Just for the record, the often used phrasing that "man evolves from apes", is wrong. Once there was a pre-ape population in which sub-populations formed up, the one being the earliest "forefathers" :) of man, the other being the early ancestors of apes. Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".

Evolutionary strains of different eras do not always necessarily follow in a linear fashion one after the other, but species from different eras can and do coexist at the same time. Some species have not chnaged since incredibly long times, other have moved back to earlier phases of their evolutionary forming-up.

It is a wild misunderstanding that evolution always works linear. It does not. Also, it is no "driving force" of anythging. It is just an observation of for exmaple a species and its alteration over time. This then is called its evolution, its coming-about. Gravity is an external variable, a force that causally causes the apple I let slip off my hand falling to the ground. The idea of evolution has not this causing, causal quality. Its in principle just an abstract construction used by theoretists. It is no force in itself, like gravity.

Our use of the term makes it easy and more comfortable to talk about the idea behind evolution, but the language we use on it bear the risk to fundamentally misunderstand what really is meant by it.

Yes, I know I inherit physical and quite possibly some say personality traits from my parents. Some good, some bad, some beneficial and not so beneficial but its within a group called homo sapien. Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved?

Evolutionary medicine? From what I've read about evolutionary medicine its not as wide spread school of thought or practice as one may be lead to believe. Oh sure there are many trying to promote it. But "Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications." Hmmm wonder why? There are a tremendous amount of success stories that owe more to pediatrics, microbiology and genetics physiology, zoology, botany and absolutley nothing whatsoever to evolutionary theory. All of which got along quite well before and after without it.

Its called hybridization and if there is evidence I'll ask again that you produce it. And yes, its been a great many a years alright. From the days of Socrates the ideas sprouted we came from apes. And after over two thousand five hundred years or so it has produced absolutely no evidence of any species ever evolving from one form into another. Yes there are similarities between certain species in the fossil record but so far no evidence of how a hard shelled arthropod morphed into a fish a fish into a rodent a rodent into an ape an ape into a man. It has become such a convoluted mess, much like these arguments.


You are observing similarities that does not prove the whale came from the one with legs or vice versa. All it tells me is that another animal with similar features lived on this planet. Try thinking along the lines of cars. A clunky piece of junk like the British made Jaguar. Oh wait the Brits dont make them anymore. How about a Bentley, umm nope they dont make them either. Mini Cooper maybe? Yes, and The All American made muscle car the Ford GT500 Mustang. They share many features four wheels, all wheel ABS, wipers, headlights, internal combustion engines. That doesn’t mean the Mustang evolved from the Jaguar. All that means is designers reuse design features proven to work for specific engineering needs.

Contrary to what you just said bible or no bible unless you have proof. 'best explanations can still be qualified as nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.

I;ve never read Answers in Genisis. But I do know even in Darwin's times and before animal breeders knew there was a means to pass on information from one generation to another. They didn’t need evolutionary theory to predict it. Yet Darwinist love to claim credit for it.

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."

Anyway, here are some in the I.D. science fields, read about there work. Michael Behe, Ralph Seekl, Scott Minnich, Wolf-Ekkerd Lonnig, Gilermo Gonzalas

Why bring wikipedia and religion into the argument? I didn't, I simply suggest intelligent design you immediately equate it too god and bibles.

As for the term creationists nothing wrong with that term really. I remember a day when a scientist could have lost tenure or been the butt of many jokes had he said the universe was created Ex Nihilo. It was within our lifetime that science just knew the universe was eternal. Looking at the WMAP it seems NASA agrees with what those desert sheep herders wrote in a book several thousand years ago. Quantum theory seems to be walking closely too with the idea what many religions have purported. Rather than random selection we are the product of a design and something greater than us. But that is my opinion and my opinion only.

