Over half of Americans dont believe in evolution

[theking]

There is nothing so reasonable as faith. For faith is simply the acceptance of the testimony of God, given to men in "the Scriptures of truth," which have proved themselves, in their history and influence in the world, to be super-human.

Conversely, there is nothing more unreasonable than unbelief; for it denies not only the light of Divine revelation, but that of nature (#Ro 1:20; Ac 14:15-17; 17:24-29). Small wonder is it that men who vaunt the human intellect and who have rejected the word of the Lord, should be so fatuously credulous as to attribute designing skill and creative power to a mere concourse of atoms.

The same Lord Kelvin, whom we have just quoted, is on record as declaring that, there is not a single ascertained fact of science which conflicts with any statement of the Bible.

When, therefore, we hear, as is common enough nowadays, assertions made by unbelieving theologians and others, to the effect that "science" has shown this or that statement of Scripture to be erroneous, let it be remembered that we can bring the testimony of the most eminent men of science to prove those assertions false.

Dr. Ethridge of the British Museum, a noted expert in fossilology, speaking of the views of evolutionists, says: "This Museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views."

Prof. L. S. Beal, acknowledged to be in the front rank of British scientists, in an address delivered June 1903, said: "The idea of any relation between the non-living, by gradual advance of lifeless matter to the lowest forms of life, and so onward to the higher and more complex, has not the slightest evidence from any facts of any section of living nature of which anything is known."

Virchow of Berlin, regarded by some as the foremost chemist of the world, said, "It is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal." He went so far as to denounce the theory as dangerous to the state, and demanded that it be excluded from the schools.

Much more of the same sort might be added; but it will suffice to refer to Prof. Fairhurst?s Theistic Evolution (Standard Publishing Co., Cincinnati), and Graebner?s Evolution, already referred to, from which most of the above quotations are taken. We will only mention additionally a statement made in a very recent address (February 1922) by Prof. Wm. Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, a scientist of the first rank, who, speaking in Toronto, Canada, is reported to have said: "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin?s theory of the origin of the species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species."

Surely our "liberal" theologians, who teach as truth that monstrous fiction which true men of science never regarded as more than a speculative theory, and now have, with practical unanimity, repudiated, are utterly without excuse.

The Existing Danger

Notwithstanding the fact that Darwinism is no longer believed in the circles in which it originated, its influence for harm was never so great as now. The reason is that the theory has found its way into the theological seminaries, and into the school-books of the children, where it is doing the deadly and truly devilish work of discrediting, in the eyes of many, the statements of the Word of God.

Darwinism In The Schools

A parent, writing to a religious periodical, tells of a textbook brought home by his seven-year-old boy, the title of which was "Home Geography for Primary Grades."

The following quotation will serve to show what is now being taught to children of the most tender years. Discussing the subject of birds, this textbook for primary grades says: "Ever so long ago their grandfathers were not birds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings nor feathers. These grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long tail, and jaws with teeth. After a time feathers grew on their bodies, and their front legs became changed for flying. These were strange looking creatures. There are none living like them now." Such are the monstrous fictions now taught to little children as scientific truth.

It is a significant and disquieting fact that a determined effort recently made in the legislature of Kentucky to forbid the teaching of Evolution in the schools of that State was defeated. Thus the arch enemy of God and men has manoeuvred this "Christian" country into the position where the accepted canons of education forbid the teaching of the Bible to the children of the tax-payers, but permit the teaching of the most anti-Christian and unscientific doctrine that ever made a bid for public favor.

The support for the teaching of Evolution (which in practically all cases means the utterly discredited theory of Charles Darwin) came from "educators and religious leaders" (so says the Literary Digest, March 25, 1922) like Lyman Abbott, Dr. Angell, President of Yale, Dr. Lowell, President of Harvard, and Dr. McFarland, Sec?y of the Federal Council of Churches.

