Evolution

Oh wow.1. I've never seen this anywhere else! That the fish got their wings because of bugs above the water. Where are the fish with wings? Well we have quite a few species of them [1]2. [2] "One could just as well say that "Since more Americans have joined churches, crime rates and other social ills have increased." Church membership increased from 25 percent to 65 percent between 1870 and 1990. The point is, while both statements could be technically correct, both are misleading and irrelevant, in that correlation does not mean causation. Crime statistics are better tracked now than they were a century or more ago. So, without careful study, it is not clear whether the actual incidence of crime has increased. The case of "social ills" is even more ambiguous. It depends what social ills one is concerned with, but likely with respect to some social ills we are better off than we were a century ago. In short, a correlation of crime rates or social ills to the teaching of evolution has not been demonstrated.Even if such a correlation existed, that would not mean that crime has increased as a result of the Theory of Evolution.Even if crime had increased as a result of the Theory of Evolution, it does not follow that evolution is therefore false. It may have beneficial or undesirable sociological effects, but those effects say nothing about the truth or falsity of the theory.During the large crime drop in the 1990's, there was no significant change in how widely evolution was taught. If there had been a correlation, then the teaching of evolution would have decreased as well." 3. Guilt by association fallacy. Hitler used "Social Darwinism" which is different and refused to accept biological evolution because it means that whites came from the same source as other races. 4. This is a straw man. Abiogenesis isn't evolution. Abiogenesis is life from non-life, evolution presupposes life.5. Nebraska man and Piltdown man are not taught in schools. NM and PM are known fakes and do not prove or disprove anything.How about Archaeopteryx, Hyracotherium, and Ambulocetus. The only way you can claim this is if you have a twisted understanding of what transitional means. Transitional doesn't mean half-fish half land creature,but the transitional features of it.6. [3] The possibility that the speed of light has not been constant has received much attention from physicists, but they have found no evidence for any change. Many different measurements of the speed of light have been made in the last 180 or so years. The older measurements were not as accurate as the latest ones. Setterfield chose 120 data points from 193 measurements available (see Dolphin n.d. for the data), and the line of best fit for these points shows the speed of light decreasing. If you use the entire data set, though, the line of best fit shows the speed increasing. However, a constant speed of light is well within the experimental error of the data. If Setterfield's formulation of the changes in physical parameters were true, then there should have been 417 days per year around 1 C.E., and the earth would have melted during the creation week as a result of the extremely rapid radioactive decay (Morton et al. 1983). As an aside, some creationists assert that fundamental laws have not changed (Morris 1974, 18). Also this is on Answers in Genesis' Arguments Creationists shouldn't use page[4]Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://evolutionwiki.org...[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...[4] http://www.answersingenesis.org...