I.D. scientists take a different approach than what you have been lead to believe to their methods "One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed," said Douglas H. Erwin, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Institution. "That's a fundamental presumption of what we do." That does not mean that scientists do not believe in God. Many do. But they see science as an effort to find out how the material world works, with nothing to say about why we are here or how we should live.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/u...ers-clash.html

Nylon-eating flavobacterim. Bacteria can't ingest artificial substances. Then in 1975 one was discovered that could. It seems a group of flavobacteria living in ponds near a nylon-manufacturing plant had developed an enzyme that could dissolve nylon, allowing the bacteria to eat something that was thought to be impossible. In other words, they evolved to survive their environment.

And yet new strains of infectious evolve every day, and understanding that is what propels the means to fight them.

Its called hybridization and if there is evidence I'll ask again that you produce it. And yes, its been a great many a years alright. From the days of Socrates the ideas sprouted we came from apes. And after over two thousand five hundred years or so it has produced absolutely no evidence of any species ever evolving from one form into another. Yes there are similarities between certain species in the fossil record but so far no evidence of how a hard shelled arthropod morphed into a fish a fish into a rodent a rodent into an ape an ape into a man. It has become such a convoluted mess.[/quote]
Neanderthal wasn't a hybrid. It was its own species. And now it's gone, along with 99% of every species that's ever lived on this planet. The ancient Greeks, if any of them actually said we come from apes, probably noticed the similarities in structure, group conduct and problem-solving abilities. The connection isn't hard to make. And we didn't come from apes...we still are apes. Just because we're aware of our existence and able to realize we're going to die and worry about that doesn't really make us special.

No, it doesn't prove it, but the evidence does point in that direction.

Let's not. That kind of analogy never fails to fail.

And any scientist worth his salt is aware that he might be wrong. I said as much earlier. In the world of discovery "the best explanation" is often the only thing we have. As flawed as you may think it is, it still has more substance to it than saying "It was Designed". There's no evidence for that claim at all.

You've never read the biggest ID-proponent website there is? Or maybe there's a bigger one I've forgotten about. It doesn't matter. You parrot word-for-word the stock Creationist arguments, so you didn't come up with these objections on your own.

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."[/quote]
Scientists sometimes get it wrong. It's one of the pitfalls of exploration and discovery. And who sorted it out? The ID people? No, but they love to claim credit for it. Just as with the fossil hoaxes, it was scientists who pointed it out.

Whose own biology department published a paper disavowing his ideas concerning ID. Also shown to be foolish in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Says that there is no ID without the Christian God.

Can't find any such person online. Please show.

Cohort of Michael Behe. Also testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover. He has done good work, mostly for The Discovery Institute, which is the prime force behind the ID movement. He's better than most of them, but you can hardly call him unbiased.

Also a big ID proponent. Also not a good example of an average scientist.

Another member of the Discovery Institute. I don't say these people aren't legitimate, but they do all have an agenda. In that they are no different than what you claim of "Evolutionists".

Yes, you did, the moment you suggested Intelligent Design you also suggested an Intelligent Designer. Were you talking about some amorphous plasma that had a brain, or were you talking about a God? The entire ID movement is centered around the Christian faith.

Nothing wrong with it, except that it was coined by the original Creation Science movement and refers specifically to someone who adheres to the Biblical six-days Creation. That's why God and Bibles come into it. Without Christianity there is no Creationism, no ID. The real reason they fight Evolution so hard is that it means the Earth is more - a lot more - than Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC start date.

I've already addressed the fact that scientists can be wrong, and often are. It's part of the process of discovery.

How so? I've just done some quick research and saw nothing that would support that claim.

That's more than most Creationists would admit. Their usual arguing point is that they're right, period.

So if not God, who is this Designer? It seems to me there's no reason to believe in one unless you really want to "believe" in one. The Deists seem to come closer to what is described than any other God I've heard of. Made the universe and then left, leaving us with a brain so we could explore it for ourselves. The only problem with that scenario is that there is absolutely no reason to believe it. No evidence at all.

