Wow, I sound a lot harsher then I meant it to.
lekatt, somehow I think that even if I were to post all of the most compelling proofs (yes PROOFS) of evolution, with lots of links to sites ending in “edu” you still wouldn’t acknowledge any of it as legitimate.
You also need to understand the difference between “banning” religion in schools and refraining from an official endorsement of specific views.
Frustrating, ain’t it? It’s one thing if it’s just Lekatt banging his head against the wall, but he wants us to eat the brick, too. 
So much for ColorFlip.
FYI, mentioning Lekatt’s “naval career” has, (so far), been an effective method of ridding a thread of him. If you ever want a Lekatt repellent…
You know, it’s funny, I always thought NDE’s would be harder to argue than creationism. I mean, creationism has what seems to be loads more reference sites (even though they are BS).
Like those primitive societies that don’t have a concept of murder? People kill each other constantly – yet they lasted quite a long time.
“Murder” refers to unlawful killing. (That’s why the Commandment against murder is redundant.) You seem to have trouble grasping the proper use of the word.
Evolution has its limitations, it seems.
Ouch. Well, I guess that conclusively proves… uh…
Can you offer a citation showing that such a society exists/existsed? Failing that, can you at least name one of these primitive socities so that I can research it myself?
What was the name of the society that existed near Tiera de Fuego around the middle 18th century?
There are plenty of anthropological studies about societies where the primary cause of death is homicide. I think Discover magazine had an interesting article regarding them several years ago, and I vaguely recall Scientific American discussing them briefly.
I don’t know, what was it?
Well then I repeat, Can you offer a citation showing that such a society exists/existsed? Failing that, can you at least name one of these primitive socities so that I can research it myself?
There are places like Palm Island where homicide is a major cause of death. I doubt there has ever been a place where homicide is the primary cause of death.
However even places like Palm Island do not support your contention that the society has no concept of murder. The society has a very strong concept of murder. Due to a combination of a breakdown of law, a destruction of traditional social values and intoxicating substances the murder rates are high. No more than that. There is no evidence these people don’t know what murder is, which is what you assreted.
So I ask again, Can you offer a citation showing that such a society exists/existsed? Failing that, can you at least name one of these primitive socities so that I can research it myself?
Quite frankly i can’t believe such a society exists.
Leroy, let me add my voice to that of Diogenes and say that you have my admiration for your bravery to speak out as you do against a vocal majority. You are obviously an intelligent man, and these boards benefit from the diversity which you provide.
However, the one, single thing which lets you down in every thread is that you display either serious amnesia about what was said in the past or that you simply ignore certain points repeatedly.
Time after time it has been explained what the word “theory” means. Again and again you repeat that evolution is an idea or hypothesis.
The fact of evolution is that species die out and other species which didn’t exist beforehand take their place. Evolution Theory explains mechanisms for this. I have seen you being told this literally 10 different times.
Please, please, I implore you, stop ignoring the points that people make over and over again.
But… if he did that, he would no longer be able to hold the positions and ideas that he does.
And then he just wouldn’t be Leroy any more.
Ya made me laugh TVAA, ya made me laugh. 
(I bet Lekatt won’t be back in this thread…)
You know, I really do understand that, but, it is only an assumption that some die out and others take their place. The connection is assumed to happen and not really known to happen, no one was present to validate it. To say that you know how man came about on this earth can never be anything but a guess. In any given second of time, millions upon millions of events take place, the information upon which we base our assumptions is microscopic compared to reality. We need to understand our limitations a bit more and quit blowing our horn so much.
Love
Leroy
First of all, look at this. We have a poster who if not a troll, is at least an “albatross” (flies in, shits, and leaves). I seriously doubt if “color flip” is really a 10th grade student, or if his teacher said anything like that at all.
Next, let us assume for a bit that he is for real. He speaks of “more than one theory (of evolution)”. “Creationism” is NOT a “theory of evolution”, in fact, it is the opposite. But you dudes fall all over each other making the assumption that that is what he is talking about, where in fact there is absolutely no evidence he is doing so.
There ARE “more than one theory”. We have “guided evolution”, which is a matter of faith. Setting that aside, we also have Lamarkism, which still has some legit adherants for a much changed version. (And NO that stupid experiment with cutting the tails of mice did NOT disprove Lamarkism. That experiment showed only that the experimenter had not knowledge of what Lamarkism is all about. It is not “inheritance of aquired characteristics” so much as it is “inheritance of desired/wanted/needed characteristics”). However, be that as it may- even though mostly outdated- Lamarkism is indeed “another theory of evolution”. And certainly it has it’s place in a scientific discussion of evolution, if only as “an earlier butnow discarded” theory.
Then, to get closer to mainstream, there are those who hold that life did not originate on Earth, but was spread here through space. Indeed, 'another theory of evolution".
Then, finally we have the “gradualists” vs the “punctuated equalibrium” camps. Certainly both are legit “theories of evolution”.
I’d guess you dudes have all been taken in by a troll. If not, however, you are certainly jumping to conclusions.
Leroy- as I mentioned before “evolution” is not a “theory”, it is a fact- and can & has been observed in our lifetimes. How , that is the “mechanism” the fact of evolution occurs is indeed, a matter of “Theory”. It could be that God sends down an angel to make each needed change in the DNA for an evolutionary change. I doubt it- but it COULD be. “Gravity” IS , and is not a “theory”, just like evolution. But- exactly how gravity works (are there “gravitons”?) , that is the “mechanism” of gravity- *that * is a matter of “theory”.
“Guided evolution” is another word for Intelligent Design, i.e creationism. It’s not a scientific theory.
There is currently no scientific “theory” that life on earth was spread from space, and even if that were true, it would have nothing to do with evolution and fails to ansewr the abiogenesis question.
Lamarkism is thoroughly discredited but it would not be “illegal” to teach what it was in school.
The only thing that it would be illegal to teach is creationism.
I agree that we’ve probably been had by a troll.
Let me be more clear about that life-from-space thing. There is certainly speculation in science that life could have been carried to Earth on a meteroite or something. This hypothesis has not come anywhere near the status of a formal theory, though, and it wouldn’t be a theory of evolution but of terrestrial biogenesis.
Psst: Leroy. Re: Dying out and other things taking their place…
Everything dies. Except for things that live forever.
That last part is limited to the odd Douglas Fir, giant fungus, and the first Ameoba that split and kept splitting. Eventually, you will die.
Someone, then, will live in your house, or on your land. That person is ‘taking your place.’
So, things die out, and other things take their place. Where’s the problem there?
Not as discredited as you might think.
“…adaptive mutation, epigentic inheritance, behavioural inheritance through social leraning and language-based information tansmission have properties that allow the inheritance of induced or learnt characters. The role of induced, heritable variation in evolution therefore needs to be reconsidered, and the evolution of systems that produce induced variation needs to be considered”
Jablonka, E., Lamb, M., Avital, E. 1998 Lamakina Mechanisms in Darwinian evolution. Tree 13:5
Is there any hard evidence that acquired traits can be passed on?