.....As a human brain does not come into existence through the same processes........
I never said a thing about any processes. However processes do not just happen, but involve thought and planning. These are activities of mind. My analogy IS valid. Nobody would theorize that a computer or TV came without involving a mind, yet many do theorize that the brain did. It matters not what the processes are, but the thought behind whatever the processes may be.
Evolution is the attempt to theorize how what we observe and measure in nature came to be without reference to anyone's thought or planning. Anyone who can look at the incredible ingenuity of some of the navigation systems of birds, such as the Golden Plover, for example, and NOT stand in awe of the software engineer who programmed all that ability into a tiny bird brain, must not WANT to believe in God pretty desperately.
....that simply ignores processes that remove salt.....
There are some processes that may remove salt, but they have never been demonstrated to remove anywhere near as much salt and enter the oceans. It is conjectured that these processes remove salt as fast as it is deposited, and that the oceans have reached equilibrium in their salt load. This removal mechanism has however not been observed and measured to be actually happening. Science is about actual measurements, not conjectures of mechanisms or even educated guesses. People and that includes scientists INTERPRET the facts according to their world view. There MUST be a mechanism to remove salt, since our theory is that the earth is xx billions of years old. No such salt removal mechanism as actually been observed in action, so one is conjectured to exist.
It is a fact that the moon is still receding from the earth about 2.5 cm each year. It has been and can be measured accurately today by lasers. This recession is interpreted to be caused by tidal losses. Maybe that is right. However if that recession has been going on at this rate for 4 billion years, the evolutionary interpreters tell us the moon is old, then the moon would have been 100,000 km closer to earth than today. Even if that process remained linear over that entire time, the moon would have been almost 25% closer to earth than now. Few things are linear in nature. Gravity and tidal losses would have been higher and the rate of recession is less now than it would have been then. The math gets complicated, by exactly how much faster the moon may have receded from earth. It is highly unlikely that the rate of recession was ever LESS than what we observe today. Nobody knows for sure how the earth got is moon. Some conjecture that it was ripped out of the still nearly molten earth, others conjecture that it condensed from gas, just as earth and the other planets and captured by earth's gravity.
The plain fact is we just don't know exactly how things were in the past. There was only one witness, the one who did it. Witnesses can never prove anything. Witnesses only testify. God testifies that he did it. Nobody else was there to witness creation. We as the jury, can choose to believe any witness, including God or not.
......Scientific "theory" is not the opposite of facts.......
Scientific theory is someone's interpretations of observations and measurements. Only the latter are science and factual, repeatable evidence. Figuring out what these measurements mean is theory and is based on the opinion and world view of the interpreter. This is especially true, because theories of origins, more than other things are based on the world view of the interpreter
We find fossils virtually everywhere. That is science, and that is factual evidence. Anyone can go and find fossils. Nobody has ever made a fossil or seen one form. Theorizing how these fossils came to be is just that, theory and opinions, not science. Evolutionists theorize that fossils were made over large periods of time, as sediments on the bottom of oceans and lakes, gradually, millions of years ago. Creationists tell us that fossils were the result of a great cataclysm, a world wide flood. Both of these views are theories, interpretations of the observational fact of fossils. The discovery and cataloging of fossils is science, Interpreting how they were made is belief, based on the world view of the interpreter.
There are also underlying assumptions, beliefs based on world view. One is the uinformitarian idea that nothing in changes all that much over time. Radioactivity dating is based on the assumption(belief) that certain constants, in this case, Planck's constant has always been the same as it is today. There is evidence that h as changed dramatically over time, making such assumptions unwarranted.
The other assumption (belief) is that there were, in the past dramatic discontinuities in certain aspects of nature. There is no way anyone can say for sure that nothing, like for instance certain "constants" of nature, are truly invariant over time. There is evidence that certain so called constants are variables throughout their existence.
If any scientific facts are interpreted, than all such interpretations should be given equal time. Right now, the evolutionary interpretation of the facts is given almost exclusive coverage at taxpayers expense in our schools. Other opinions are actively suppressed and ridiculed.
......Scientific "theory" is not the opposite of facts.......
Scientific theory is someone's interpretations of observations and measurements. Only the latter are science and factual, repeatable evidence. Figuring out what these measurements mean is theory and is based on the opinion and world view of the interpreter. This is especially true, because theories of origins, more than other things are based on the world view of the interpreter
We find fossils virtually everywhere. That is science, and that is factual evidence. Anyone can go and find fossils. Nobody has ever made a fossil or seen one form. Theorizing how these fossils came to be is just that, theory and opinions, not science. Evolutionists theorize that fossils were made over large periods of time, gradually, millions of years ago. Creationists tell us that fossils were the result of a great cataclysm, a world wide flood. Both of these views are theories, interpretations of the observational fact of fossils. The discovery and cataloging of fossils is science, Interpreting how they were made is belief, based on the world view of the interpreter.
There are also underlying assumptions, beliefs based on world view. One is the uinformitarian idea that nothing in changes all that much over time. The other is that there were, in the past dramatic discontinuities in certain aspects of nature. There is no way can say for sure than nothing, like for instance certain "constants" of nature are truly invariant over time.
If any scientific facts are interpreted, than all such interpretations should be given equal time.
.....What evidence -- that allegedly "stands" -- have you that new comets can never form, then?......
You have to come up with evidence that they still form today. To me the evidence shows that comets were made not billions of years ago, but recently. We actually see the ones that are still around, but we also know that comets do not last all that long. That's why evolutionists have to come with the idea that comets are still being made "somewhere". The only trouble is that nobody has ever found any such a birthplace of comets. Neither Mr. Ooort nor anyone else has any idea how to go about finding comets at the distance this fabled cloud of comets is conjectured to reside.
(....Do you even look to see if your claims haven't been rebutted already?...)
Yes, and the rebuttal doesn't come up with an observed, measured mechanism by which more salt is removed from the ocean faster than it is being deposited, thus preventing a gradual buildup over billions of years. There are some conjectures about such a mechanism, just as there is a conjecture that comets are still being produced or hidden away somewhere. Nobody has shown a plausible salt removal mechanism that can be demonstrated.
(.....evolution is not faith by any means.....)
True, evolution itself isn't, but many of its underlying assumptions (beliefs) are. Read how many erudite scientific papers have phrases to the effect: "if we assume xxx, then yyy follows. That is of course right and very logical.
-> Evolution, a modern fairy tale. (My comments in parentheses)
Fairy tales give the magic formula "frog+kiss=prince". In evolution fairy tales we get "frog+time=prince". The magic of time can eventually even turn a rock into a prince.
