Strange

That could just be rounding. It also says that 0% have grey eyes, and then goes on to discuss grey eyes and where people have them.

Why? What is it about?

No they don't. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-01-17/features/0701160310_1_yupik-eskimo-language-language-log And sleet, dry snow, fluffy snow, slush, hail, powder, ...

Most (all?) bottled water lists a chemical analysis on the label (it is a legal requirement in some European countries, I don't know about the UK). So looking at the bottle in front of me, it say 0.5mg/L. Now what are you going to do with that information? Are you going to drink a water with more magnesium because it has less fluoride? Or are you more worried about the sodium content (hypertension) and so choose the water because of that? And what about your food? Are you going to avoid fish (mackerel has 27ppm) and chicken, eggs, potatoes, butter and cheese as these are all high in fluorine? Most people get 1 or 2 mg a day from food. I think there are more important things to worry about: a mixed, balanced diet and some level of exercise.

You started the insults. And given all the other dishonest statements you have posted, I see no reason to believe you are 15. Plus describing you as narrow minded is just a statement of fact: you have made it clear that that you prefer your beliefs to science. Similarly, you are clearly ignorant of biology and evolution. So that isn't an insult either.

Why? That is a really feeble excuse. The articles on Wikipedia have references, often to peer-reviewed scientific papers, so there is no reason at all to dismiss it. But you are happy to copy lies from creationist websites, that have no scientific support at all? You asked for a rebuttal and you got it. But you are too much of a coward (or too ignorant) to answer it. And too narrow minded to learn.

Gawd.

I assume this is because you didn't get it from Sci Am, you just copied it from a Cretinist web site, thinking it supported your argument. Perhaps you should have checked the source before using it: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsensehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ The text your quote is #14 in the list of "nonsense" and, of course, they go on to refute it. It is worrying that you and other creationists have to resort to lies like this. I am now wondering if you made up the whole "school debate" thing as an excuse to promote your religious beliefs.

You are not interested in rebuttals. You have just ignored those that have been presented so far. All you do is repeat the same claims (and then pretend it is an insult to point out that you are wrong). And now who is insulting people?

I second that. I assume from the comments so far, that techtalknow just copied it from a creationist website. Either that or it is his own original lie.

It is all evolution. In other words, there are those who accept science and those who prefer their own beliefs over evidence. So you come to a science forum and present your non-scientific beliefs. What feedback do you expect beyond "learn some science". As I say, beliefs are irrelevant. I don't care what you believe. Just don't try and pass your beliefs off as equal to science.

What Andrew or anyone else believes is irrelevant, we are discussing science.

It wasn't rude. I am genuinely concerned for you. If you stand up in a biology class and spout this stuff, I would imagine that the other students, and probably the teacher, will be laughing and throwing things at you.

You can demonstrate evolution in all sorts of ways by looking at populations over multiple generations. Fruit flies are often used because many generations can be observed in a short time. And yes, there are many lab kits you can buy to look at various aspects.

Exactly. A theory is as good as it gets in science. But note that the theory explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is an easily observable fact (look at domesticated plants or dog breeding, for example.)

Constructive criticism: ask to be transferred to the side arguing for science instead of against it. 10th grade is what, 15? If so, I would expect better in knowledge of biology, critical thinking and ability to present ideas.

Because they are not scientific models; in other words they are not evidence based and they do not make testable predictions that would allow them to be falsified. You need to learn a little bit about scientific terminology even if your job is to argue against the science. In fact, especially if your job is to argue against the science. A hypothesis is a provisional idea, based on some evidence. It is used to make some quantitative, testable predictions. These are tested by experiment or observation. If a hypothesis is not shown to be wrong by a large number of tests, it may be accepted as a theory. A theory is still provisional though. A theory can always be overturned or modified by new evidence. So a theory is never a "true fact". So that would be the theory of evolution. Because it is supported by mountains of evidence. And it has changed over the years because we have learnt more by looking at the evidence. That is what science does.

It isn't a theory. It is an absurd claim. And yet there are organisms that show every level of complexity from nothing to the most complex. For example, the eye is sometimes taken as an example of "Irreducible Complexity" but there are organisms with a just a light sensitive patch of skin right through animals with every type of eye imaginable. Ditto nervous systems and spinal chords. Right. Because the first car ever made had a V8 engine with electronic fuel injection and GPS navigation. Sad, isn't it. Hard to believe because it isn't true. I assume this is taken out of context (or is simply a lie). No there isn't. It is the entire genome that defines that. Or it might change over generations. Random mutation and selection. And if it isn't true(*) then the entire argument falls apart. (*) It isn't. Then maybe you should learn some biology or you will be laughed out of the class.

I can't work out if you are arguing for evolution by showing how ludicrous the anti arguments are, or if you are trying to argue against it and making an even worse job than the usual nutters do. If you are supposed to be on the anti team, then you might as well just make something up. Like, evolution is impossible because the sky is green. Or evolution is impossible because vanilla ice cream tastes nice. Those make as much sense as any of the usual arguments.

Only because the maths tells you what shape the curve is. One challenge with space-time is that it requires 4 dimensions, which is quite hard to draw. It is also intrinsic curvature which may be impossible to draw. But there are various representations which are more realistic than the "rubber sheet" analogy. Halfway down this page, for example: http://www.universetoday.com/87983/astronomy-without-a-telescope-a-photons-point-of-view/ Or this, using the less well-known Gullstrand-Painlevé metric: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

I didn't. I corrected you.

No. It would take an infinite amount of time to express it as a decimal integer. But that is nothing to do with its value, which can be expressed precisely in a finite time. Perhaps you should go and do an introductory maths course and learn some basic concepts before taking nonsense about infinity.

No. Pi has one single value. The expansion of the universe is not a force. It is what happens in the absence of force. Empty = full of energy and matter - not the usual definition. Singularity = I'm not sure what you think this means, but clearly not the usual definition. Infinity = "an ever changing numeric value", a potential state, pi, ... none of which are the usual definition. And so on. When x = infinity or zero, yes.

I don't know. You will have to ask her. Nothing is proved in science. There is no evidence that the universe was created in the big bang theory. You have repeated this straw man argument several times now. Why? Sorry, I don't understand any of that. I suggest you write in short, declarative statements or questions. Then why do you disagree with its conclusions simply because you don't like them? You have no evidence, no alternative model. You just have an emotional dislike of the theory. Well, that's just too bad. What discrepancy? What velocity?

I'm sorry but with the number of words that you are redfining (empty, singularity, universe, infinity, energy, ...) and the bogus mathematics, I am going to give up at this point. But ... why Pi, why not e, or root 2, or any of the other infinite number of irrational numbers?