Alright, fine, C-G -- since you declare that "The policy you want (abolition of government schools) isn't going to happen any time soon", and therefore as a Government-Subsidized, Publik-Skool-Dependent, Tax-Suckling Evolutionist Leech you are determined to a-go-on feasting upon the Stolen Tax-Dollars of hard-working Creationists, I shall engage you in a few of the "arguments" which you seek.
I will preface my arguments in advance by saying that ALL of this is beside the point entirely -- the Point is, Parents should have Financial Control over the Education of their Children, NOT THE STATE. Of course, given the overwhelming Parental support in America for the teaching of Creationism, true Parental Control over Educational Financing would result in the educational starvation of Evolutionism -- a wholly desirable result (but you evolutionists can't have that, now, can you?).
Well, then, let's have at it; evolution, geology, cosmology, radiometric dating -- since you are determined to fall back on the Argument "Educational Communism isn't going away, so why should we Evolutionist Educational-Communists give up our advantage?", what say we start with two -- JUST TWO -- little arguments, and go from there.
Evolutionism, an entirely unproven theory, begins from the fantastical Presumption that Life CAN arise from Non-Life (a primordial chemical muck -- i.e., "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble", etc)... despite the fact that such a fantastical Presumption is against the Law of Science, and against 100% of the evidence from all probative laboratory experiments in history on the subject (all of which demonstrate that Life arises from Life, and never from Non-Life).
Given, then, that Pasteur's Scientific Law of Biogenesis has never been Disproved (or for that matter, even dented a little), and the fantastical Evolutionist Presumption of Random Chemical Abiogenesis has never been Proved (or for that matter, even Evidenced at all) -- why should the 13% Minority of the Population who blindly persist in believing in the INSANITY of Evolutionist Chemical Abiogenesis, against the evidence of hundreds of years of Scientific Law, have the right to use Public Tax-Dollars to IMPOSE their EVOLUTIONIST-SPECULATIONS upon the Majority of Parents and Children who (quite understandably), prefer to stick with Proven Creationists like Pasteur, rather than the unproven Speculations of the Darwinists?
We have already found fully-preserved soft organic tissue in the bones of dinosaurs, which are alleged to be "70 million years" old -- despite the fact that it is BIOCHEMICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE for soft organic tissues to last more than 100,000 years (let alone being still perfectly-preserved and elastic).
At this point, the Open-Minded Man (a term which, admittedly, automatically disqualifies the Evolutionist) would be compelled to admit the possibility -- if Dinosaur Bones CAN'T be more than 100,000 years old, then maybe they AREN'T 100,000 years old. I admit that the Close-Minded Evolutionist is unwilling to admit this possibility, but I must appeal to Arthur Conan Doyle: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, MUST be the Truth." ~~ Sherlock Holmes.
Alright, then, let's try TWO LITTLE ARGUMENTS, from the top:
Given that Life CANNOT arise from Non-Life (according to Scientific Law), and given that Dinosaur Bones CANNOT be more than 100,000 years old (according to Organic Biochemistry)... then why should the 13% Minority of the Population who blindly persist in believing in the INSANITY of Evolutionism, be permitted to deny the hard-working American Creationist Majority their Right to include competing Scientific Theories of Origins within their Schools?
It's our money, too, y'know... you Evolutionists just Steal it from us.
Best, OP
:>)
A-little-bit-of-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing placemarker
Don't have time to answer this post the way I would like to. Sigh. However, thought this would be a good place to inject a post on theories and laws:
Let me post my own example of gravity:
A little history here:
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
This is just total b.s. While it's unusual for organic material to persist in older fossil samples, it's not unknown. Flies in amber last millions of years. Heck, amber itself is organic material. For decades, we have been dating biological samples by measuring the isomerization of isoleucine, an amino acid, over hundreds of thousands of years.
By the way, no one claims the Tyrannosaur material is 'perfectly preserved'. That's just you making stuff up, like the RANTING LIAR you are.
It's hardly a fundamental law. It also only applies to fully formed complex organisms, not the gradual development of life from pre-life.
"We have already found fully-preserved soft organic tissue in the bones of dinosaurs, which are alleged to be "70 million years" old -- despite the fact that it is BIOCHEMICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE for soft organic tissues to last more than 100,000 years (let alone being still perfectly-preserved and elastic).
First - It was not fully preserved. Second - the preservation of tissue relies on the conditions it is found in. Degradation requires microorganisms and mineralization requires water. If neither are present the limits of preservation are unknown. The stratum the fossil was found in was dated to be older than 100,000 years. Third - evolution says nothing about how long an organism can survive. Sharks, turtles, nautaloids and some lobe-finned fish predate most dinosaurs, yet there are extant species.