EinsteinToNewton

lol...blind believer in sky gods? You do observe big DNA similarity, but you didn't observe how they evolved in past in any case. Life is dynamic, dead fossils are not. Let me restate: do fossils show an animated process? They merely help visually show what might have happened, according to what we know from science, in my opinion... Yea fossils visually show what happened. like so Different species overtime

Both, life is dynamic to its enviroment, and extreme DNA similarity between all life. Also fossils to help visually show evolution over time (transitional species)

Hum, that's your view. I'm asking myself: (I don't want to be cheeky, here, ok? I just like to ask a little bit, here, ok?) Can you observe evolution through looking at the intricate tree of life over thousand years? You see a picture and then you observe an animated process? You see different fossils and then you observe an animated process before your eyes? Or is it rather that your inner eye is involved here and that this one makes you see all this? I don't exactly understand your question, could you restate?

Evolution *is* the only scientific game in town. Besides which, it being 'only a theory' is meaningless. Gravity is 'only a theory'. That germs cause illness is 'only a theory'. The theory which allowed us to build nuclear weapons is 'only a theory'. The theory which allows us to make transisotrs for your computer is 'only a theory'. Something being a theory doesn't mean it's ill established at all. Also its an observable theory, why do you think we need to make a new flu shot strain every year. Yep you guessed it. Evolution Or my favorite concern, MRSA. People will often want to distinguish between 'micro and macro' evolution and say that while micro evolution can be true macro is not, but I find that distinguish to be arbitrary. Physically, macro-evolution is a bunch of micro-evolutionary steps over time. If one is a fact then that the other happens is all but certain. Haha, yes I was worried someone might bring out the "micro" argument. I couldnt have put it better than you did on how macro is just lots of micro over time [bolded mine] Einstein, I basically agree with you, too, with the little exception that I disagree in that the whole of what this theory describes was observable - is it this what you were trying to convey, or did you rather mean that parts of this theory are observable? Just some evolutions are, that's it. Well macro evolution isn't observable like micro is within one year. But DNA shows an intricate tree of life over thousands of years, Also fossils show transitional species over time linking common ancestors, so in that way its observable.

Evolution *is* the only scientific game in town. Besides which, it being 'only a theory' is meaningless. Gravity is 'only a theory'. That germs cause illness is 'only a theory'. The theory which allowed us to build nuclear weapons is 'only a theory'. The theory which allows us to make transisotrs for your computer is 'only a theory'. Something being a theory doesn't mean it's ill established at all. Also its an observable theory, why do you think we need to make a new flu shot strain every year. Yep you guessed it. Evolution Or my favorite concern, MRSA. People will often want to distinguish between 'micro and macro' evolution and say that while micro evolution can be true macro is not, but I find that distinguish to be arbitrary. Physically, macro-evolution is a bunch of micro-evolutionary steps over time. If one is a fact then that the other happens is all but certain. Haha, yes I was worried someone might bring out the "micro" argument. I couldnt have put it better than you did on how macro is just lots of micro over time

Evolution *is* the only scientific game in town. Besides which, it being 'only a theory' is meaningless. Gravity is 'only a theory'. That germs cause illness is 'only a theory'. The theory which allowed us to build nuclear weapons is 'only a theory'. The theory which allows us to make transisotrs for your computer is 'only a theory'. Something being a theory doesn't mean it's ill established at all. Also its an observable theory, why do you think we need to make a new flu shot strain every year. Yep you guessed it. Evolution

i don't see where the constitution tells us what to teach in our schools. That would be left up to the people in each state. The treaty of Tripoli (not in the constitution) article eleven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11 Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

If we teach christian creationism we muat also teach islamic creationism and Hinduism creationism and all the other relgions to. This country was founded on religious freedom and secularism. Read the constitution people