Replies

Thank you so much for your reply!

With regard to that particular challenge, post 904 and 940 were as far as I could take it and stay within the boundaries of credible sources.

I found no credible challenges to remove the theory of evolution from science textbooks, but a number of challenges to the content - including examples which are no longer accepted in the science community.

To whatever extent the presentation of the theory of evolution relies on the fossil record, it is "dogmatic" by definition simply because the lineage is "unprovable" and that is what the term means. However, evidence for evolution which stems from molecular biology does not have that difficulty.

I don't know what was meant exactly by the term "goofball" but I can relate to something like that which I observed on one of the science channels. In that case, the artists depicting the evolution of a dinosaur had attributed a certain color pattern (as I recall, a zebra like coloring) - without producing any evidence or reasoning for it. My reaction was that such an obvious omission would cast doubt on the other unexplained presumptions which were being presented on that same program.

In that case, the artists depicting the evolution of a dinosaur had attributed a certain color pattern (as I recall, a zebra like coloring) - without producing any evidence or reasoning for it. My reaction was that such an obvious omission would cast doubt on the other unexplained presumptions which were being presented on that same program. I've seen those same shows on the Discovery Channel (Walking with Dinosaurs) and there were numerous segments right before commercial breaks where the program explained how they had examined the evidence and come to the conclusions they did.
One segment mentioned color and properly noted that the color schemes used in the program were only educated guesses.

I don't see how this is misleading at all. The dinosaurs and plants in the program had to have some sort color scheme so they just chose some that seemed to make sense. They were very upfront it.

...the artists depicting the evolution of a dinosaur had attributed a certain color pattern (as I recall, a zebra like coloring) - without producing any evidence or reasoning for it. My reaction was that such an obvious omission would cast doubt on the other unexplained presumptions which were being presented on that same program.

Yes, that would be your reaction, A-G, and also mine. But my little nephew, Nicholas -- who is simply besotted with dinosaurs (just as I was, when I was his age) -- will think the "color scheme" is an actual fact. What was mere artistic license enters the stream of supposed reality of a little boy who does not yet have any critical skills. Thus are our youth indoctrinated into the "accepted" and "acceptable" notions of our time....

You know, there is much about Darwinist theory that is based on conjecture. I'd only point out that even what is a very strong conjecture still is not an actual fact. And all our wishing and hoping will not make it so.

Sorry about leaving the italics turned on in my previous post - I hope it is still somewhat readable. :-)

This is from the "Walking With Dinosaurs" site.

By studying what we know about each animal's particular eyesight, its habits and its habitat, and using modern animals in a similar environment, we can make informed guesses as to the coloration of extinct animals, even dinosaurs.

link

The text in the link may not match word for word the 2 or 3 minute program segment but both are very clear that the color schemes used in the program are informed guesses.

There is a "DisoveryKids" program that condenses the much longer "Walking with Dinosaurs" programs into 30 minute, kid friendly presentations. Each "Walking with Dinosaurs" program could make about 5 or 6 or these shorter programs. Each shorter program also has only one or two "behind the scenes" segments explaining the evidence so maybe the one you saw didn't include the segment on color schemes.