It is high time for parents to be awakened out of sleep as to the dangers to which their children are exposed in our modern schools. These are indeed "perilous times"; and one of the greatest perils thereof is the teaching which is now being given to the young. Parents, who would be careful to keep their little ones from the dangers of the streets, recklessly expose them every day to the more serious dangers of the schools, and give themselves little concern as to what they learn there from teachers and companions.

[Drake]

Originally posted by jas1552
Religious people come up with whatever it takes to rationalize their irrational beliefs in their own minds. It's not so easy to overcome a life time of brainwashing started at birth by one's family and culture, regardless which religion.

I wonder if religion is evolved. If it is or was beneficial to human survival at some point, or if it's just a useless byproduct of intelligence.

NOBODY IN THIS THREAD IS RELIGIOUS.

Too much brainwashing believing that anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is a Bible thumper. Clean out your ears or at least READ the thread.

[theking]

Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter VIII

Evolution In Human Affairs

We come now to a matter of deepest interest and importance; for when we turn our attention to the realm of human affairs and activities, we observe a state of things which is in the greatest possible contrast to what is seen elsewhere among living species. It is exceedingly important, with a view to a right understanding of the theory of Evolution, that this contrast be noted, and its significance be comprehended.

Briefly stated the contrast lies in this, that Evolution is the method of working which prevails everywhere, and always has, in hitman affairs, whereas outside of human affairs there is not a trace of it to be found in all the universe. By "human affairs" we mean, those activities wherein man himself is the designer and agent. For there is a realm wherein man is the directing and controlling authority, wherein he has free scope to try out all his ideas, and to exert all his powers in every direction.

Man, in all his operations, and in every department of his diversified activities, is progressive. Other living creatures are absolutely unprogressive. Man develops arts, industries, social institutions, governments, etc., etc., by trying experiments, discovering defects and weaknesses, devising remedies, and so on, the changes being so rapid and so extensive that each generation lives in a different industrial, political, social and religious environment, to that of its predecessors.

In Society at large we find a typical illustration. It is one employed by Herbert Spencer. He says (First Principles ch. 14. Sec. 3) "In the social organism integrative changes are clearly and abundantly exemplified." And so beyond dispute they are.

Mr. Spencer cites the development of" Society," beginning with wandering families, then tribes, then stronger tribes formed by union with or subjugation of others, until the combinations became relatively permanent, and ultimately were evolved into States and Nationalities. Nor has this progression ceased; for since Spencer?s time there have been further combinations of nations, and finally a "League of Nations," which will undoubtedly eventuate in the Federation of Kingdoms, symbolically pictured as the Beast in Daniel and Revelation.

The same progression from simple and incoherent beginnings, to conditions relatively complex and coherent, may be traced in every department of human affairs. Whether we examine the industrial groups, the ecclesiastical, the military, the medical, the legal, etc., we find the same progressive development.

Let us consider a few illustrations of this striking law of humanity.

A few centuries ago the crudest implements served the farmer for preparing the soil and gathering his crops. From those simple beginnings have evolved the tractors, harvesters, and other modern wonders of farm-equipment; and the advance has been by slight, progressive changes. Here is Evolution sure enough, and precisely as described by Spencer and other materialists.

So likewise in the department of Locomotion and Transportation, it is easy to trace, between the wheel-barrow and ox-cart of by-gone days, and the auto-car and flying machine of the twentieth century, a connected line of evolutionary progress. And a similar line may be traced from the birch-bark canoe to the Transoceanic liner and the submarine.

If we look along other industrial lines, as milling, printing, paper making, communicating intelligence to distant points, weapons of war, etc., etc., we see the same thing, that is to say, a very crude and imperfect beginning, with a succession of forms, each an improvement upon its predecessors, and with never an end to the development.

Again in the literary field, we can readily trace the activity of man from a simple beginning in oral recitation and manuscript copies on vellum or papyrus, to the manifold present-day output of books, newspapers and other periodicals.