Understand one thing though: Despite this line of argument, I'm not a supporter of Evolution. I consider myself a true skeptic, not believing in anything and not accepting anything without proof. Evolution? The experts in the field are mostly agreed that that's the way it happened. Who am I to argue? More importantly, it doesn't affect my life at all. It doesn't command me to believe anything, or threaten me with punishment if I don't. I don't really care about it, except when people make a big fuss about its problems without offering any real explanations of their own.

Design? Well, looking at the human body, given the complications of everything from nearsightedness to wisdom teeth that don't fit our mouths to diabetes to cancer, I have to say it looks to me like a pretty poor design. Any competent engineer could have done better.

[QUOTE=Skybird;2561257] Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".[QUOTE]




According to this guy we're just little fish. :D



Prosanta Chakrabarty is an ichthyologist at Louisiana State University, and says of himself that he teaches “one of the largest evolutionary biology classes in the U.S.” God help us all!



https://youtu.be/XyTcINLKq4c

Three nylon eating genes NylA, NylB, NylC were discovered on the Flavobacteria plasmid pOAD2 from 1977-1992, but the researchers concede none of the three have significant sequence homology. Worse, in papers published in 2007, they reported other bacteria contain those same genes in their chromosomes. Unless the researchers have access to pre-1935 bacteria sitting in lab refrigerators, the claim that the genes actually evolved new proteins via mutation is dubious since we have no pre-1935 bacterial samples to actually do a comparison with, especially in the case of NylC. The claim that NylB’s nylon eating ability evolved by gene duplication from a non-functional NylB-prime gene could just as well be interpreted that a functionless NylB-prime gene is a defective copy of a functioning NylB gene!


What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.



Yep and like I said very seldom if ever does evolutionary theory ever play a role in those discoveries.






I thought you were talking about Neanderthal and homo sapiens bumping uglies




And so far as noted above no evidence for nylon eating bacteria either


Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion. I have my own theological opinions


I dont think I.D. scientists assume rights to the discovery. Darwinists however got wrong when they said the majority of DNA was non-functional. A paper by geneticists comes out saying it is mostly all functional. Evolutionists still wont accept it and say throw it out and write their own paper.


BEHES TESIMONY


Q: So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
Behe: No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q: Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
Behe: That is right.
Q: Has science answered that question?
Behe: No, science has not done so.
Q: And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
Behe: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
Behe: No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
(Michael Behe, October 17 Testimony, AM Session.)




Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It does not.
[…]
Q. Does intelligent design require the action of a supernatural creator acting outside the laws of nature?
A. No.
(Scott Minnich, Nov. 3 PM Testimony, pp. 45-46, 135.)


Above is the testimony of the two witnesses you refer too. It is my opinion that evolutionists and I.D. scientistist can and do have a religious affiliatation. But like Strozyk Im sure personal beliefs never affect their investigation. :D




I also said my identification of the designer is of my own religious opinion which is a far cry from scientific opinion. Also Im not Christian, nor is Christianity the only religion which claims divine inspiration and design.



Thats some crazy stuff there what books are you reading?



I think Einstein maybe said something to that effect as well.




Nice thing about my religion you dont have to believe. You are just expected to do i.e. love your neighbor and the stranger, cloth the naked, feed the hungry, etc etc etc, you get the picture be good to one another.

Someone said God does not play dice with the universe. But maybe he allows the universe to play dice. As I wrote in another topic how we live it now through all the joy and sorrow plays a part in the evolution of humanity as we move from a lower to a higher form of life. Opps did I just say evolution?



All of us get to find out one day what the truth is.

Even if they had older bacteria, there would likely be a pointing out that that wasn't proof either. That's the problem with missing links. Whenever a new fossil is discovered that apparently fills a gap the reaction is the question of the missing link between that one and the previous and later ones.

The sad fact is that there is no "slam dunk" proof of anything, anywhere. Nothing is ever final in any science and every answer just raises more questions. Even something as simple as electricity. We use it, we know how it works, but there is no real understanding of why. There is even speculation that the basic particles aren't particles at all, and that we really are made up of nothing. You're never going to get a definitive final answer, and neither am I.