You can read the tale in school "science" text books. Billions of years ago, (thats long before your great grandmother lived) torrents of rain washed minerals from the rocky land into the pre-biotic soup (Campbells?) of the warm seas where organic molecules eventually (eventually is a really long time) formed. After more time, these molecules organized themselves into single celled organisms, such as simple bacteria. Eventually (after lots more time, the magic potion) multicellular forms showed up, which after even more time evolved into animals like snails and fish. Some of these after xxx million years evolved to be able to also live on land. These are called amphibians.( true, that's what they are) This is where the frogs get on stage. After more time some of these evolved to live entirely on land. After a lot more time (the magic word) some even figured out how to fly by turning into birds In more time yet, (more magic) some became mammals and eventually, after more still more time, one of these mammals became human at last. (man was the result of deepest magic time was capable of)
Of course it was inevitable that sooner or later one of these evolved men would become a prince. After all some men do become princes without getting a kiss from a maiden. It is only a matter of time.
There you have it, a modern fairy tale, that many have the audacity to label as science. The magic ingredient necessary to turn a frog (or even a rock) into a prince, is not some beautiful maiden's kiss, but time, unimaginable amounts of time. THAT is called science, taught in schools and financed by my tax dollars? GIVEM ME A BREAK!
.....then please explain why he wants to trick us. it seems like a dirty trick to pull for an all-loving benevolent creator......
He doesn't trick anyone. When scientists tell us an object is a certain distance away, such as so many light years, they are making an unwarranted assumption. That assumption is that light has always travelled at the speed it does today. The speed of light is a variable, depending on the properties of what it is going through. Light speed is NOT a fundamental constant. Space is not an empty nothing but has certain properties. There is evidence that the speed of light was at least 300 million times faster immediately after what is commonly called the "big bang" than we observe today. It has decayed about exponentially since then and is still changing a little even now. Since the speed of light was first measured in the early 1600s by Roemer, it has dropped about 4%. With the expansion of space, the density of conventional matter-energy has decreased and the virtual particle density of "the vacuum" has correspondingly increased. A well known law of physics states that an accelerating charge radiates energy. This is why it is impractical to build very high energy circular accelerators using electrons. It is the energy in space itself that keeps every electron in the entire universe in its orbit around the nucleus of its atom. This energy also affects the photons traveling through space, slowing them down. Experiments near absolute zero clearly show the existence of this residual energy of space.
The measured fact that the red shift is quantized is also evidence for the dramatic downward change in these "constants" over time. Since radioactivity and atomic behavior equations contain Planck's "constant" h which is inversely related it c, all radiometric dating and other atomic phenomena have to be corrected for this. The farther we go back toward the beginning the greater is the disparity between the atomic time keepers and the time keepers based on gravity. Gravity equations do not contain h or any other time dependent terms. Therefore, the atomic clocks have not and still don't run at a constant rate compared to clocks run by gravity. The earth's orbit is determined by gravity, not by atomic forces.
Because of this, the rocks of the Grand Canyon and elsewhere, dated by radioactivity, are indeed about 2 billion atomic years old which corresponds to about 4000 earth orbital years.
(....The Oort cloud is thought to be a remnant of the original protoplanetary......)
The key here is "thought to be" by proponents of evolution. True science is NOT based on "thought to be" conjectures, but on actual measurement and observation. Nobody has observed such an Oort cloud or any other place where comets might be hiding out before coming into view. This "thought to be" is based on math founded on assumptions, not on measured scientific data. The math is fine, but the assumptions (beliefs) are only that.
The theory of evolution is based on fundamental assumptions (beliefs) that have no evidence to back them up. In nature, there is nothing as constant as change. Assumptions of unvarying quantities in nature over great periods of time must be carefully and skeptically examined for evidence.
....number of statements about the theory of evolution....
Maybe its not the theory itself so much rather than its philosophical underpinnings and implications. It tries explain the incredible design of nature without a designer. It is plainly evident that life is too complex to have just happened without some thought and planning. Nobody would say that a computer or TV set did not have a designer. Yet evolutionists will attribute the orders of magnitude more complex brain as having come to be without thought and planning. Any man made machine also requires maintenance. Evolutionists deny the possible existence of a mind that made and sustains everything.
....It's like a chemical CPU that executes whatever code you give it. If you give it the DNA code for a bird, it creates bird, if you give it the DNA code for a bird, it creates a bird.......
Exactly, and where does an electronic CPU get its code? If you can show that any code originates in anything OTHER than a mind, involving thought I might believe you. If you can show how DOS code can increase in complexity and evolve into VISTA without the activity of a programmer's mind, I'll believe you. If you can show how the blueprints for an oxcart can change into the instructions for an automobile I'll believe you. If you can show how the code for the construction of a bacterium can change into the program needed to construct a human, without the mind of a superb software designer, I'll believe you.
All code ALWAYS comes ONLY from a thinking mind. It matters not whether this code is for a computer or for the DNS transcription processors in living systems. Nobody has ever shown otherwise for either.
The so call Oort clout is a fictional mathematical construct that has never been shown to exist. Science is about measurements and observations, not fictional, dubious math based on assumptions. So until they actually observe this Oort cloud, the evidence stands
(....Sure, if you don't understand gravity.....)
Whatever the detailed equations may be, taking account that the earth and moon are not point sources, the fact is that the forces and losses get larger as the bodies are closer, not smaller. Therefore in the past, the rate at which the moon receded must have been greater. So the evidence stands.
( salt content)
The known mechanisms for salt removal are insufficient for an equilibrium between input and output of salt. There is a detailed report here:
(...The age of Niagra Falls is not the age of the earth....)
So the rocks under and around the falls are really old, like the earth, but the falls themselves are young? It seems they should all be the same age. maybe that evidence can be doubted.
Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they get from the sun. If they were billions of years old, they would have cooled off by now to equilibrium. Radioactivity would have decayed by now also if these planets were billion of years old.
Ancient astronomers records tell us that Sirius was red, redder than Mars. Yet today Sirius is a white star. Is that an indication that stellar evolution proceeds much faster then thought? Don't tell me that ancient astronomers were mistaken in their star identification. They were actually quite advanced even though they had no telescopes yet.
The conservation laws of physics contradict evolutionary theory.
....Find me were it says the specific collection of books that we call the bible are from God?......
The writers of the Bible constantly quoted God.
Contrasted with other often ambiguous sacred and even secular writings, the Bible is very definite and to the point. Over 400 times, the construct "Thus saith the Lord" is found in the Old Testament as consistently recorded for us by its writers throughout the centuries.
Phrases beginning with "Truly I say to you...." are recorded over 50 times as utterances of Jesus. You can choose to classify these as repeated lies, foolish irrationalities, or you can believe them. Jesus claimed to be God. If that claim is true, we'd do well to listen and heed His words.
