https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/radiometric-dating/ please  watch this 4 minute video

@calebsica ;

radiometric dating uses decaying atoms like uranium which decays into lead but it makes too many assumptions.
 This is kind of the idea I was given when looking into the subject matter. However something to keep in mind is mankind has not quite duplicated that natural process of decay from uranium to lead as an element.

Here again addressing gravity as motion which is elasticity, modulation, and reverberation present a more detailed mathematic picture in detail of the required motion uranium takes to reach the state of lead. A basic principle to share the idea clearly is that uranium is subject to a separation process much like earth and water might be separated under a proper frequency and direction of modulation combined with the frequency eco.

YeshuaBought said:

@Dee I have the Christian right to not fund evolution with my wallet.

No, you don't. Show us that the constitution gives you the right to say what your tax dollars are spent on, then you'll have a good case. Until then, you have no right to not fund stuff you don't like.

@piloteer

I agree, "tax money" isn't yours, it's the government's. It's the cost of being a citizen...

@Ampersand ;

The United State created, as a creator of legal right, by use there is Constitutional representation comprising detail into legislation of law by House of representatives, as well as constitutional separation from law, by court as they are a to a creator bound by the same basic principle set upon the people, us, as united state. What YeshuaBought’s interpretation is basically saying, had England informed the original Colonies that the taxation to England had been lost to Piracy spending the money on booze and loose woman on the high seas, the United States of America should now, or ever had been legally, and Constitutionally Independence form England. By her introduction of understanding to basic information. The whole truth still is “the money” (Taxation ) makes no difference in the legal reason for lack of representation before judicial separation combined by principle with judicial legislation. All Legal representation happens, takes place in two area, place to be held, not one by any united state. This is a whole truth, as is all legal precedent can be made, comprise of, created from both past court ruling, and rulings which have never been allowed to placed before Judicial separation for ruling. There is a right by our united state of independence which allows us to present truth’s that are held by humanity to be self-evident. The correct translation on YeshuaBought’s wording, yes she most certainly has the inalienable right to commit crime, I cannot take that directly from her legally. She can even claim it is by religious conviction she undertakes this action.  The many consequence as a outcome is what is to be described as legal or illegal from its judicial outcome.  

calebsica said:

I understand that but if you teach one belief in school you have to teach them all, so by not teaching evolution, there would be no beliefs that is taught in schools

Your question implies that those different beliefs have equal merit - but they do not. There are literally thousands beliefs out there on how life came to be; almost all of them happen to be wild unfounded stories, however, and only one features the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it.

Teaching people everything a wild mind has ever come up with would be counter-productive. What should be taught in the precious time that the students spend at school is relevant and practically useful things.

Plaffelvohfen said:

Should Evolution be taught in schools?

Well, do you want medicine? Do you want to be able to confront 21st century’s microbiological challenges?? 

Understanding evolution is critical to educating the next generation of scientists, to give them the tools to develop novel treatments against antibiotic resistant bacteria, emerging viruses, and other deadly microbes. They need to understand how these microbes develop and change, which requires an understanding of evolution.

If you don't believe in Evolution, it means you don't understand evolution... 

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn.” – Benjamin Franklin

I understand that microevolution is a fact. I understand that but my point is that Macroevolution is not true. Next time I will clarify, sorry.

@calebsica

Macroevolution is what results when microevolution occurs in two or more populations within a species. Or maybe one might think of macroevolution as the net sum of all the microevolution that occurs within a species. Either way, the unavoidable conclusion is that it's impossible for one to be true without the other!

Perhaps an example would help clear things up. Suppose there was a large population of Species A (let's just suppose, for fun, that they're salamanders) that lives in a hilly terrain. Everything's fine and dandy until some event (like an ice age) comes along, and isolates different groups on the mountaintops. Hopefully, that makes sense so far.

It shouldn't be much of a jump to assume that those different populations, no matter how similar, still have slightly different mutations and develop under slightly different conditions. Given enough time (or enough of a difference in conditions) these two groups will develop into very different populations, and when they come back together, they may not be able to inter-breed. Et voila! New species.

So there we have it: "microevolution" is what happened to each individual group. "Macroevolution" is the result when the two groups develop under different conditions. And it may sound like an esoteric example, but guess what?! It's actually happened! The "theoretical" situation accounts for the diversity of salamanders in Appalachia.

Although the vast majority of speciation occurs via microevolution resulting in macroevolution, it is possible to skip the micro and create new species out of the blue. Although seemingly outlandish and admittedly rare, this has happened before.

In North America, there are two species of gray tree frog. For all intents and purposes they are identical, and they differ in only two features: their call (necessary to isolate the groups) and their genetic make-up; the species simply referred to as the Gray Tree Frog (Hyla versicolor), has four copies of each chromosome, whereas the Cope's Gray Tree Frog (Hyla chrysoscelis), has two (like humans). At some point in their history, a single group of larvae was born with four sets of chromosomes… these cannot breed with "normal" tree frogs, and within a two or three generations, there were two species where before there was one. No gradual change in response to the environment, just a sudden reproductive isolation leading (very quickly) to new species.
 