But evolutionary fact is the basis for everything they do.

That, I've just found out, is a topic of much discussion. Some believe Neanderthalis and Sapiens couldn't interbreed. Now some are saying they did exactly that, and rather than kill them off we actually absorbed their population into our own, and we have a certain amount of Neanderthal DNA. Me, I don't pretend to know anything for certain.

I think there's plenty of evidence that they exist. Did they evolve or were they there all along? Good question.

Fair enough.

Perhaps not, but a lot of people make hay out of pointing out that the hoaxes are "proof" that Evolution is false.

And yet Ewan Birney, the leader of those 400 geneticists, is himself what you derisively call an "Evolutionist". There are scientists on both sides of the ENCODE debate, and because some of them disagree doesn't mean they have an agenda.




Talk about cherry picking. You left out all the good parts. It's far too long to quote here, but I'll link it. I especially like the part where Behe admits that by his standards Astrology is a scientific theory.
Anyway, if anyone here has the stomach to read it, this is just the beginning of the cross-examination. If you really like to torture yourself, read the entire trial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Or watch the abridged video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

Scott Minnich's testimony isn't really any better.

I'm not sure if the smiley means to say that you actually think their beliefs do affect their work. If not, I would remind you that Behe was called as a witness because a book he had a hand in writing was part of the conflict at the school, and in that book he talks about ID.

No, it's not, but Christians do claim to be the dominant force in this country, and ID's main support comes from them. Other religions do, as you say, believe in a very specific designer, though not always the same one. That supports, rather than denies, the concept that ID is basically a religious concept.

Of course people have believed in some God or other creating the universe since ancient times. "Creation" as a term goes back a long way as well. That said, "Creation Science" and the resultant "Young-Earth Creationism" are products of the 1960s. The movement was an attempt by Fundamentalist Christians to use science to "prove" the late date for the Earth's origin and the Biblical Flood.

While "Intelligent Design" was used as a term in religious circles for quite some time, it's introduction into common usage came with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People, which just happened to be the main subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. So yes, ID is an offshoot of the earlier "Creation Science" movement, and had its origins in a purely religious context.

A great many Atheists would agree with that concept.

Oh, and I'm not an Atheist, in case you were wondering. I'm just a poor sod who doesn't believe in anything, including myself. I jumped into this not because I disagree, but because you started off not with an attempt at discussion, but with a tirade so virulent it really did sound just like a Fundamentalist attack. Using derogatory terms like "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" seem more designed to provoke a fight rather that promote a discussion.

I don't know if there's a God or not, and I don't know if evolution really happens the way its proponents say it does. What I do accept is that their investigations and their arguments seem to have some justification, whereas I see no more evidence for Design than Michael Behe's admission that the best evidence he can give is "It looks designed to me." If the theory of evolution is somehow proved completely wrong tomorrow the vast majority of scientists will likely be shocked for a very short time, and then start working hard to try to be the one who figures out what really happened. And if proof comes out tomorrow that the Universe was not designed in any way, shape or form and there is no God of any kind, I suspect the vast majority of believers in those things will likely say that it's not really proof, and go on as if nothing had happened.

Me, I'm curious, but that's about it.

Instead, you use blogs.


The above is a word for word copy&paste from here:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/when-...-to-eat-nylon/


Do you actually know what any of that means?

[QUOTE=Dowly;2561544]Instead, you use blogs.[QUOTE]

Too a certain extent yes. But here's the thing, I don't give a rats arse if the intelligent design community thinks it was baby jesus, cthulhu, the flying spaghetti monster, or the God of Spinoza. All I am saying if the possibility exists we are here by design not a random selection it should be examined. If you can make the argument about that instead of derping on about religion all the time we could possibily learn something.


Btw, Dick Tracey here's your secret decoder ring you've been promoted to internet super sleuth.



https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bf/bf/11/b...8310f479e5.jpg


Do you?