When you quote someone verbatim in writing and that person never said anything like that, you can be sued for libel. God won't sue you, but will hold everybody accountable for their words and actions. If those writers back then or anybody today claims God said this or that and it is NOT true, they will be in big trouble.
If on the other hand what those witnesses did tell is the truth and quoted God verbatim, anybody who refuses to believe them will be in hot water with God. When someone tells you something repeatedly and you don't believe and act upon that information you are in effect calling that person a liar or of no value.
We humans are all like someone floating down a river we don't know in a small boat. Someone at the shore yells out that there is a 200 foot cataract a few miles down river. If you don't believe that message, and act accordingly by getting to the river bank, whose fault will it be as you are swept to your death over the edge? It is usually safer to assume someone is telling the you the truth and find out later it was a lie than the other way round.
....scientists have also determined fossils to be 65,000,000 years old through carbon dating......
It is a science fact that we find fossils all over the earth. The very existence of fossils cries out loudly against the idea of evolution over immense periods of time. Nobody has ever made a fossil nor watched one form in nature. Today when a living thing dies, it decays. It never makes a fossil. I order to make one, the creature to be fossilized has to die quickly, along with all decay causing organisms and then be buried away from air. An unimaginably violent, world wide, sudden catastrophe, such as a flood could have made fossils and coal beds found all over the globe, not slow burial in sediments over great periods of time. A geologic construct, such as the Grand Canyon could never be formed by a puny little Colorado River.
If the Universe were really billions of years old, there should no longer be such a thing as comets. However there are still plenty of them. So to get around this quandary, an evolutionist astronomer named Jan Oort came up with a hypothetical thing that has been named the Oort cloud where comets are supposed to originate. Of course, such a cloud has never been found. Science is observation and experiment, not somebody's imagination of non-existent constructs.
Evolution is faith in lots and lots of time. It basically substitutes billions and millions of years for the creative power of God. The evolutionist's God is time, lots of time. Without all that supposed time, evolution is a dead farce, pure belief, masquerading as science.
No I am not. Evolution is man's attempt to explain our origins by means of impersonal probabilistic processes not involving any sort of thought process and activity of mind. There are two opposing world views. One is that there is a governing mind behind our universe and the other is that everything happened and still happens by chance.
Evolution is NOT science, but a philosophical system that attempts to answer, without reference to God, the four most important questions any thinking human will seek an answer to.
1), Who am I? 2), Where did I come from? 3), Why am I here? 4), Where am I going after I die?
1. Evolutionists says that you are not a special creation carefully and thoughtfully made by God, but only a cleverly arranged by chance set of chemicals.
2. Evolutionists teach that life began in a broth of minerals washed down from the rocks of the earth. According to that, you DID come from a rock. God says you are a product of His love and thought, specially constructed with care.
3). Evolutionists say that your only purpose is to survive and reproduce. God says you are made for loving interaction and fellowship with your creator, now and forever.
4), Evolutionists teach that you get recycled into a worm or tree after death or simply go out of existence. The conservation laws plainly show that NOTHING goes out of existence, but only change form. God says that you will face Him and give an account for the way you have lived.
If everything is only a cosmic happenstance without God, then all morals and ethics are only nice conventions that may be observed if it is convenient. Hitler and other tyrants believed that and the Columbine killer idolized Hitler. The foundations of communism is evolution philosophy.
The teachings of the Bible and evolution are both religious. You can choose which to BELIEVE.
A major tenet of evolution is that of immense age. There is evidence that the universe and earth are not nearly as old as theorized. Here are some evidences:
To assert that some object is N number of years old there has to be some sort of evidence of a reliable clock that has been ticking uniformly for all that time and there has to be some evidence that associates the clock with that object.
Scientists must assume (believe) that the ticks of certain clocks (radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, deposition of minerals, magnetization, rate of erosion, movement etc.) are 1) equally spaced over time and 2) can be tied to time as defined by the motion of the earth around the sun (years). There is no way anyone can KNOW whether these uniformitarian assumptions (beliefs) are true. There is evidence for some rather catastrophic sudden events in the past.
There are clearly layers of ice covering Greenland. The assumption (belief) is that these are deposited at the rate of one layer annually. So they count the layers and based on the annual assumption, the bottom of the ice is hundreds of thousands years or even millions of years old.
Some aircraft that had crash landed there in WW2 were discovered after 42 years under 263 feet of ice. This glacial ice was compressed into several distinct layers per foot. This shows that these layers are NOT annual cycles, but simply periods of warmer and colder weather. Thus this evidence shows that the assumption about the annual nature of these layers is wrong. Therefore, these layers cannot be equated to years.
Scientists have determined that roughly 400 million tons of minerals are deposited yearly into the world's oceans. Today's mineral content (mostly NaCl) is less than 4%. At today's rate, IF it were really true that the earth is over a billion years old the water of the sea should be totally saturated with minerals. At the present rate, the salt content corresponds to around only 4000 years worth of accumulation. This corresponds to about the time of the biblical flood. This is evidence that the earth is not billions of years old, but still doesn't PROVE it, since we have no way of knowing whether the rate of mineral addition has always been constant. There also could have been a mechanism to remove minerals from the water, although so far nobody has come forward with a plausible mechanism.
The fact that there are still comets in existence, even though their lifetime is only in the ten of thousands of years at most, shows that the solar system is not billions of years old.
The moon moves away from the earth a little each year. If the moon were billions of years old, it would have been destructively close for both bodies long before then.
At the present rate of erosion, Niagara Falls should have long ago disappeared into lake Erie, if they were millions of years old.
If you want more evidence, I could give it to you.
.....something on the order of one of those came into existence without any simpler ancestor........
There is not even a simple protein, let alone a simple machine to make proteins. Living things contain huge amounts of information. When someone can demonstrate (not theorize) the creation of information by any means OTHER than processes of thought in a mind, evolution might gain the status of science rather than a religious belief system disguised as science.
OK, I show you a few points that even only creating the CONDITIONS needed for life to develop is highly unlikely without the operation of intelligence. The mechanics of life are vastly more intricate than all of physics. Yet even the physical conditions required for the possibility of life to start are so many and so precise, that the chance of this happening is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the estimated number of subatomic particles in the known universe.
If you would look at all the physics parameters and ratios needed for there to even be one planet like earth, you would come up with about a one chance in 10^-24 of all stars might have a planet that could sustain life. Half of all stars are eliminated from having a planet like ours simply by the fact that they are too close together or too far apart.
The proton is exactly 1836 times the mass of an electron. If that ratio were even a little larger or smaller, the formation of molecules could not happen. The force of gravity in relation to the other forces has to be exactly right. Otherwise there could not be elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The electromagnetic force that holds electrons and the nuclei of atoms together has to be right. Otherwise, again, there would be no large molecules needed for life. If you statistically analyze all the parameters we know about, that have to be right, it comes up with numbers far exceeding any imagined probabilities that evolutionary theory can come up with. There may be some that nobody has even thought about yet.