So with the religions of the world. The human element in these has undergone great and progressive changes, both in ideals and in forms and observances; and the progress still continues. Here we have again an instructive contrast; for we can readily compare the development of the religions of the world with the progressive Revelation of the Truth of God. The former follows, like everything else which is under the control of man, a strictly evolutionary course, every new stage involving the destruction of what preceded. The latter is, like everything that comes from God, perfect (as far as it goes) from the start. And, though His Revelation has been given at sundry times and in many distinct parts, yet there is not a trace of Evolution in it; for every part of God?s Revelation remains forever true; and all the parts together unite in perfect agreement to constitute a complete and harmonious system of Truth.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Mike33
True, but they're different degrees, don't you think?

I can observe "gravity" by watching a rock fall back in my hand after I throw it in the air. At least it has some basis because I can see it.

I'll buy into the 'degree' thing but you only know that when a ball falls back into your hand it's gravity at work because someone told you it was, right?

What do you really know about gravity at a theoretical level?

[theking]

It were a very easy matter to multiply our illustrations, for they lie all around us in plain view. For wherever we look within the realm of human affairs the evidences of Evolution stare us in the face. But, in striking and significant contrast with this is the fact that, the moment we pass the boundaries of that realm, we strain our eyes in vain for a scrap of evidence to indicate that the process of Evolution ever had a foothold.

The birds construct their nests, the beavers their dams, the bee- hives and ant-colonies carry on their complex operations, precisely as they always have done. Moreover, each of those creatures does its work perfectly at the very first attempt, whereas man makes innumerable failures before he can do anything even passably well.

Evidences Of Evolution In Human Affairs

In this connection there are several facts which have an important bearing on the main question, and which should therefore be carefully noted.

First, in the field where Evolution does operate?that is, in the realm of human enterprises, from which Spencer and others draw all their illustrations?the evidences of its workings abound. Traces of the earlier and cruder forms, which subsequent improvements have displaced, are plentiful. The advancement, moreover, is not so slow as to give the impression that things are at a standstill, but, on the contrary, is sufficiently rapid to permit of observation of its character and direction. From these facts it must be concluded that, if there were any Evolution in those realms of nature which are not under the guidance and control of "the will of man," there would be abundant evidences of its workings in those spheres also. The only and the sufficient reason why things in Nature appear to be at a standstill, and have so appeared during the thousands of years they have been under man?s observation, is that they are at a standstill. The simple and satisfactory explanation of the fact that no trace of Evolution has ever been found in Nature is, that there has been no Evolution there.

Second, it is seen that, in all the departments of human activities there is never any end of development, either in the construction of the things which man makes, or in the methods by which he operates. Never, in any part of this realm, is a stage reached where there is rest and stability. Never has the right thing, or the right method, been attained. But in Nature all is stable. Both structures and processes remain identically the same as they have ever been.

Why this astonishing difference? Manifestly, the reason why there is no improvement in the life-habits of the lower orders is because there is no need of any. Indeed, we can say there is no possibility of any. For who could improve upon the structure or materials of the honey-comb? The ways of those creatures do not change, for the simple reason that their ways, works and habits of life are just what their Creator planned for them.

With man it is far otherwise. The scheme of life appointed to him has been completely wrecked. His whole race is blighted and degraded. It finds itself in conditions of poverty and wretchedness. Its energies, therefore, are directed towards improvement, for the very reason that it has fallen from the place of life appointed for it.

But the most learned and intelligent of those who reject the light of Holy Scripture (which reveals the truth as to man?s condition, and shows that, despite all material gains, corruption and decay still increase and spread among the children of men) are easily misled as to the facts; and they mistake material gains for true progress.

Man?s "progress," of which he loudly boasts, is a delusion. There is indeed a constant advance in mechanical inventions, and in all that contributes to a grossly materialistic industrialism. But that apparent progress serves but to hide the real facts from the many, who look only at the surface of things. In reality the civilized nations are on the down grade. Crime, insanity and suicides increase at an appalling rate. Everywhere the spirit of violence and lawlessness is rampant. In commercial life, political life and private life corruption increases and abounds.