My initial request was for proof of Darwinism's random selection evolution. I got something about a nylon eating bacteria. But it wasn't proof. If it was we wouldn't be having this argument now would we? Anyway, My understanding of the argument from one side is that the bacteria in a forty year span developed a random mutation which allowed it to feed on nylon. The otherside of the argument is this:

A significant problem for the neo-Darwinian story is the origin of new biological information. Clearly, information has increased over the course of life’s history — new life forms appeared, requiring new genes, proteins, and other functional information. The question is — how did it happen? This is the central question concerning the origin of living things.[a question neither evolutionists or intelligent design have yet to answer]

Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe have made this strong claim:

[T]he neo-Darwinian mechanism — with its reliance on a random mutational search to generate novel gene sequences — is not an adequate mechanism to produce the information necessary for even a single new protein fold, let alone a novel animal form, in available evolutionary deep time.

Their claim is based on the experimental finding by Doug Axe that functional protein folds are exceedingly rare, on the order on 1 in 10 to the 77th power, meaning that all the creatures of the Earth searching for the age of the Earth by random mutation could not find even one medium-size protein fold. [also please note baby jesus wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with the experiment either]

https://uncommondescent.com/intellig...asy-to-evolve/

Put religion aside for just for a moment and consider their argument about the DNA before you pass judgement on it because of their personal beliefs, religion or website the information is found on. Im not asking you to follow any religion, I'm not saying you have to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. My argument is other possibilities should be examined.

For me my reasons for thinking it ought to be examined is this 1. In my bible like others it is said God created the universe with wisdom/information/mind. My bibles creation timeline of night and day has been viewed by certain sages of bringing order out of chaos. Scientists in Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Physics seem to agree. 2. That desert sheep herders wrote the universe was created is the current scientific thinking by NASA. Instead of God they found quantum fluctuation as the source but as I said before both can be defined in much the same way. In that they both are non-physical, both act upon the physical, both created something from nothing, both predate the universe.
As for number 3. Because of the first two rather than random selection from a fish I think we should at least look at the other possibility that we homo sapien were designed/created. Buts that me and my personal thoughts and ideas.

If they come to find out it is by design you can if you like believe it was the turnip god Pyhä Äkräs, I dont give a rats arse. I just want to know I want all avenues explored - scientifically. Maybe its a combination of both design evolution who the fark knows.

As Anthony Flew once said "from Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of "follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads."

Here's the problem: All of the leading ID proponents are deeply religious, and all within the same religion, and despite claims to the contrary they all contribute to and publish from the same religious foundations. You claim to hold different ideas, but you sound exactly like them. What's a body supposed to think?

No, your initial request was for an explanation of the differing date ranges given for the "exodus" of humankind from Africa. After that was given you didn't "request" proof, as in honestly seeking an answer, you immediately started in with mockery and insults.

One of the founders of the modern ID movement.
One of the directors of the Discovery Institute.

I'm not saying their credentials aren't valid, or even that I think they're wrong. At the start you accused Evolutionary scientists of being "more interested in defending their egos and funding than exploring other possibilities." and said "They cant afford to entertain other ideas." (Followed by a rolling-on-the-floor-laughing emoticon). What I am saying is that the ID proponents you use in your arguments have even more to defend, and more to lose. What they are defending is their Faith. They are just as heavily biased as any "Evolutionist" you chose to deride.

And while we're on that subject, you can insult the leading evolutionary scientists all you want, but do you really think the thousands of people working in that field are all interested only in their egos and funding?

And neither did I, but you feel the need to keep harping on your pet strawman. What I said was that the ID movement was founded by Christians for Christians, and that statement still stands. It's easy enough to look up.

I agree. The problem there is that other possibilities should be examined scientifically, and there is no way to do that with ID. It's not even a theory, it's a construct. They seem convinced that if they can prove Evolution to be just a little bit wrong then ID is the only remaining answer. They are not interested in examining other possibilities, only in proving that their Belief is Truth.

Wait. I thought you didn't care which god it was. Now you use the Jewish/Christian Bible as your starting point?

Where?