Evolution depends on immense periods of time. There is plenty of evidence the universe and the earth are not nearly as old as evolutionists try to make use believe. I'll give you one.
Scientists have determined that roughly 400 million tons of minerals are deposited yearly into the world's oceans. Today's mineral content (mostly NaCl) is less than 4%. At today's rate, IF it were really true that the earth is over a billion years old the water of the sea should be totally saturated with minerals. At the present rate, the salt content corresponds to around only 4000 years worth of accumulation. Could it be the mineral deposition into the seas began around the time of the great flood of Noah?
It seems that way if you are only dealing with billions of even trillions. The mechanics of life are vastly more intricate than all of physics. Yet even the physical CONDITIONS required for the possibility of life to start are so many and so precise, that the chance of this happening is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the estimated number of subatomic particles in the known universe.
Even the chance of getting from the "big bang" to the proper conditions where there could be such a planet as ours is unimaginably tiny by non-directed processes.
If you would look at all the physics parameters and ratios needed for there to even be a planet like earth, you would come up with about a one chance in 10^-24 of all stars might have a planet that could sustain life. Half of all stars are eliminated from having a planet like ours simply by the fact that they are too close together or too far apart.
The proton is exactly 1836 times the mass of an electron. If that ratio were even a little larger or smaller, the formation of molecules could not happen. The force of gravity in relation to the other forces has to be exactly right. Otherwise there could not be elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The electromagnetic force that holds electrons and the nuclei of atoms together has to be right. If you statistically analyze all the parameters that have to be right, it comes up with numbers far exceeding any imagined probabilities that evolutionary theory can come up with. This is just what someone would have to do just to come up with the CONDITIONS needed to have life anywhere in the universe.
When you get into the complexities of living systems the probabilities get into exponents with three to 5 digits. The probability of a 747 coming into existence by the action of a tornado in a junk yard is many orders of magnitude greater than the probability of an amoeba coming into existence by any known probabilistic processes. A "simple cell" is far more complex than any system or device man has ever devised.
Evolution only works on one level. That is because life forms are engineered to be able to adapt and change according to need. This ability has limits that no amount of time can overcome. A worm will never become a bird, a cat never evolve into a dog. Natural selection may allow a bird to change its beak in order to be able to crack tougher seeds. Darwin observed this and it still happens. Moths may evolve different lighter of darker colorings, but they will always by moths. Extrapolating this ability to change into the evolutionary dogmas as taught in schools today is not science, but religion.
.....We have lots and lots of good evidence for all of those things.....
Pure BS. Fossils are a cornerstone of the evolutionary religion. Their very existence is evidence against evolution. Nobody has ever made a fossil nor explained how one can be made over time. Time is an enemy that destroys living matter before a fossil can form. No fossils are being made today nor has anyone EVER seen one formed in nature. The same goes for coal and oil. The salt content of the oceans is far to low, for the earth to be as old as the evolutionists claim. The moon still recedes from the earth a little each year. That means it should have at some point been close enough to be broken to pieces by earth's gravity and/or both bodies destroyed each other, IF it were true that the earth and moon are billions of years old. The rate of recession would have been much greater in the past than today. There is plenty of other evidence against evolutionary theory.
....All of science ultimately involves theorizing,.....
That's right and just fine. Why then is the THEORY of evolution presented as fact in our high school text books? Why is the THEORY of intelligent design not given equal time? It is because evolution is NOT science, but a religion. You don't expect the Q'ran to be taught in a catholic sunday school class do you? So why should religious evolutionists teach intelligent design or creationism in their so called "science classes"?
If you left out the word 'science' you would be more correct. However in true science there is REPEATABLE evidence. You can repeatedly stick your finger into a live light socket and repeatedly convince yourself about a certain fact concerning electricity. Until we have a time machine, there is no way to go back to the beginning or any other time before the present and do some experiments or observations. All we can do until then, stuck in the present, is make certain assumptions (beliefs) about the past and then trot out 'evidence' that supports these assumptions and vehemently try to suppress any evidence that is refutes these basic assumptions (belief).
Therefore indeed, the study of origins is philosophy, religion, a world view, not science.
Or that God could talk to us and tell us as much about it as He thinks we need to know about it. That is what the Bible claims to be, a message from God.
.....and that it is "dangerous" -- with evidence......
If someone has been taught his whole life and truly truly believes his great-great-xxxxx grandparents were animals or even came from a rock, is it really all that surprising when such an "animal" goes on a rampage with a gun and murders a bunch of his fellow animals in the high school? Columbine, anyone?
Is it surprising if someone like Hitler thought he could help evolution by eliminating what he considered undesirable subhuman mis-evolved specimens by gassing 6 million of them?
Is it really so surprising that our society has declared living babies in the womb as mere tissue and eliminated about 40 million since that court edict became law?
If humans are nothing more than a cosmic evolutionary accident, then humans are not valuable and murder is only a societal convention rather than a affront to the sanctity of life and to the God who created life.
......human race actually could have started from a single couple like Adam and Eve.......
Also, all dogs COULD have started from a single male and female poodle. Both scenarios are definitely possible. There is no way to prove that neither could NOT have happened.
.....relied on photosynthesis to produce its own food and energy....
You speak so glibly and voluminously about the mechanisms of life, as if you or anybody else really understands it. Photosynthesis is still not understood and has never been duplicated from non-living matter. It is still a mystery exactly how a photon of just the right energy is captured and used to stitch together the basic atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The photon energy has to closely match the binding energies of the atoms involved. The spectrum of the sun, as filtered by the atmosphere, matches those energies remarkably well. This spectrum correspondence between the sun and the life on earth is one of the many parameters that have to be "just so", in order to have a useable energy source.
It is conceivable, that once here life could have "evolved" though even that requires quite a bit of imagination and a lot of assumptions (belief). The probability that the conditions for life and life itself are NOT the result of careful thought and planning is astronomically small.
It was thought that cells and even viruses were 'simple' until modern microbiology showed that these things are incredibly complex systems at the molecular and atomic level. One of the simplest proteins is made of 385 amino acids, each of which is composed of many atoms. One protein is still a long ways from a self replicating cell or even a virus. There is no such thing as a "simple" organism and there never was.
Maybe they are simple enough so their designer figured the complexities of DNA were unnecessary. Gliders don't have engines, but the still fly. Maybe God knows about Occams razor?
Slashdot Mirror
.....As a human brain does not come into existence through the same processes........
