Replies

Pickaxes and shovels? Do you honestly think that DNA is observed that way?

As for other scientific theories that had to reinvent themselves, look to Newtonian physics, which underwent a rather drastic overhaul in the first half of the 20th century.

You also mentioned Calculus, which is simply a way of manipulating numbers. It's a math, not a science, and as such not subject to the sudden changes brought about by new evidence as a science. A mathematician may find a more efficient means of calculating complex equations, but the old methods will still be perfectly valid for all applicable circumstances as before and (unless the issue is finding approximate values) will not achieve results any less correct than the new methods.

But for a supposed branch of science which is mainly done with pickaxes and shovels to have to reinvent itself every ten or twenty years is a joke.

Here's the real joke. A big part of the creationist "no evidence" mantra is "no transitional forms." But because more and more of the world is coming under the "pickaxes and shovels" of the paleontologists, the last 20 years have been huge for long-predicted transitional forms, especially land animals to whales [theretofore missing] and dinosaurs to birds [missing with the spectacular exception of archaeopteryx]. Other finds in the same time frame included important hominids, a legged sirenian ancestor, and additions to the fish-to-amphibian and reptile-to-mammal series.

How do you make that look like an argument for "no evidence?" Your post quoted above. That's the joke!

But much of the evidence I was talking about in post 314 isn't from paleontology at all. Much of it is molecular and genetic in nature, with additions from embryology and other areas of evolutionary developmental biology.

Most of science has undergone a huge increase of knowledge in the last 20 years, so your Luddite screech would apply just as well to Physics or Astronomy. You don't like science, period, and you want into science class only to sabotage the teaching of it.

Now let me, Darwin-style, anticipate a point which is bound to be coming from somebody or other if not you. The situation is nothing like mirror-image symmetrical, as creationists try to paint it. ("Evolution is a religion and they're just doing what we're doing, defending their 'faith,'" Blah! Blah!) If it were, Satanic Materialist Atheist Commie Faggit Eeevoloooshunists would be demanding a voice in your Sunday School classes to make sure all sides get presented. They would be demanding your church's tax-exempt status be revoked if this is not done.

But nobody out here gives a rat's butt what your preacher preaches or what your Sunday School teachers teach. That's your religion, after all, and it has nothing to do with science class.