Where? Who says that?

So now your belief in ID is based on God again?

Okay. Since you've finally gone down that road, show one piece of evidence from anywhere that would indicate a God even exists.

And yet you talk exactly like they do, arguing from the Biblical standpoint, mocking rather than exploring, but denying it at the same time.

And yet your starting point was that you already know the answers, or at least you already know what the answers aren't. You don't even admit Evolution as a possibility, which is hardly a part of honest argument.

Evolution may indeed turn out to be wrong. If if does, it will be the same scientists working in that field who discover it, and if it does happen they will work just as hard to find out what the reality is, because that's what scientists do (at least the good ones).

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is based on no science at all. It's not a theory, it's a belief. Of course to justify their claims they have to also claim that those who stand behind Evolution do the same. But ID isn't even a theory. It's an attempt to justify that very Bible and it's Six-Days Creation, and nothing more. I don't deny it, just the way they have to go about it. It may turn out to be true. So may the Koran. And so may the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But so far there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, for any of those.

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;2561792]Here's the problem: All of the leading ID proponents are deeply religious, and all within the same religion, and despite claims to the contrary they all contribute to and publish from the same religious foundations. You claim to hold different ideas, but you sound exactly like them. What's a body supposed to think?[QUOTE]

Again I dont dont give a rats arse what their religion is or YOUR perception of how religious they are or what websites they post on or frequent. I offered their research opinion which if you read it didn't have jack squat to do with baby jesus ,christianity, six day creation, the flying spaghetti monster or any other religion.

They offered a counter to the idea that random selection was the cause of the bacteria ability to eat nylon.

:doh:

This was my question: " Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved? You came up with the nylon eating bacteria.

Ok fair enough, but what of the opinion offered that random selection may not have influenced the bacteria?

Again what of the opinion offered that random selection may not have played a part in the nylon eating bacteria?


Its the one Im most familiar with but I am aware other ancient texts have similar beginnings.

Where? I believe I posted this before

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...00_no_WMAP.jpg

Who says that?


Max Planck


George Wald


James Jean


Arno Penzias


to name a few


And then there is another design theory:
The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. Richard Dawkins


Aliens

Why did you leave the rest of the quote out?

^^ @Rockstar i think you misunderstand some things here.
What t.h. they teach in schools, in the US? Life on earth, Miller experiment, the russian coacervates?

The "creation" of the universe 14 billion years ago was probably not happening for the first time, we just do not know enough yet. The initial explosion of whatever was before (from a superdense collapsing object to some quantum mixture) created mass and energy (which is the same, as Einstein had predicted, and the Manhattan project demonstrated), and time, while cooling down and expanding. There was no mass or energy or time before this.

If you want to know what this beginning was like around 14,000 million years ago, you could read Steven Weinberg's "The first three minutes". Be aware that the concept of "time" or "space" did not exist at this point, which makes the "first three minutes" rather absurd – as Weinberg expects you to understand when you read it.
For us humans, a minute today would have been a minute back then (of course we did not exist back then yet), but for an exterior observer one of our minutes would have been gone in what was a second for him, at that "time".

Since this very hot explosion, by the expansion of the universe the latter has become cooler, and darker. Also what we call time is getting slower ("by the minute", which also gets longer lol)

We have developed in this system after a quite long time, but since we exist here we cannot look at it from outside, or see the outside, if there even is an "outside". We are trapped in mass, energy and time of our peculiar system. There could be a million others, and we will never see or know of them. At least with the knowledge of today.

So, 14,000 million years ago the "universe" began to exist, from itself due to some contraction, or quantum mix beforehand, or a "god", no one can prove.
No suns, no planets nothing, just a very hot expanding mass which not even had 'elements', it was still just too hot for them to fall out of this melange.

Suns began to form appx. 100 million and 250 million years after the initial explosion we call the "big bang", and planets came even later. Life on earth started appx. 640 million years ago, before that there was no life on earth, most probably not even bacteria or any life.
When the earth's crust had formed out of molten lava and lots of meteorites and other 'planetesimals', it became cool enough to bear living organisms.

