can't be ruled out.

You lack a certain thing called evidence

There is plenty of evidence about evolution

No their is not. What you have is random bones of the ape family but what you don't have is proof that one became the other. A wolf and a Chihuahua are from the canine family but are completely different breeds. It can not be proven that the different bones evolved or are similar but different breeds. Nor can it be proven that we are or are not created hybrids by a higher intelligence and said bones are the product of that hybridization. All you have is old bones and one possibility when there are multiple possibilities. Honestly ruling out other positions without proving then incorrect is crappy science.

There are reams of fossil and biological evidence showing the evolution of various species from common ancestors

But the irrefutable evidence comes from DNA

Evolution is a fact

 

[laughinReaper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(science)
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

Creationism--> is not a ‘theory.’ It is pure conjecture based on the religious tenants of many religions and other faith based sources. There is now observation and no repeatable experimentation.

evolution --> Is a valid theory. There are experiments, observable data and repeatable tests that challenge this theory. While being far from complete, it is well established as the best theory that we currently have.

ancient alien theory --> Again, not a theory. Based entirely on faith again as there is zero evidence to suggest that this is even remotely true.

Gravity is A THEORY! Creationism and Alien Creation are nowhere near that league.

So, what you are asking is that we give 2 faith based and unsubstantiated concepts equal footing with the mountains of evidence and observable data that we have for evolution? That makes zero sense. Perhaps we should also be teaching Copernicus’ theories of the universe next to modern cosmology, never mind that it has no basis in scientific fact…

Perhaps the real problem here is that schools don’t actually teach evolution. They tell you that we evolved from other forms of life through genetic mutation and that is about it. None of the actual evidence is really ever covered through high school so most people have a gross misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. That is also not to mention that we teach other things that are false as well like the idea of ‘kind’ and ‘family’ in biology where such definitions are moot after the discovery of DNA turned all those concepts on their heads.

Evolution is pure conjecture. Remains that have common links with humans does not prove that we evolved from them. Kinda curious what indisputable observations do you have? What indisputable evidence should be taught in school? It doesn't exist. What you have is species with commonalities and 0 evidence that one became the other. You also can't prove a higher intelligence did or didn't make hybrids that you have mistaken for evolved creatures. Evolution is just as much faith based as Creationism and Alien theory. Need I remind everyone that science can be wrong. Science once thought the sun traveled around the earth and our solar system was the center of the universe. Problem with that type of thinking is it prevents the advancement of science.

No, evolution is well known and there is ample evidence to support it. The Gallapagos islands are an excellent microcosm of how and why evolution occurs. The Wallace line in Australasia is yet another example of evolution and evolutionary processes in operation.

Creationism is also well known. Microorganisms on an island are a far cry from evolving humans. Kinda like saying a positive result in lab rats equals a cure for humans. Explain the Wallace line cause I don't see it what a natural barrier has to evolution.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is pure conjecture. Remains that have common links with humans does not prove that we evolved from them. Kinda curious what indisputable observations do you have? What indisputable evidence should be taught in school? It doesn't exist. What you have is species with commonalities and 0 evidence that one became the other. You also can't prove a higher intelligence did or didn't make hybrids that you have mistaken for evolved creatures. Evolution is just as much faith based as Creationism and Alien theory. Need I remind everyone that science can be wrong. Science once thought the sun traveled around the earth and our solar system was the center of the universe. Problem with that type of thinking is it prevents the advancement of science.

No, evolution is well known and there is ample evidence to support it. The Gallapagos islands are an excellent microcosm of how and why evolution occurs. The Wallace line in Australasia is yet another example of evolution and evolutionary processes in operation.

Creationism is also well known. Microorganisms on an island are a far cry from evolving humans. Kinda like saying a positive result in lab rats equals a cure for humans. Explain the Wallace line cause I don't see it what a natural barrier has to evolution.

Have any scientific evidence supporting creationism?

 

[laughinReaper]

You lack a certain thing called evidence

There is plenty of evidence about evolution

No their is not. What you have is random bones of the ape family but what you don't have is proof that one became the other. A wolf and a Chihuahua are from the canine family but are completely different breeds. It can not be proven that the different bones evolved or are similar but different breeds. Nor can it be proven that we are or are not created hybrids by a higher intelligence and said bones are the product of that hybridization. All you have is old bones and one possibility when there are multiple possibilities. Honestly ruling out other positions without proving then incorrect is crappy science.

There are reams of fossil and biological evidence showing the evolution of various species from common ancestors

But the irrefutable evidence comes from DNA

Evolution is a fact

No it's not fact. All the fossil record shows is separate species that are closely related. DNA can't prove evolution either,only that certain creatures are closely related. You can't take Neanderthal DNA and call it Homo Sapien. Think about it. Would that logic stand in a court of law? No because the DNA isn't a match. They can look at it and say they are closely related but that's it. As I pointed out in another post humans have some of the same DNA as dogs,and pigs but nobody claims they are our distant relatives.

 

[laughinReaper]

No, evolution is well known and there is ample evidence to support it. The Gallapagos islands are an excellent microcosm of how and why evolution occurs. The Wallace line in Australasia is yet another example of evolution and evolutionary processes in operation.

Creationism is also well known. Microorganisms on an island are a far cry from evolving humans. Kinda like saying a positive result in lab rats equals a cure for humans. Explain the Wallace line cause I don't see it what a natural barrier has to evolution.

Have any scientific evidence supporting creationism?

They have any scientific evidence supporting evolution? All I've heard so far is the dogma of evolution by sheeple who drank the kool aid.