I never said a thing about any processes. However processes do not just happen, but involve thought and planning. These are activities of mind. My analogy IS valid. Nobody would theorize that a computer or TV came without involving a mind, yet many do theorize that the brain did. It matters not what the processes are, but the thought behind whatever the processes may be.
Evolution is the attempt to theorize how what we observe and measure in nature came to be without reference to anyone's thought or planning. Anyone who can look at the incredible ingenuity of some of the navigation systems of birds, such as the Golden Plover, for example, and NOT stand in awe of the software engineer who programmed all that ability into a tiny bird brain, must not WANT to believe in God pretty desperately.
....that simply ignores processes that remove salt.....
There are some processes that may remove salt, but they have never been demonstrated to remove anywhere near as much salt and enter the oceans. It is conjectured that these processes remove salt as fast as it is deposited, and that the oceans have reached equilibrium in their salt load. This removal mechanism has however not been observed and measured to be actually happening. Science is about actual measurements, not conjectures of mechanisms or even educated guesses. People and that includes scientists INTERPRET the facts according to their world view. There MUST be a mechanism to remove salt, since our theory is that the earth is xx billions of years old. No such salt removal mechanism as actually been observed in action, so one is conjectured to exist.
It is a fact that the moon is still receding from the earth about 2.5 cm each year. It has been and can be measured accurately today by lasers. This recession is interpreted to be caused by tidal losses. Maybe that is right. However if that recession has been going on at this rate for 4 billion years, the evolutionary interpreters tell us the moon is old, then the moon would have been 100,000 km closer to earth than today. Even if that process remained linear over that entire time, the moon would have been almost 25% closer to earth than now. Few things are linear in nature. Gravity and tidal losses would have been higher and the rate of recession is less now than it would have been then. The math gets complicated, by exactly how much faster the moon may have receded from earth. It is highly unlikely that the rate of recession was ever LESS than what we observe today. Nobody knows for sure how the earth got is moon. Some conjecture that it was ripped out of the still nearly molten earth, others conjecture that it condensed from gas, just as earth and the other planets and captured by earth's gravity.
The plain fact is we just don't know exactly how things were in the past. There was only one witness, the one who did it. Witnesses can never prove anything. Witnesses only testify. God testifies that he did it. Nobody else was there to witness creation. We as the jury, can choose to believe any witness, including God or not.
......Scientific "theory" is not the opposite of facts.......
Scientific theory is someone's interpretations of observations and measurements. Only the latter are science and factual, repeatable evidence. Figuring out what these measurements mean is theory and is based on the opinion and world view of the interpreter. This is especially true, because theories of origins, more than other things are based on the world view of the interpreter
We find fossils virtually everywhere. That is science, and that is factual evidence. Anyone can go and find fossils. Nobody has ever made a fossil or seen one form. Theorizing how these fossils came to be is just that, theory and opinions, not science. Evolutionists theorize that fossils were made over large periods of time, as sediments on the bottom of oceans and lakes, gradually, millions of years ago. Creationists tell us that fossils were the result of a great cataclysm, a world wide flood. Both of these views are theories, interpretations of the observational fact of fossils. The discovery and cataloging of fossils is science, Interpreting how they were made is belief, based on the world view of the interpreter.
There are also underlying assumptions, beliefs based on world view. One is the uinformitarian idea that nothing in changes all that much over time. Radioactivity dating is based on the assumption(belief) that certain constants, in this case, Planck's constant has always been the same as it is today. There is evidence that h as changed dramatically over time, making such assumptions unwarranted.
The other assumption (belief) is that there were, in the past dramatic discontinuities in certain aspects of nature. There is no way anyone can say for sure that nothing, like for instance certain "constants" of nature, are truly invariant over time. There is evidence that certain so called constants are variables throughout their existence.
If any scientific facts are interpreted, than all such interpretations should be given equal time. Right now, the evolutionary interpretation of the facts is given almost exclusive coverage at taxpayers expense in our schools. Other opinions are actively suppressed and ridiculed.
......Scientific "theory" is not the opposite of facts.......
Scientific theory is someone's interpretations of observations and measurements. Only the latter are science and factual, repeatable evidence. Figuring out what these measurements mean is theory and is based on the opinion and world view of the interpreter. This is especially true, because theories of origins, more than other things are based on the world view of the interpreter
We find fossils virtually everywhere. That is science, and that is factual evidence. Anyone can go and find fossils. Nobody has ever made a fossil or seen one form. Theorizing how these fossils came to be is just that, theory and opinions, not science. Evolutionists theorize that fossils were made over large periods of time, gradually, millions of years ago. Creationists tell us that fossils were the result of a great cataclysm, a world wide flood. Both of these views are theories, interpretations of the observational fact of fossils. The discovery and cataloging of fossils is science, Interpreting how they were made is belief, based on the world view of the interpreter.
There are also underlying assumptions, beliefs based on world view. One is the uinformitarian idea that nothing in changes all that much over time. The other is that there were, in the past dramatic discontinuities in certain aspects of nature. There is no way can say for sure than nothing, like for instance certain "constants" of nature are truly invariant over time.
If any scientific facts are interpreted, than all such interpretations should be given equal time.
.....What evidence -- that allegedly "stands" -- have you that new comets can never form, then?......
You have to come up with evidence that they still form today. To me the evidence shows that comets were made not billions of years ago, but recently. We actually see the ones that are still around, but we also know that comets do not last all that long. That's why evolutionists have to come with the idea that comets are still being made "somewhere". The only trouble is that nobody has ever found any such a birthplace of comets. Neither Mr. Ooort nor anyone else has any idea how to go about finding comets at the distance this fabled cloud of comets is conjectured to reside.
(....Do you even look to see if your claims haven't been rebutted already?...)
Yes, and the rebuttal doesn't come up with an observed, measured mechanism by which more salt is removed from the ocean faster than it is being deposited, thus preventing a gradual buildup over billions of years. There are some conjectures about such a mechanism, just as there is a conjecture that comets are still being produced or hidden away somewhere. Nobody has shown a plausible salt removal mechanism that can be demonstrated.
(.....evolution is not faith by any means.....)
True, evolution itself isn't, but many of its underlying assumptions (beliefs) are. Read how many erudite scientific papers have phrases to the effect: "if we assume xxx, then yyy follows. That is of course right and very logical.
-> Evolution, a modern fairy tale. (My comments in parentheses)
Fairy tales give the magic formula "frog+kiss=prince". In evolution fairy tales we get "frog+time=prince". The magic of time can eventually even turn a rock into a prince.