As the Miller experiment (and lots of others in the later years) proved, what we define as "life" can originate from lifeless "dead" matter. Man can do that, and it also happens by itself. Indeed it did happen by itself, you do neither need aliens nor a god for creating the first life, if some basic conditions exist. Indeed it is inevitable if there is no catastrophy like a big enough meteorite, a sun flare or some other major influence.
And if you give those early life forms enough time, they will specialise, become more complex and adapt to situations and conditions they have to survive in. This is evolution.

We can speculate whether there is some unbelievable mighty being that created this "big bang" explosion alright.
But:
1. If there was such a "being" or god or whatever you call it, it did not create the universe especially to create the earth, birds, bees and mankind. Or Dickinsonia, for that matter.
2. If this being is still there somwhere (or somewhen) outside our system, it has no influence on us, nor can we see or prove it.
3. What happened after the initial explosion could not be planned, nor has it been influenced by anything outside of this system.
4. If we believe in a superior mighty being to have created this universe, it has created billions of billions of galaxies, consisting of billions of suns like our sun, with even more planets, and life. And it will not have created humans/mankind to look like it.

So, this is my more or less educated idea of life and mankind, at the moment.
When the bible claims that the earth is 7500 years old, you can believe it or not. You can believe that man walked with dinosaurs, but then you have to disregard logic, experience and science.

I'm fascinated by these things.

When one of our public service tv-channel is broadcasting a program about this or one of my science channel is, I try to see as much as I can.

I have however not enough knowledge to engage in a discussion and because it's not exactly science.

In 10 or 20 years from now our school books will have been rewritten again.

Markus

"It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" - Richard Dawkins

"Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are "valid," let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so. (...)
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that."
- Richard Dawkins

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

"One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all." - Richard Dawkins

Dawkins must not be introduced, but beside his atheist engagement and publications, in the first he was and is one of the most brilliant biologists of the past generation. His book "The Selfish Gene" got praised by scientific magazine to be one of the most important science books of all times. His introduction of the term "meme" in genetics and the explanation of its theoretical conception is seen as a profound contribution to modern science. I have read three books on Darwin over the past 30 years. His was by far the best.

Like Sailor Steve, Dawkins describes himself as agnostic. He does not rule out with a 100% certainty that a god may exist. He is just quite militant in insisting that the probability for that is damn low, he also furiously objects to claims that the chance for gods existing and not existing are equally distributed. He describes himself further a a radical sceptic and is member in organisations linked to the tradition of British scepticism.

His education surpasses mine by one and a half lightyears, so do his skills to argue and to freeely speak. Else, he could be me. :D

The point was that you accuse "Evolutionists" of having something to lose, but it's obvious that these guys have even more to lose. They have a predetermined agenda that guides everything they do.

You, for your part, don't actually discuss evolution, you start and end bashing it, without any real consideration.

[quote[:doh:[/quote]
You didn't immediately start in with mockery and insults?

This was my question: " Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved? You came up with the nylon eating bacteria.

It's perfectly fine. I have no problem with educated people disagreeing with each other. It's what makes the world go 'round. It's fine that you want to argue ID vs Evolution. The reason I came into this wasn't your opinion on the subject. I've said many times that I don't even claim to be right. In fact I know next to nothing. The reason I came into this was because you didn't start off with a discussion, an opinion or even an argument. You started off with open mockery and ridicule. Do you deny that?

And how does that equate to "My bibles creation timeline of night and day has been viewed by certain sages of bringing order out of chaos."?

I was referring specifically to your claim that "That desert sheep herders wrote the universe was created is the current scientific thinking by NASA." When I asked "Who says that?" I was referring to who says NASA's scientists think that way.

As I've said, I don't know if there's a designer or not. That said, while you ask consideration for the Design concept, you don't give that same consideration to anything else. You dismiss it out of hand, with mockery and emoticons. That's hardly the way to have a discussion.