Too Many Flaws with Evolution

John, it is only Creationism that would expect a man to be produced before your eyes by anything other than the normal reproductive process, so you can ask your own side to demonstrate that in a lab, as it would disprove evolution, which involves slow, incremental changes. Make a woman instantaneously from a man's rib and find a fossilized snake with vocal chords, and then you're welcome to equal time in the science classes.We can show you patterns of historical damage on your genome that match up with the other great apes in ways that can only be explained by their occurrence in a common ancestral species. So, you can know for a fact that you descend from other animals, and that Jewish mythology is false.This evidence is the same as the craters on the moon, and the observations of volcanic activity forming new land. What we see in the present reveals the past.

I simply say that before you believe that the ToE is the true answer as to how life evolved from a single cell life form to our present day man, I would like to see it proven to a high degree of accuracy in a lab from start to finish. Until then, it's just an unproven theory, and will always remain so.Most other scientific facts that are known to be true have been proven to be true to a high degree of accuracy in a lab.

Correct. And when you prove in a lab how the facts came to be as they are to a high degree of accuracy, then the theory becomes a scientific law that can be used over and over again by engineers and doctors and scientists in all manner of useful endeavors for the betterment of mankind.When doctors are interested in learning how to cure a disease, they figure out what is the cause of that disease, and either figure out how to keep that disease from happening, or cure that disease after it has happened. They prove their theories to a high degree of accuracy in a lab until a cure is found. This is how true science works.So instead of proving the ToE actually works in a lab evolving from a single cell to a man, you rely on many many many theories how it possibly works. This may be true science to you, but not to me or to most other scientists who know what the scientific method is and how you use it to prove theories.

When you can show in a lab numerous times that a single cell life form can grow into a man, than you will have proven that the ToE actually works. Until then, the ToE is just and will always remain an unproven theory. The First Amendment says nothing whatsoever about what can or should be taught in public schools by the states. It simply says this: From an amendment that simply stated that "Congress" could not establish a religion that all states would abide by, this has been interpreted to say our state schools have no freedom of speech to express any belief in Creator God.How far we have fallen from what our founding fathers really meant when they framed the Constitution!

I am simply asking that the ToE meet the requirements of how every other scientific theory is shown to be true, thereby becoming scientific law.Believing in divine creation in no way hinders me or others from relying on the scientific method to prove all manner of theories of what makes life and matter work. But until you can pull a man out of a test tube that started from a single cell life form, don't tell me that the ToE is true science.

So you think Science can only happen in labs? Like mad scientists? Again your ignorance is showing. A Theory cannot be upgraded to a Law. They are different things. I explained earlier, but I guess I will repeat it.The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.Here is a link for you to read.
Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comAgain, I will repeat Scientfic Theories do not get upgraded to Scientfic Laws. They are different things. You prove time and time again that you have no idea what the scientific method is. I venture anyone that agrees with your idea of the scientific method is not a scientist. Maybe you would like to supply us with these scientists that agree with you on your "definition" of the scientific method.Also, please supply a source for this definition.

When you can show in a lab numerous times that a gas giant can acquire rings, then you will have proven that Saturn actually has rings. Until then, the theory that Saturn has rings is just and will remain an unproven theory.

The courts have upheld that the clause establishes the separation of church and state.You can have any opinion on it that you want, but the courts do not agree with you.Maybe we need another thread for this.

Theories do not become laws. Theories are bigger, better and more encompassing than laws.Newton's devised some laws of gravity. They are still useful. He didn not, however, have much of a theory of gravity at all. And what he did have was wrong. His laws were a bit imperfect too.Einstein devised a more thorough and more powerful theory of gravity. It produces the equations which are equivalent to Newton's laws but are better. The theory is above the "laws" -- a word not used so much now.The theory of evolution is as well establish as Einsteins ToG and, by the way, more likely to stand up in the long term since there are reasons to believe there are some flaws in the ToG.Any "laws" derived from the ToE are a lessor thing.The ToE doesn't need your requested observation. It has millions of reasonable ones supporting it.Your request and your ideas about theories and laws are just more demonstrations of how terribly little you understand. And, given your approach how terrifically little you will ever understand.

Precisely the point. Since you can't prove the ToE works in a lab in a reasonable amount of time, then the ToE can't be proven to a high degree of accuracy as most other scientific laws are proven.Seriously, Parasomnium, you should know better than to propose this. If you don't bother to recognize that the time span needed to prove the ToE disqualifies it from ever becoming a scientific law, why should I bother talking to you?

As private citizens, state school officials still have every right to express their own personal beliefs, but not as agents of the state acting on behalf of the state. Uh, you're a bit off there. That was not included in the framing of the Constitution. Rather, it was added later, as The First Amendment. If it had been included in the framing of the Constitution, then it would be an amendment. Right?When James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment), had formulated the idea of the Wall of Separation a few years earlier -- his wording was "The Great Barrier that defends the rights of the People" -- , it was in direct response to a proposed law to grant public tax money to support the teaching of religion. So you see, the original intent (that term that was so popular with the Radical Religious Right in the 1980's) was clearly to prevent direct government support of religion. Which is what teaching religious beliefs in the public schools would be.Oh how far ye hath fallen from what our founding fathers really meant!

It is only the ToE that can believe that man can evolve from a single cell life form without any divine intervention, and it is blind faith in the ToE that believes that it actually happened. I have no problem with your belief in the ToE as the explanation for how man came to be. I only have a problem in your faith belief that it actually happened and the ToE is the true reason for for how man came to be.If you want to believe that you descended from other animals, that is your choice to believe in that theory. But don't tell me that I or anyone else can know for a "fact" that we descended from other animals. That is the most preposterous statement I've ever heard any evolutionist make.

More than millions of year have passed to prove it. As a matter of fact billions of years of evolution have happened to prove it. You demand evolution to be something it is not. Your mind is so closed you wont even entertain looking at the evidence."Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up"

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts.

According to this definition, theories can be upgraded to laws. The main point I'm making is that the ToE can never be upgraded to a law because it can never be shown to be true within man's lifetime. Most other scientific laws can be shown to be true within man's lifetime.

I want you to read what you quoted. Read it. It says that the idea that a hypothesis becomes a theory and then a theory becomes a law, is a MISCONCEPTION.
You have to be able to read critically, not just make it read what you want it to say.Now here is the kicker. Read this sentence Got it now?