You can read the tale in school "science" text books. Billions of years ago, (thats long before your great grandmother lived) torrents of rain washed minerals from the rocky land into the pre-biotic soup (Campbells?) of the warm seas where organic molecules eventually (eventually is a really long time) formed. After more time, these molecules organized themselves into single celled organisms, such as simple bacteria. Eventually (after lots more time, the magic potion) multicellular forms showed up, which after even more time evolved into animals like snails and fish. Some of these after xxx million years evolved to be able to also live on land. These are called amphibians.( true, that's what they are) This is where the frogs get on stage. After more time some of these evolved to live entirely on land. After a lot more time (the magic word) some even figured out how to fly by turning into birds In more time yet, (more magic) some became mammals and eventually, after more still more time, one of these mammals became human at last. (man was the result of deepest magic time was capable of)
Of course it was inevitable that sooner or later one of these evolved men would become a prince. After all some men do become princes without getting a kiss from a maiden. It is only a matter of time.
There you have it, a modern fairy tale, that many have the audacity to label as science. The magic ingredient necessary to turn a frog (or even a rock) into a prince, is not some beautiful maiden's kiss, but time, unimaginable amounts of time. THAT is called science, taught in schools and financed by my tax dollars? GIVEM ME A BREAK!
.....then please explain why he wants to trick us. it seems like a dirty trick to pull for an all-loving benevolent creator......
He doesn't trick anyone. When scientists tell us an object is a certain distance away, such as so many light years, they are making an unwarranted assumption. That assumption is that light has always travelled at the speed it does today. The speed of light is a variable, depending on the properties of what it is going through. Light speed is NOT a fundamental constant. Space is not an empty nothing but has certain properties. There is evidence that the speed of light was at least 300 million times faster immediately after what is commonly called the "big bang" than we observe today. It has decayed about exponentially since then and is still changing a little even now. Since the speed of light was first measured in the early 1600s by Roemer, it has dropped about 4%. With the expansion of space, the density of conventional matter-energy has decreased and the virtual particle density of "the vacuum" has correspondingly increased. A well known law of physics states that an accelerating charge radiates energy. This is why it is impractical to build very high energy circular accelerators using electrons. It is the energy in space itself that keeps every electron in the entire universe in its orbit around the nucleus of its atom. This energy also affects the photons traveling through space, slowing them down. Experiments near absolute zero clearly show the existence of this residual energy of space.
The measured fact that the red shift is quantized is also evidence for the dramatic downward change in these "constants" over time. Since radioactivity and atomic behavior equations contain Planck's "constant" h which is inversely related it c, all radiometric dating and other atomic phenomena have to be corrected for this. The farther we go back toward the beginning the greater is the disparity between the atomic time keepers and the time keepers based on gravity. Gravity equations do not contain h or any other time dependent terms. Therefore, the atomic clocks have not and still don't run at a constant rate compared to clocks run by gravity. The earth's orbit is determined by gravity, not by atomic forces.
Because of this, the rocks of the Grand Canyon and elsewhere, dated by radioactivity, are indeed about 2 billion atomic years old which corresponds to about 4000 earth orbital years.
(....The Oort cloud is thought to be a remnant of the original protoplanetary......)
The key here is "thought to be" by proponents of evolution. True science is NOT based on "thought to be" conjectures, but on actual measurement and observation. Nobody has observed such an Oort cloud or any other place where comets might be hiding out before coming into view. This "thought to be" is based on math founded on assumptions, not on measured scientific data. The math is fine, but the assumptions (beliefs) are only that.
The theory of evolution is based on fundamental assumptions (beliefs) that have no evidence to back them up. In nature, there is nothing as constant as change. Assumptions of unvarying quantities in nature over great periods of time must be carefully and skeptically examined for evidence.
....number of statements about the theory of evolution....
Maybe its not the theory itself so much rather than its philosophical underpinnings and implications. It tries explain the incredible design of nature without a designer. It is plainly evident that life is too complex to have just happened without some thought and planning. Nobody would say that a computer or TV set did not have a designer. Yet evolutionists will attribute the orders of magnitude more complex brain as having come to be without thought and planning. Any man made machine also requires maintenance. Evolutionists deny the possible existence of a mind that made and sustains everything.
....It's like a chemical CPU that executes whatever code you give it. If you give it the DNA code for a bird, it creates bird, if you give it the DNA code for a bird, it creates a bird.......
Exactly, and where does an electronic CPU get its code? If you can show that any code originates in anything OTHER than a mind, involving thought I might believe you. If you can show how DOS code can increase in complexity and evolve into VISTA without the activity of a programmer's mind, I'll believe you. If you can show how the blueprints for an oxcart can change into the instructions for an automobile I'll believe you. If you can show how the code for the construction of a bacterium can change into the program needed to construct a human, without the mind of a superb software designer, I'll believe you.
All code ALWAYS comes ONLY from a thinking mind. It matters not whether this code is for a computer or for the DNS transcription processors in living systems. Nobody has ever shown otherwise for either.
....Are you suggesting that new comets......
The so call Oort clout is a fictional mathematical construct that has never been shown to exist. Science is about measurements and observations, not fictional, dubious math based on assumptions. So until they actually observe this Oort cloud, the evidence stands
(....Sure, if you don't understand gravity.....)
Whatever the detailed equations may be, taking account that the earth and moon are not point sources, the fact is that the forces and losses get larger as the bodies are closer, not smaller. Therefore in the past, the rate at which the moon receded must have been greater. So the evidence stands.
( salt content)
The known mechanisms for salt removal are insufficient for an equilibrium between input and output of salt. There is a detailed report here:
http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html
again the evidence stands
(...The age of Niagra Falls is not the age of the earth....)
So the rocks under and around the falls are really old, like the earth, but the falls themselves are young? It seems they should all be the same age. maybe that evidence can be doubted.
Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they get from the sun. If they were billions of years old, they would have cooled off by now to equilibrium. Radioactivity would have decayed by now also if these planets were billion of years old.
Ancient astronomers records tell us that Sirius was red, redder than Mars. Yet today Sirius is a white star. Is that an indication that stellar evolution proceeds much faster then thought? Don't tell me that ancient astronomers were mistaken in their star identification. They were actually quite advanced even though they had no telescopes yet.
The conservation laws of physics contradict evolutionary theory.
....Find me were it says the specific collection of books that we call the bible are from God?......
The writers of the Bible constantly quoted God.
Contrasted with other often ambiguous sacred and even secular writings, the Bible is very definite and to the point. Over 400 times, the construct "Thus saith the Lord" is found in the Old Testament as consistently recorded for us by its writers throughout the centuries.
Phrases beginning with "Truly I say to you...." are recorded over 50 times as utterances of Jesus. You can choose to classify these as repeated lies, foolish irrationalities, or you can believe them. Jesus claimed to be God. If that claim is true, we'd do well to listen and heed His words.
When you quote someone verbatim in writing and that person never said anything like that, you can be sued for libel. God won't sue you, but will hold everybody accountable for their words and actions. If those writers back then or anybody today claims God said this or that and it is NOT true, they will be in big trouble.
