If there is no evidence of evolution why do teachers continue to teach it?

Question

If the world was formed 4.5 billion years ago from a large inorganic soup of "whatever" and out of this came the first single cell algae,where did the inorganic soup come from?How can nothing+chance=everything?Life only arises from life!!Thats biogenesis!!Life cannot come from nonliving matter.Evolution says that there is upward progression yet our world is becoming worse and worse.More poverty,more crime,more heartache,more bloodshed.....2nd law of thermodynamics ENTROPY!!! I just discovered something amazing in one of my encyclopedias,under fossils it says "Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie" and under Paleontology "important in the study of geology.The age of the rocks maybe determined by the fossils in them" is it just me or are we going in circles here??? somebody please answer my question!!!!!

Answer 1

I am the living proof that evolution happened. I have more hair on my back than you have on your head!!!:)

Answer 2

What is your question? Is there really no evidence of evolution? Do teacher teach something with no evidence? What about psychology? Any physical evidence there? Not really. Yet we have people with degree and higher degree of that around, telling people how they should behave.

Answer 3

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Life didn't appear on Earth for some time. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with value judgements. Creationists don't want to understand the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Deliberately distorting it shows they have no real arguments against evolution. The statements in the encyclopedias are not going in circles. There is some reciprocity in these matters, but you're just trying to find some fault with evolution, no matter how absurd it is. You've just confirmed my opinion that evolution is true with your contrived rant here. If you had some real criticism of evolution, you'd give it here, instead of absurdities.

Answer 4

Because it is the part of curriculum :-)

Answer 5

Oh boy, 5 alarm troll alert!

Answer 6

<<If there is no evidence of evolution why do teachers continue to teach it?>>

It's taught due to the overwhelming amount of evidence the theory is based upon.

<<Evolution says that there is upward progression yet our world is becoming worse and worse.>>

No it doesn't.

<<I just discovered something amazing in one of my encyclopedias,under fossils it says "Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie" and under Paleontology">>

You're lying about your source.  You've copy-and-pasted that from a "creationist" website, not from one of your encyclopedias.

<<... and under Paleontology "important in the study of geology.The age of the rocks maybe determined by the fossils in them" >>

Again, you're lying about your source.  That's also from a "creationist" website, and not an encyclopedia.  Deliberate lying in public places is anti-social, and makes you look bad.

<<is it just me or are we going in circles here???>>

It's just you going in circles, rather than actually finding out anything about what you're attempting to ask about.

Answer 7

There is clear proof of change in life with time.  The theory of evolution is the most reasonable explanation that has been developed to explain this evidence.  Do not confuse evidence with the explanation.  The former exists whether you like it or not, the latter is an interpretation of why the evidence is what it is..

Answer 8

You are lucky! You just happened to be born with a good star putting out lots of energy to last you a lifetime that is just the right distance away to support life forms such as humans and to be living in a society that still puts up with superstition! ~ : )

Answer 9

look up the Urey/Miller experiment. that explains the beginning of cells. to put it simply, a mixture of organic substances and a spark 9from uv radiation or lightning cant remember) brought about the first cells.

now on to evolution, there is in fact a lot of evidence to support this theory (similar developing embryos, pentactyl limbs, similar body structure of mammals) look this up as well, u will get a whole heap of info on this. 'upward progression' means in terms of intelligence, physical appearance, adaptations to the changing environment, it doesnt mean things like poverty and crime, these have nothing to do with evolution of species (which is what u r talking about) its more evolution of society (which is not what u r talking about, ur pushing too completly different things together here)

now as for the fossils, paleontology is the study of fossils, the age of fossils, the age of rocks, determining the evolution processes, discovering the missing links in evolution, many many things. there r 2 ways to determine ages, the law of superposition (rocks on top are youngest, rocks below are oldest; rocks are younger than the ones they are above and older then the ones they r below) and relative dating when they measure the half life of the isotopes in the rocks. and both geologists and paleontologists use these techniques. geology and paleontology are closely related. so no they arent going around in circles, they are all related.

i hope i answered ur questions to ur satisfaction :)

Answer 10

because not every school is into nailing genesis into young people's brains.

Answer 11

Your definition of "evolution" is wrong. Evolution does not attempt to explain where the planets came from, or tell us how to determine the age of rocks and fossils. Evolution does not theorize how life got started. Evolution does not deal with social issues like poverty or crime. It deals solely with how populations of living organisms change over time in response to environment, competition and predation. Complaining that evolutionary theory can't explain all these other things is like complaining that a restaurant knows nothing about fixing cars, designing clothes or constructing buildings - they simply don't do that!

There is some confusion (deliberate or otherwise) over what scientists mean by a "theory". It does not mean a "guess", it means a model which best explains the observed facts. Evolution (changes in populations of living organisms) is a fact - it has even been observed in living species, from lizards evolving a new stomach valve to deal with vegetable matter on an island they were moved to, to a new species of bacteria evolving to digest man-made polymers. The theory of evolution by mutation, inherited traits and natural selection is the theory that explains this fact. That it has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny, successfully explaining new discoveries in fields Darwin and Wallace could not even have predicted (such as genetics) demonstrates how solid a theory it is. There have been over 200,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject over the last 150 years. Genetic analysis, comparative anatomy, phylogeny, fossil discoveries and studies of mutation and adaptation continue to bolster the theory, and not a single piece of credible evidence has emerged that flat-out contradicts it.

The fact that you are parroting some of the most illogical canards of the anti-evolution movement suggests you have been taken in by their propaganda. Entropy and the laws of thermodynamics have very little to do with evolution - the 2nd law is only "violated" if overall entropy decreases in a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system because it is supplied with energy from the sun. Rocks are not dated by the fossils found in them, but by the clocks of radioactive decay which give mutually-supportive findings. The anti-evolution crowd seems to regard evolutionary theory, and indeed much of modern science (which they then lump together under the label of "evolution" or "evolutionism"), as inherently atheistic and therefore a threat to their religion, yet disregard the fact that some 70% of scientists worldwide believe in a god in some form.

Do yourself a favour and read a decent science book that wasn't churned out by these mendacious propagandists. If you can't bring yourself read something by Richard Dawkins ("The Blind Watchmaker" is a good one) or other atheist scientists, try "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller (a cell biologist and Roman Catholic). He knows his stuff too, and actively takes a stance against the kind of misinformation that you have been exposed to.