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Scientists do not take each other's word for it, they make themselves famous and reckognized by debunking each other's work. That's what publication and peer review is all about.

Far fewer patients die in the hospital today then ever before. If you don't trust your doctor, then why waste his time? Tell him you don't trust him just before he puts you under and tries to perform a life saving operation on you, he'll be glad to hear it.

CET, we're talking about evolution for goodness sake. Not medicine. I'm a believer in just about ALL the other sciences. Evolution doesn't fit.

[theking]

The noted scientist, A. R. Wallace, who put forth the theory of Evolution contemporaneously with Darwin, said, shortly before his death in his ninety-first year:

"I have come to the general conclusion that there has been no advance either in intellect or morals since the days of the earliest Egyptians. Everything is as bad as it possibly can be. There exist in our midst horrors and dreadful diseases never known before. Our whole social environment is rotten, full of vice and everything that is bad."

Had Mr. Wallace lived to see the conditions in the world resulting from the great European War he would have had to admit that things could be even worse than they were then.

The Spread Of The Theory Accounted For

Finally we call attention to the pertinent fact that the presence and working of the law of Evolution in human affairs has furnished Spencer and others with such apt illustrations, and they have used them so skilfully, that many fail to see the important fact to which we are here calling attention, namely, that the instances of Evolution to which they are able to point lie always in the realm of human institutions.

To this point we ask careful attention, for in it is found the explanation of what every intelligent person will ask, namely, how comes it that a theory, for which there has never been the slightest proof, but which, on the contrary, is opposed to all the facts of human observation, has met with such wide acceptance among intelligent people? The reason is that, in the field which lies nearest to man, and in which he can most easily observe, there is Evolution; not only in localities but everywhere; and not only occasionally but always.

It was easy, therefore, to make the assumption that, in the more remote fields of Nature, the same law of progressive changes was in control; and the fact that "varieties" of plants and animals could be produced by artificial breeding, gave a color of support to the theory. That theory once formulated and proclaimed, it would inevitably be received exultantly by all who are biased against the truth of man?s fall and depravity, and so it was sure of strong and enthusiastic support.

The Fatal Bias

On this point we quote again from Prof. Graebner:

"The warfare of philosophy against Christian faith is readily explained. Man is corrupt. He loves sin. He is conscious of his guilt and fears the penalty. Hence every avenue of escape is welcome, if only he can persuade himself that there is no God, no judgment. Man is proud, he desires no Saviour. Hence the effort to prove that no Saviour is needed, that there is no guilt attaching to sin, that there is no absolute right and wrong. Hence too the doctrine of the Agnostic that we can ascribe no attributes to God. When we read the ?Synthetic Philosophy? of Spencer we are apt to believe that the agnosticism there set forth is the result of deep philosophical speculation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Man, even cultured philosophical man, wants to have no restrictions placed upon pride and selfishness; hence it is necessary to rid the mind of the fear of Divine justice; hence the desire to demonstrate that God has no attributes, such as that He is ?just,? for instance. The Psalmist describes this attitude in the words, ?Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.?

"No one who has grasped the inner motive of all ?Scientific? effort to demolish faith, can fail to understand why the many greet with such jubilant acclaim every new attack upon the Biblical narrative.

No one who has pondered this motive can be snared in the net of ?science, falsely so called.? He has seen its inwardness, he knows its fatal bias."

The Law Of Sin And Death

The law of Evolution then is strictly confined to one realm, the sphere of human affairs; and therein it has full sway. It is the law or rule of action of a fallen race. It is "the law of sin and death" (#Ro 8:2). It has no place in the Kingdom of God, or in any sphere which sin has not invaded. It arises solely from man?s efforts to improve his wretched condition, and from blindness to God?s way of recovering and restoring His perishing human creatures.