If on the other hand what those witnesses did tell is the truth and quoted God verbatim, anybody who refuses to believe them will be in hot water with God. When someone tells you something repeatedly and you don't believe and act upon that information you are in effect calling that person a liar or of no value.
We humans are all like someone floating down a river we don't know in a small boat. Someone at the shore yells out that there is a 200 foot cataract a few miles down river. If you don't believe that message, and act accordingly by getting to the river bank, whose fault will it be as you are swept to your death over the edge? It is usually safer to assume someone is telling the you the truth and find out later it was a lie than the other way round.
....scientists have also determined fossils to be 65,000,000 years old through carbon dating......
It is a science fact that we find fossils all over the earth. The very existence of fossils cries out loudly against the idea of evolution over immense periods of time. Nobody has ever made a fossil nor watched one form in nature. Today when a living thing dies, it decays. It never makes a fossil. I order to make one, the creature to be fossilized has to die quickly, along with all decay causing organisms and then be buried away from air. An unimaginably violent, world wide, sudden catastrophe, such as a flood could have made fossils and coal beds found all over the globe, not slow burial in sediments over great periods of time. A geologic construct, such as the Grand Canyon could never be formed by a puny little Colorado River.
If the Universe were really billions of years old, there should no longer be such a thing as comets. However there are still plenty of them. So to get around this quandary, an evolutionist astronomer named Jan Oort came up with a hypothetical thing that has been named the Oort cloud where comets are supposed to originate. Of course, such a cloud has never been found. Science is observation and experiment, not somebody's imagination of non-existent constructs.
Evolution is faith in lots and lots of time. It basically substitutes billions and millions of years for the creative power of God. The evolutionist's God is time, lots of time. Without all that supposed time, evolution is a dead farce, pure belief, masquerading as science.
.....You are attacking a strawman,......
No I am not. Evolution is man's attempt to explain our origins by means of impersonal probabilistic processes not involving any sort of thought process and activity of mind. There are two opposing world views. One is that there is a governing mind behind our universe and the other is that everything happened and still happens by chance.
Evolution is NOT science, but a philosophical system that attempts to answer, without reference to God, the four most important questions any thinking human will seek an answer to.
1), Who am I? 2), Where did I come from? 3), Why am I here? 4), Where am I going after I die?
1. Evolutionists says that you are not a special creation carefully and thoughtfully made by God, but only a cleverly arranged by chance set of chemicals.
2. Evolutionists teach that life began in a broth of minerals washed down from the rocks of the earth. According to that, you DID come from a rock. God says you are a product of His love and thought, specially constructed with care.
3). Evolutionists say that your only purpose is to survive and reproduce. God says you are made for loving interaction and fellowship with your creator, now and forever.
4), Evolutionists teach that you get recycled into a worm or tree after death or simply go out of existence. The conservation laws plainly show that NOTHING goes out of existence, but only change form. God says that you will face Him and give an account for the way you have lived.
If everything is only a cosmic happenstance without God, then all morals and ethics are only nice conventions that may be observed if it is convenient. Hitler and other tyrants believed that and the Columbine killer idolized Hitler. The foundations of communism is evolution philosophy.
The teachings of the Bible and evolution are both religious. You can choose which to BELIEVE.
....without offering any evidence .....
A major tenet of evolution is that of immense age. There is evidence that the universe and earth are not nearly as old as theorized. Here are some evidences:
To assert that some object is N number of years old there has to be some sort of evidence of a reliable clock that has been ticking uniformly for all that time and there has to be some evidence that associates the clock with that object.
Scientists must assume (believe) that the ticks of certain clocks (radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, deposition of minerals, magnetization, rate of erosion, movement etc.) are 1) equally spaced over time and 2) can be tied to time as defined by the motion of the earth around the sun (years). There is no way anyone can KNOW whether these uniformitarian assumptions (beliefs) are true. There is evidence for some rather catastrophic sudden events in the past.
There are clearly layers of ice covering Greenland. The assumption (belief) is that these are deposited at the rate of one layer annually. So they count the layers and based on the annual assumption, the bottom of the ice is hundreds of thousands years or even millions of years old.
Some aircraft that had crash landed there in WW2 were discovered after 42 years under 263 feet of ice. This glacial ice was compressed into several distinct layers per foot. This shows that these layers are NOT annual cycles, but simply periods of warmer and colder weather. Thus this evidence shows that the assumption about the annual nature of these layers is wrong. Therefore, these layers cannot be equated to years.
Scientists have determined that roughly 400 million tons of minerals are deposited yearly into the world's oceans. Today's mineral content (mostly NaCl) is less than 4%. At today's rate, IF it were really true that the earth is over a billion years old the water of the sea should be totally saturated with minerals. At the present rate, the salt content corresponds to around only 4000 years worth of accumulation. This corresponds to about the time of the biblical flood. This is evidence that the earth is not billions of years old, but still doesn't PROVE it, since we have no way of knowing whether the rate of mineral addition has always been constant. There also could have been a mechanism to remove minerals from the water, although so far nobody has come forward with a plausible mechanism.
The fact that there are still comets in existence, even though their lifetime is only in the ten of thousands of years at most, shows that the solar system is not billions of years old.
The moon moves away from the earth a little each year. If the moon were billions of years old, it would have been destructively close for both bodies long before then.
At the present rate of erosion, Niagara Falls should have long ago disappeared into lake Erie, if they were millions of years old.
If you want more evidence, I could give it to you.
.....something on the order of one of those came into existence without any simpler ancestor........
There is not even a simple protein, let alone a simple machine to make proteins. Living things contain huge amounts of information. When someone can demonstrate (not theorize) the creation of information by any means OTHER than processes of thought in a mind, evolution might gain the status of science rather than a religious belief system disguised as science.
......please, show me this evidence......
OK, I show you a few points that even only creating the CONDITIONS needed for life to develop is highly unlikely without the operation of intelligence. The mechanics of life are vastly more intricate than all of physics. Yet even the physical conditions required for the possibility of life to start are so many and so precise, that the chance of this happening is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the estimated number of subatomic particles in the known universe.
If you would look at all the physics parameters and ratios needed for there to even be one planet like earth, you would come up with about a one chance in 10^-24 of all stars might have a planet that could sustain life. Half of all stars are eliminated from having a planet like ours simply by the fact that they are too close together or too far apart.
The proton is exactly 1836 times the mass of an electron. If that ratio were even a little larger or smaller, the formation of molecules could not happen. The force of gravity in relation to the other forces has to be exactly right. Otherwise there could not be elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The electromagnetic force that holds electrons and the nuclei of atoms together has to be right. Otherwise, again, there would be no large molecules needed for life. If you statistically analyze all the parameters we know about, that have to be right, it comes up with numbers far exceeding any imagined probabilities that evolutionary theory can come up with. There may be some that nobody has even thought about yet.
