What does evolution have to do with science? Something that has ever been observed, measured, tested with replicable results or providiing any degree of predictability whatsoever is science?
The mask never slipped off for TIME.
We know who and what these people are.
His High School Science teacher?
Really????
I graduated HS in 1970, which meant I was a teenager during the 60’s.
Yep. THOSE 60’s!
I guess I am forever disqualified from running for public office. LOL.
Barack Obama is a lying bastard who lied his rump off about being a product of the Selma march, lied his rump off about being a Christian, lied his rump off about Obamacare, lied his rump off about war (he’s started several of his own and tried to start even more)...
And Time-Lies-Warner-Turner-CNN is there to provide cover while attacking any conservative challengers to the office.
We may find out he was late to class a few times, too. Nothing but pure leftist desperation and it smells like cat pee.
Well at least they were able to find a teacher who remembers Walker. Barky not so much.
He shouldn’t have punted.
The answer is evolution is a theory.
The Ministry of Propaganda wants them to treat it as fact, which it is not.
The more important question for Walker is does he believe in the rule of law?
Particularly when applied to Fraudulently Documented Foreigners.
First I am leery of someone that has taught hundreds of individuals in the almost thirty years since Walker graduated and remembers him well to expound on his classwork. And how does the fact that he did well in a required science course have anything to do with his religious beliefs.
And they still have not found anyone who went to school with Obama for comment.
My high school Biology teacher said, on the first day of class, to leave God outside the classroom door, and not bring him into the classroom. I can’t remember anything else he said, except that one thing. To myself, I said that God was coming in with me ... :-) ... and he always did, so while I did learn the “information” given in the class, so that I got good grades, I was always critical of what was being presented there.
I had another teacher (in Physics) who was very much more in tune with God, and although he did not “preach the Gospel” ... he made it clear where he stood in regards to God and that the marvels of physics were the handiwork of God!
I am 77. I was exposed to evolution in elementary school, a long time ago.As an active Sunday school student also, I was able to resolve science theory and Bible Scripture. I grew up to become a scientist. I left this conflict back in elementary school. I think the debate, therefore, is childish.
Evolution denies the existence of a divine Creator. To believe in God is to accept that there is a higher authority than self. To deny His existence conveniently negates any moral accountability. This enables people to “do what is right in their own eyes.” It’s interesting to note that on multiple occasions Obama has omitted “by their Creator” when quoting Jefferson’s statement from the Declaration of Independence on inalienable rights.
Now can we debate how many bloody holes are there in the theory of Darwinian evolution being the only explanation for all live and species
What offense me the most of these statements that Darwinian evolution it is a scientifically proven fact that it is the source of all species...
That it a flat out lie.....
We are genetically creating new species as we speak..thing like genetically modified food
So as we go forward we will continue to create things through gene manipulation
At some point science will completely start building new species from scratch via DNA
But at that point there will be no test to determine if it was a “designed in a lab(intelligent design)” species vs “naturally evolved” species
If you can't test for an intelligent design vs naturally species in the future you certainly cannot say with certainty that something is proven in the past
I have visions that as man goes forward and we get to the point that we creating all these new species from DNA from scratch and we seed some planet and then we died out leaving no evidence of our being..
Then in a 100 thousand years will the those being on the new world we created be debating intelligent design vs natural solution say anybody that believes intelligent design is a fool and obviously all life on their world must have come about via their version of Darwin
if you cant distinguish in the future what's designed vs what if any is naturally evolved you cant say its proven in the past...
So why is the irrational fear of the concept of God...God phobia...blocking any rational questioning of Darwinian dogma
look Darwin is based on a simple assumption that there is natural culling of species ....this is no different than an animal breeder culling out the bad traits and preferring the good traits except nature doing it
I don't have a problem with that concept, but its a "profound leap of faith" to say therefore it is proven that this is how everything arose and will not be questioned....that is idiotic BS..and it is not scientific... science requires a demonstrated test... proof... they distort science because of a god phobia... they have to close that door on god... so therefore they corrupt their own integrity
The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.
The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:
The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.
The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)
The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)
The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
The question of irreducible complexity.
The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.
The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.
The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).
The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...
The question of genetic entropy.
The obvious evidence of design in nature.
The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.
Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.
Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal. There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
Why have we NOT heard about Cruz being one of the most brilliant students at his law school ever seen by his ‘Professors?
Who was Obama’s high school science teacher?