Man, having discovered that Evolution is the rule of procedure in the realm of his own doings, has imputed the same law to his Maker, thus fulfilling the Scripture, "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself."

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by titmowse
okay. another question from me:

A scientific theory doesn't mean there's no proof. It means there's a lot of proof, just no absolute proof like there's proof of gravity, right?

"Proof" is too strong of a word. "Evidence" would be more accurate. In science, a theory is always tentative.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
I'll buy into the 'degree' thing but you only know that when a ball falls back into your hand it's gravity at work because someone told you it was, right?

What do you really know about gravity at a theoretical level?

No I don't know it because of that. I can see it with my own eyes. There is SOME force out their (let's call it gravity or fsafsafsa) that demands that the rock fall back into my hand.

Who knows, that law could change tomorrow. But for all we know, it's been like this as long as man has walked the earth, so it's best to consider it a mainstay.

[sacX]

Originally posted by Mike33
I hear you completely. I had similar experiences. This is all too surreal. It's just coming from the opposite camp this time.

Ok so you don't believe in "evolution",
do you believe in natural selection?

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by titmowse
I get that. So, what's the difference between scientific theory and scientfic law?

"Some Definitions
First we should clarify some terms, for no small part of the problem relates to what is meant by such words as "evolution," "theory" and "scientific." Both sides of the controversy often use different definitions so as to capture the semantic high ground. While this may be a valuable tactic in debate and public relations, it frequently means that understanding becomes the casualty rather than one's opponents.

We will here use theory as a generic term for a suggested explanation of observed phenomena. No attempt will be made to distinguish "theory" from such terms as "hypothesis" or "law," as was common a generation ago and as is still seen in some textbooks on science. Nor is "theory" to be understood as necessarily in contrast to "fact." A theory may be either factual or mistaken. We will assume that a theory is an attempt to describe reality rather than merely a technique for reproducing observations. (For instance, we will not call locating a star in the sky by earth-centered coordinates a theory, even though this system was developed when it was thought the earth stood still and the stars crossed the sky daily.) We are thus adopting a more-or-less realist approach to science when we seek to judge whether or not a theory is actually describing reality."

More here: http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or122/newman.htm

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
There are lots of substantial claims based on findings proposed to be missing links. The fruit flies experiment is not an example of evolution.

It is if they all eventually become immune to pesticides. You are selecting for those few fruit flies that have a mutation that allows them to survive a certian pesticide. You have mutation and natural selection, thus you have evolution.

Originally posted by Mike33
Evolution DOES have a lot do to with origin of life. It proposes we came from single cells. Don't go with what you're told in the classroom only. Think for yourself. It makes a difference if it was a single cell versus a complete person.....that would mean there was no evolution if we were complete human beings that we are today.

What part of the evolutionary theory says that life came from non-life? It doesn't say that, that's an entirely different theory called abiogenesis. You can't mix the two together and claim they're the same thing, they're not. I dare you to tell a biologist, any biologist, that evolution describes how life began. It'll take him about a nanosecond to tell you that you're wrong. Go on, go to your nearest college or university, find a biologist and tell them that. I double dare you. I triple dare you.

[Johny Traffic]

I wonder if religion is evolved. If it is or was beneficial to human survival at some point, or if it's just a useless byproduct of intelligence.

It was, when we had nothing but a turnip to eat, it was a way of keeping us from starting a revolution, when we thought, ok its shit now, but later Ill get my pay back.

"Religion is the opium of the people" Karl Marx

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by sacX
Ok so you don't believe in "evolution",
do you believe in natural selection?

I believe in the Matrix.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Mike33
CET, we're talking about evolution for goodness sake. Not medicine. I'm a believer in just about ALL the other sciences. Evolution doesn't fit.

You couldn't possibly believe in biology then.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky, Geneticist

Dobzhansy was a giant in genetics. Listen to him.

