To the creationists - the tough question

He might want to demonstrate how one can quantify it as well.

You are expected to cite sources that you take prose from verbatim.

Now if you are going to quote verbatim, cite the source such as:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=20011227181528.25913.00001664%40mb-dh.aol.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522encoding%2Benzymes%2Bfor%2Bnylon%2Boligomer%2Bdegradation %2522%26hl%3Den%26selm%3D20011227181528.25913.00001664%2540mb-dh.aol.com%26rnum%3D3"It's old evidence. Strangely enough, just because something is on a plasmid doesn't mean it's been there forever. In fact, the plasmid in question is well known and extensively characterized. We have the original, pre-mutation plasmid, and the mutation is in a non-coding repeditive DNA sequence on the original plasmid. the mutation did not exist 40 years ago. One would also have to ask oneself if the gene
was always there, why a bacteria would have a gene for hydrolysing an artifical polymer that did not exist in the environment until 50 or so years ago, and how, in the absence of such a substrate, why the gene was not nmutated to uslessness over centuries (let alone millenia or millions of years)."Now, if you had bothered to read some of the actual work on this, you would know that Ian is fully supported by the literature. I have this particular review of the literature at home which is very clear inNegoro S. Biodegradation of nylon oligomers.Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2000 Oct;54(4):461-6Cheers,
Larry

creation science isn't evil--it just doesn't exist. The evidence being no one can identify a clear theory that hasn't been falsified.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]"Certainly, creationist leaders want a creation-only view taught in classrooms. They have repeatedly over the decades tried to achieve this. Settling for an 'equal time' arrangment is their current ploy. Better half the text than no mention in the text at all."Sorry buddy, but you can't chant Conspiracy, Conspiracy! without backing up your claims. [/QUOTE]Try here for some beginnings of the evidence:
http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/reprints/darwin100199.htm

quote:

---

``Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud,'' said House Republican Majority Whip Tom DeLay, by way of explaining the school massacre in Littleton, Colo.

​

His remark would be merely silly were not similar thoughts commonly expressed by influential religious fundamentalists. Popular anti-evolutionists such as the Rev. James Kennedy of The Center for Reclaiming America and Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism are fond of suggesting that the teaching of evolution is a root cause of a supposed decline in American morality.

---

The goal of keeping evolution out of classrooms has a long history that begins in detail with the Scopes trial. The movement morphed as they kept losing. If you want to go into the details, I'm happy to, but up till now you haven't shown that you have the knowledge to have that discussion in any detail.

quote:

---

"I have never heard any evolutionist propose that texts on evolution should not contain details of problems with the theory, both ones which have been solved and ones which have not. Nor, I suspect, have you."

​

Well, I've mentioned the idea in another topic, to which no evolutionist (to my knowledge) has given me approval. Also check out this site:

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp

---

The scientific community doesn't view the theory as controversial. The role of specific mechanisms is controversial and that should be taught. Because you and some other Conservative Protestants don't like a theory doesn't have anything to do with its reliability or validity.

quote:

---

If you honestly read the whole link I think you will see that my statement is reasonable. In addition, I have read the evolution chapters in many biology textbooks (Suprise, written by evolutionists!) and find them completely lacking of any of the difficulties with the evolutionary theory. So yes, my position is backed by significant evidence on this matter.

---

Could you be specific here. What texts and how were they lacking in specific areas.

quote:

---

Well if peppered moths prove evolution, I might as well just give up. I wasn't aware that natural selection in action proved evolution and falsified Creation.

---

It is an example of natural selection. Given creationism isn't a scientific theory, it is awfully hard to falsify it. Perhaps you could provide some specific observations that would.

quote:

---

Actually, Creation Scientists "evil" goal is to introduce to children the idea that there is more than one possible explanation for the history of Earth. Whereas evolutionists "valiant" goal is to exclude the discussion of difficulties with the evolutionary theory.

---

Why don't you start a thread that covers the problems? The problem is you don't understand the debates amongst scientists.

And repeatedly it has been pointed out that this is a silly argument. Science is designed to test specific interpretations. Saying there are different interpretations is pointless. One would instead test a specific interpretation. Please stop posting this fiction and respond substantively to the critiques of it.