Evolution depends on immense periods of time. There is plenty of evidence the universe and the earth are not nearly as old as evolutionists try to make use believe. I'll give you one.
Scientists have determined that roughly 400 million tons of minerals are deposited yearly into the world's oceans. Today's mineral content (mostly NaCl) is less than 4%. At today's rate, IF it were really true that the earth is over a billion years old the water of the sea should be totally saturated with minerals. At the present rate, the salt content corresponds to around only 4000 years worth of accumulation. Could it be the mineral deposition into the seas began around the time of the great flood of Noah?
......"Astronomically small" chances happen eventually......
It seems that way if you are only dealing with billions of even trillions. The mechanics of life are vastly more intricate than all of physics. Yet even the physical CONDITIONS required for the possibility of life to start are so many and so precise, that the chance of this happening is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the estimated number of subatomic particles in the known universe.
Even the chance of getting from the "big bang" to the proper conditions where there could be such a planet as ours is unimaginably tiny by non-directed processes.
If you would look at all the physics parameters and ratios needed for there to even be a planet like earth, you would come up with about a one chance in 10^-24 of all stars might have a planet that could sustain life. Half of all stars are eliminated from having a planet like ours simply by the fact that they are too close together or too far apart.
The proton is exactly 1836 times the mass of an electron. If that ratio were even a little larger or smaller, the formation of molecules could not happen. The force of gravity in relation to the other forces has to be exactly right. Otherwise there could not be elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The electromagnetic force that holds electrons and the nuclei of atoms together has to be right. If you statistically analyze all the parameters that have to be right, it comes up with numbers far exceeding any imagined probabilities that evolutionary theory can come up with. This is just what someone would have to do just to come up with the CONDITIONS needed to have life anywhere in the universe.
When you get into the complexities of living systems the probabilities get into exponents with three to 5 digits. The probability of a 747 coming into existence by the action of a tornado in a junk yard is many orders of magnitude greater than the probability of an amoeba coming into existence by any known probabilistic processes. A "simple cell" is far more complex than any system or device man has ever devised.
Evolution only works on one level. That is because life forms are engineered to be able to adapt and change according to need. This ability has limits that no amount of time can overcome. A worm will never become a bird, a cat never evolve into a dog. Natural selection may allow a bird to change its beak in order to be able to crack tougher seeds. Darwin observed this and it still happens. Moths may evolve different lighter of darker colorings, but they will always by moths. Extrapolating this ability to change into the evolutionary dogmas as taught in schools today is not science, but religion.
.....We have lots and lots of good evidence for all of those things.....
Pure BS. Fossils are a cornerstone of the evolutionary religion. Their very existence is evidence against evolution. Nobody has ever made a fossil nor explained how one can be made over time. Time is an enemy that destroys living matter before a fossil can form. No fossils are being made today nor has anyone EVER seen one formed in nature. The same goes for coal and oil. The salt content of the oceans is far to low, for the earth to be as old as the evolutionists claim. The moon still recedes from the earth a little each year. That means it should have at some point been close enough to be broken to pieces by earth's gravity and/or both bodies destroyed each other, IF it were true that the earth and moon are billions of years old. The rate of recession would have been much greater in the past than today. There is plenty of other evidence against evolutionary theory.
....All of science ultimately involves theorizing,.....
That's right and just fine. Why then is the THEORY of evolution presented as fact in our high school text books? Why is the THEORY of intelligent design not given equal time? It is because evolution is NOT science, but a religion. You don't expect the Q'ran to be taught in a catholic sunday school class do you? So why should religious evolutionists teach intelligent design or creationism in their so called "science classes"?
....Nothing in science is ever proven.....
If you left out the word 'science' you would be more correct. However in true science there is REPEATABLE evidence. You can repeatedly stick your finger into a live light socket and repeatedly convince yourself about a certain fact concerning electricity. Until we have a time machine, there is no way to go back to the beginning or any other time before the present and do some experiments or observations. All we can do until then, stuck in the present, is make certain assumptions (beliefs) about the past and then trot out 'evidence' that supports these assumptions and vehemently try to suppress any evidence that is refutes these basic assumptions (belief).
Therefore indeed, the study of origins is philosophy, religion, a world view, not science.
.....or talk to God......
Or that God could talk to us and tell us as much about it as He thinks we need to know about it. That is what the Bible claims to be, a message from God.
.....and that it is "dangerous" -- with evidence......
If someone has been taught his whole life and truly truly believes his great-great-xxxxx grandparents were animals or even came from a rock, is it really all that surprising when such an "animal" goes on a rampage with a gun and murders a bunch of his fellow animals in the high school? Columbine, anyone?
Is it surprising if someone like Hitler thought he could help evolution by eliminating what he considered undesirable subhuman mis-evolved specimens by gassing 6 million of them?
Is it really so surprising that our society has declared living babies in the womb as mere tissue and eliminated about 40 million since that court edict became law?
If humans are nothing more than a cosmic evolutionary accident, then humans are not valuable and murder is only a societal convention rather than a affront to the sanctity of life and to the God who created life.
Need more evidence?
......human race actually could have started from a single couple like Adam and Eve.......
Also, all dogs COULD have started from a single male and female poodle. Both scenarios are definitely possible. There is no way to prove that neither could NOT have happened.
.....relied on photosynthesis to produce its own food and energy....
You speak so glibly and voluminously about the mechanisms of life, as if you or anybody else really understands it. Photosynthesis is still not understood and has never been duplicated from non-living matter. It is still a mystery exactly how a photon of just the right energy is captured and used to stitch together the basic atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
The photon energy has to closely match the binding energies of the atoms involved. The spectrum of the sun, as filtered by the atmosphere, matches those energies remarkably well. This spectrum correspondence between the sun and the life on earth is one of the many parameters that have to be "just so", in order to have a useable energy source.
It is conceivable, that once here life could have "evolved" though even that requires quite a bit of imagination and a lot of assumptions (belief). The probability that the conditions for life and life itself are NOT the result of careful thought and planning is astronomically small.
.....starting with a simple enough organism....
It was thought that cells and even viruses were 'simple' until modern microbiology showed that these things are incredibly complex systems at the molecular and atomic level. One of the simplest proteins is made of 385 amino acids, each of which is composed of many atoms. One protein is still a long ways from a self replicating cell or even a virus. There is no such thing as a "simple" organism and there never was.
....are still relying on RNA.....
Maybe they are simple enough so their designer figured the complexities of DNA were unnecessary. Gliders don't have engines, but the still fly. Maybe God knows about Occams razor?