[titmowse]

Originally posted by Colin
"Proof" is too strong of a word. "Evidence" would be more accurate. In science, a theory is always tentative.

Thank you again, Colin.

Can you answer my other question? What's the difference between scientific theory and scientific law?

[Drake]

Originally posted by sacX
Ok so you don't believe in "evolution",
do you believe in natural selection?

Ahhhh sacX is thinking.

To a point I do. If their is person A and person B and they're both in the same environment. The environment changes and favors person A because they can handle say cold weather better, person A may survive while person B dies.

Yeah, if we call that natural selection it works. That's different from evolution as you and I both know.

[CET]

Originally posted by stocktrader23
That's rediculous. I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. The entire point is there is no way to prove or disprove it.

THE POPE, the guy who heads the church that used to persecute scientists, accepted evolutions as a fact and was "undeniable" due to "overwhelming evidence". The pope accepts evolution as a fact, but you can't?

[Johny Traffic]

I believe in the Matrix

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Mike33
CET, we're talking about evolution for goodness sake. Not medicine. I'm a believer in just about ALL the other sciences. Evolution doesn't fit.

Mike, what do you mean by "it doesn't fit".
Why, once DNA was discovered, did we find that human DNA was more similar to chimpanzees than any other creature - as predicted by evolution? Why is the DNA of humans more similar to chimps than mice? Why is the DNA of all mammals more similar to each other than to birds? Don't you find that remarkable?

[titmowse]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
"Some Definitions
First we should clarify some terms, for no small part of the problem relates to what is meant by such words as "evolution," "theory" and "scientific." Both sides of the controversy often use different definitions so as to capture the semantic high ground. While this may be a valuable tactic in debate and public relations, it frequently means that understanding becomes the casualty rather than one's opponents.

We will here use theory as a generic term for a suggested explanation of observed phenomena. No attempt will be made to distinguish "theory" from such terms as "hypothesis" or "law," as was common a generation ago and as is still seen in some textbooks on science. Nor is "theory" to be understood as necessarily in contrast to "fact." A theory may be either factual or mistaken. We will assume that a theory is an attempt to describe reality rather than merely a technique for reproducing observations. (For instance, we will not call locating a star in the sky by earth-centered coordinates a theory, even though this system was developed when it was thought the earth stood still and the stars crossed the sky daily.) We are thus adopting a more-or-less realist approach to science when we seek to judge whether or not a theory is actually describing reality."

More here: http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or122/newman.htm

Thank you, Joe

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by CET
THE POPE, the guy who heads the church that used to persecute scientists, accepted evolutions as a fact and was "undeniable" due to "overwhelming evidence". The pope accepts evolution as a fact, but you can't?

The pope accepts God and you can't?

[sacX]

Originally posted by Mike33
Ahhhh sacX is thinking.

To a point I do. If their is person A and person B and they're both in the same environment. The environment changes and favors person A because they can handle say cold weather better, person A may survive while person B dies.

Yeah, if we call that natural selection it works. That's different from evolution as you and I both know.

It is a part of the mechanism of evolution.
You have a population that varies, the environment changes. Those that are best adapted to the new environment survive and reproduce, the new population is different.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Mike33
Ahhhh sacX is thinking.

To a point I do. If their is person A and person B and they're both in the same environment. The environment changes and favors person A because they can handle say cold weather better, person A may survive while person B dies.

Yeah, if we call that natural selection it works. That's different from evolution as you and I both know.

So you believe that organisms can change to fit their environment better but that it is not possible for them to change and no longer be capable of producing fertile offspring with separated members of the original species. Correct?

[CET]

Originally posted by theking
Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter I

The Theory Defined

"Evolution" is a philosophical and speculative theory, of recent origin, whereby it is sought to account for the various elements and compounds of the inorganic world, and also for the countless species of living creatures in the organic world.

By the "inorganic world" is meant the elements and compounds, as minerals and gases, which are without life; and by the "organic world" is meant organisms (plants and animals) which have life.