One critical thing you must also understand it that evolution is NOT a linear thing, but a branching process where one species can give rise to two or more species. The fallacy of linear evolution is most clearly illustrated by the analogy of asking; how can I share common grandparents with my cousins if my cousins and my grandparents are still alive? The answer is of course that your grandparents had more than one child and they each went off and started their own families creating new branches of your own family tree. The same thing happens in evolutionary families. A species can split into two or more descendant species and they can split again and again across the generations.

@calebsica said:

1:  "I know that one species can change into another...."
2:   "...but a dog can not produce a non-dog".

Do you understand what you just wrote??

I understand the last paragraph but that is about microevolution not Macro. 

@calebsica

They are still salamanders because of how we classify them scientifically. Every newborn salamander is different in some minor way from every previously existing salamander, with a different gene structure and different derived consequences.

Over millions years, these salamanders will branch out or collectively evolve into something different. We obviously cannot observe the entire process, just like we cannot observe the entire evolution of the Sun. But, by observing other stars at different stages of their evolution, we can build a model consistent with the observations, which tells us clearly how the Sun came to be what it is and how it will evolve in the future - and similarly, by observing the evidence of countless species across hundreds millions years, we can build a model consistent with these observations which tells us that salamanders evolved from something and will evolve into something.

The precise predictions are hard to make, because of the high degree of stochasticity of these processes, and because of how imperfect our models are. It is much like with weather prediction: we can almost never tell with high certainty what the weather is going to be even tomorrow, let alone in a few days - but we can make pretty strong general guesses that, more often than not, turn out to be true.

Your objection to the evolution seems to be based on the sole fact that we cannot observe these processes in real time. But if you were consistent with this objection, then you would just as much criticise almost every other scientific field. Take anything random, say, history of Ancient Rome. How can we even be sure that Ancient Rome ever existed, if everyone who lived there perished, at least, 1500 years ago? Do you then dismiss history as science?

It is a  scientific fact, why would you not .

@GilGadson

That you cannot provide a single coherent argument to criticise a theory developed by thousands scientists over centuries, and hence get condescending responses, is not a result of "bullying"; it is merely a result of a low effort on your part. As working in science, I can tell you that one of the things we scientists despise (I say "despise", not "hate"; there is an essential difference) is when someone who has not put any effort into even understanding our theories comes in and says, "Guys, you are all wrong". We do not have time for dealing with such people, so we usually just send them away to study more. But they still do not relent, do they? So sometimes strong language becomes necessary.

If you can come up with a criticism worthy of attention, feel free to bring it in, and we will give it a thorough attention. We love questioning our conclusions, that is one of those things that makes science alive and dynamic. We just do not like it when random amateurs come across and claim something without knowing the basics; it is not entertaining.

Whether the evoluton man being taught in primary schools, which I believe was this debates original argument, should be taught depends on how it is being taught.

How are the schools teaching it?

I would think it would be difficult to teach at a primary level since the scienentific opinion on how it happened and where humans came from through new discoveries changes on a regular basis.

Theories can only be believed, for they have not been proven to be fact. Anyone who *believes* evil-polution (Evolution) to be fact is lying to themselves. It legitimately says, "The *theory* of Evolution". Please provide counter-evidence against my proofs, I'm bored and ready for some action. 

@Plaffelvohfen Never use Ben's words for an argument as foolish and unthoughtful as this. Give me some proof that Evolution is fact and maybe I can help you see the light. 

@Plaffelvohfen You say this yet you have not listed a shred of evidence for the case of Evolution, if there is a case. Give me proof and we can actually hae a discussion rather than you just saying what you *BELIEVE* in and calling everyone ignorant. 

@Ampersand But you have no evidence for this *theory* I hear your kind talk so much about. You say it's fact and cannot be proven wrong and leave, no evidence. Present evidence and then we can have a civil discussion over the truth of the matter. 

@billbatard How has it been proven good sir? 

@piloteer What gives you the right to do the same with Evolution? 

@Ampersand
When you refer to your supporting evidence is this evidence based around micro evolution which there is mountains of evidence for. Or macro evolution for which there is nothing but theories supporting it. Their main claim is that fossil evidence, and yet they don't have any fossils in a transition stage from one species to another.

@Ampersand I know the basic facts and much more because I have studied the topic for fun. Some of those links were links to books I could not read and some were examples of microevolution. Note the wording in this link that you posted " 
Rook, Deborah L., et al. "Lower jaw of the early Paleocene mammal Alveugena and its interpretation as a transitional fossil." Journal of Paleontology 84.6 (2010): 1217-1225." Note the word interpretation. We all have the same evidence, but we interpreted differently. Remember fossils don't count as evidence because you can't prove that those fossils had any kids. Evolution is unobserved and cannot be tested the same way as we cure diseases.