'Nuff said. This guy is trying to equate abiogenesis with evolution and they are 2 different theories. One discusses the possibility of life emerging from non organic matter. The other discusses how life changes through the natural selection of random mutations for better survivability in its environment.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
You couldn't possibly believe in biology then.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky, Geneticist

Dobzhansy was a giant in genetics. Listen to him.

Why? He is an authority on all the laws of nature because he was a brilliant geneticist? He is infallible? Should I believe the philosophies of all scientists? Should I have taken Einstein's advice on fashion?

He can choose to believe that, but there is no evidence for that claim.


I could throw it back at you. The Pope is close to God, believe what he says about God. See how weak it is? Don't believe in God because somebody else does. God is bullshit no matter who tells me to believe in him.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
"Religion is the opium of the people" Karl Marx

I always hate it when people use that quote from Marx because everyone ALWAYS gets it wrong.

This is the whole thing: 'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. '

So it should be: "Religion... is the opium of the people.'

[titmowse]

Just to clarify. I used to be a born-again christian. But I kept listening to people smarter than me and now I'm an atheist.

[Johny Traffic]

Why is the DNA of humans more similar to chimps than mice?

Maths, not Biology. Probability

[CET]

Originally posted by theking
Due notice should also be taken of the striking fact that the beginning of the existence of each living creature is sudden, that its term of life is short, and that its changes are rapid. Whereas Evolution requires a very gradual coming into existence, exceedingly long histories, and changes of prodigious slowness. The fact then is that, in the field of the living, as in that of the not-living, there is no evidence whatever in support of evolution; but on the contrary every fact and phenomenon cognizable by the senses strongly contradicts that theory. This will become more and more apparent as we proceed.

Go to school. Talk to a biologist. Most college or university professors are more then happy to answer most any question you have. Most of them will go out of their way to find source material for you to read. Please, go to school, find a biologist and question him to death, he'll love you for it and maybe you'll better understand the world you live in.

[Johny Traffic]

I always hate it when people use that quote from Marx because everyone ALWAYS gets it wrong.

sorry

[Drake]

Originally posted by Colin
So you believe that organisms can change to fit their environment better but that it is not possible for them to change and no longer be capable of producing fertile offspring with separated members of the original species. Correct?

No. Careful. I said that Person A and Person B. They were both different people. One of them was more resistant to cold weather. He did not change to fit his environment. He was already as he was and was able to survive better on that alone.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
YAY! Read THAT definition. THAT's what evolution is. It's a SPECULATIVE THEORY! BRAVO!

That author is a creationist and you've already proven that you know squat about squat.

[Johny Traffic]

The pope accepts God and you can't?

Touche

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
Go to school. Talk to a biologist. Most college or university professors are more then happy to answer most any question you have. Most of them will go out of their way to find source material for you to read. Please, go to school, find a biologist and question him to death, he'll love you for it and maybe you'll better understand the world you live in.

Maybe he did.

Quote from the beginning of the thread:

Even the biology teachers dont always teach it. In Oklahoma, 33 percent of high school biology teachers place little or no emphasis on evolution. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, 23 percent of high school biology teachers have the same view (Weld and McNew 1999).

[CET]

Originally posted by theking
Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter II

Would you quit posting this pseudo-scientific creationist crap? A link will be sufficient if anyone cares to let their mind turn into jello through reading this garbage.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by titmowse
Just to clarify. I used to be a born-again christian. But I kept listening to people smarter than me and now I'm an atheist.

You're obviously too smart to be a born again Christian.

Have you ever heard of Dan Barker? He was a fundamentalist preacher turned atheist and now he's involved with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

He wrote a great book, you should read it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

[jas1552]

Originally posted by Mike33
NOBODY IN THIS THREAD IS RELIGIOUS.

Too much brainwashing believing that anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is a Bible thumper. Clean out your ears or at least READ the thread.

You read the thread. The person who's post I quoted is religious and theking has posted tons of religious crap.

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
That author is a creationist and you've already proven that you know squat about squat.

Burn me at the stake because I don't agree with your tentative unfounded beliefs. The new leftwing religion witch hunt is on!

[Johny Traffic]

[QUOTE]Even the biology teachers dont always teach it. In Oklahoma, 33 percent of high school biology teachers place little or no emphasis on evolution. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, 23 percent of high school biology teachers have the same view (Weld and McNew 1999).[QUOTE]

Not becuase they dont beleive it, but because they are to scared, with all the religious nutters

[Joe Citizen]

theking:

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

You are dismissed.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Mike33
No. Careful. I said that Person A and Person B. They were both different people. One of them was more resistant to cold weather. He did not change to fit his environment. He was already as he was and was able to survive better on that alone.

Yes, and would you agree that the organisms (people) that survived would more likely pass down the gene that gave the surviving organism a "cold advantage" down to the next generation?

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
You guys are just as bad as the Republican Right Ultra Religious Fanatics.

It's bash bash bash, squash anybody elses's opinion, call him names.

Are we in the 1400's? It just seems the roles have been reversed. Persecute the agnostic!

You're the one who can't back up what he says. You have been provided scientific links, but you refuse to read them. You are willfully ignorant. I hope you are happy in your world, just hang out with the red necks and you'll get along with them just fine. If you try to hang out with someone who appreciates knowledge and science, you'll find yourself being looked at queerly for all the crap that comes out of your mouth and the lack of information going into your ears and eyes.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Colin
Mike, what do you mean by "it doesn't fit".
Why, once DNA was discovered, did we find that human DNA was more similar to chimpanzees than any other creature - as predicted by evolution? Why is the DNA of humans more similar to chimps than mice? Why is the DNA of all mammals more similar to each other than to birds? Don't you find that remarkable?

I don't know. Why is our DNA 99% similar to chimps yet they can climb trees and we can't, we can talk and they can't, we can problem solve and they can't, we can build and innovate but they can't.

A lot of unknowns, eh?

[sacX]

Originally posted by Mike33
No. Careful. I said that Person A and Person B. They were both different people. One of them was more resistant to cold weather. He did not change to fit his environment. He was already as he was and was able to survive better on that alone.

Mike33 think about it on a population basis. Do you believe organisms different characteristics are at least partly determined by genes?

In your hypothetical example if some organisms in a population are more resistant to cold weather they would be more likely to reproduce and lead to a population that is more resistant to cold weather.

I'm not getting what doesn't fit for you?

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
Hey, I'm as much of a believer in the sciences as you. Evolution is not one......yet

Then go read the literature. The pope HAD to accept evolution due to the "overwhelming evidence". If the pope of all people can accept evolution, then why can't you?

[titmowse]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
You're obviously too smart to be a born again Christian.

Have you ever heard of Dan Barker? He was a fundamentalist preacher turned atheist and now he's involved with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

He wrote a great book, you should read it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

I'm not smart. I'm just good with words.

My brother has a PHD in environmental science. I had these arguments years ago. I just couldn't ignore the logic.

I've not read that author. I might some day. I'm more interested in pre-history, particularly the paleolithic era. I think the downfall of humanity is directly tied to the invention of shoes

[Johny Traffic]

Burn me at the stake because I don't agree with your tentative unfounded beliefs. The new leftwing religion witch hunt is on!

Burn bitch Burn

[Drake]

Originally posted by Colin
Yes, and would you agree that the organisms (people) that survived would more likely pass down the gene that gave the surviving organism a "cold advantage" down to the next generation?

Yes, that's natural selection, not evolution. And there is no gaurantee that such genes would be passed down.

[CET]

Originally posted by theking
creationist crap

Due to the fact that you insist on smearing creationist fecies all over the board instead of just providing links, you've earned a one-way ticked to my ignore list. Congratulations! Now go play with something sharp.