Evolution? How?

There's the crux of the matter; the ID-iots press to diminish science, to hinder knowledge and understanding of it; they and their proposition depend on ignorance and misinformation.

Timer, now cut that out. If I keep agreeing with you, I could be outed as a conservative.

Kinda sounds like the Bush administration. Oops, wrong forum.

I know this thread is up to page 783, but I would like to know if you people are accepting inductees. I would like to be baptized into the ways of atheism. Do you people even do that stuff? Or do you just bolster your egos by picking on the other guy, much like immature little Jr. Highers bolster theirs by making fun of the kid who walks a little differently. Grow up!


BTW, Bush sucks!!!!!!! Pass it on.



You can call me "The......" (elipses required in all states but Ca, Ny, and Or)

Splooosh...........
It is done..........
You are In Like Flynn

(Dates back to 1945, refering to how easily movie star Errol Flynn could get women into bed with him)

If by 'bolsters their egos' you mean 'employs logic', and by 'walks a little differently' you mean 'rejects scientific advancement for canonical superstition', then I think that kid is lucky pick on him is all we do.
Personally, I would have him eradicated.

Very well said!

Isn't that the point of abortion? To eradicate the inferior from the species, so that humans have a better chance of surviving. Well, that and population control. Of course, the media tells us it's all about women's choice. Next thing you know they'll be telling the old and decrepid that it is their choice to eradicate themselves from society as well. Of course, I am sure that most people will continue to get their truth from mass media, which does come in the form of text books that inundate students with whatever the publishers decide is the truth and will sell the most copies. If you don't believe me go ask 10 people in the publishing industry if they would be more likely to publish a book on evolution or creation. The answer would be evolution, because that's what sells; that's what people want to believe. If the truth is I have a million dollars but I am never given a chance to tell anyone does that mean I don't have a million dollars? I studied evolution and while the process does seem theoretically logical I see too many holes in it. Why don't you try giving creation a serious chance. You might be surprised.



God bless Nazi Evolution!!!!!!!!! Killing one baby at a time, making it dang near impossible for the elderly to get the proper meds or giving them so many meds that they overdose, and ultimately creating a super race.



The great and powerful "The........"

Oh at last. I've been waiting for someone to present this alternative theory. We've heard plenty about it, but apart from wacky ideas about why evolution is wrong, we've seen NOTHING of this NEW theory. So go ahead, we're ready. Present your evidence.

TheUndonePoet,

You need to chat with kevnmoon right away. He is on this site, he will know exactly what you mean.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/search.php

LOL Chumly.

Faced with fighting both a Christian and a Lion, Chumly finds an historically proven solution !

This pretty much sums up what I have to say as well.
Yes, let's examine 'creation' as a theory. Demonstrate how creation fits the evidence we are faced with in any way whatsoever. Demonstrate how creation even qualifies as a hypothesis, much less as a theory. Remember, a theory is a hypothesis that is supported by testing and evidence. A hyothesis, in turn, is an educated guess, ie a guess that 'seems' to fit the facts at hand. Demonstrate how creationism can even live up to that marker, nevermind theory status, and I will be truly impressed.

TheUndonePoet

The problem we have had here is the minute we ask for evidence of Creationism their adherents go mum or change the subject.

We can only assume there an absence of evidence for Creationism or the evidence, "junk science" as it is known, is so silly they're ashamed to present it.

Nazi evolution, eh?

You know, i think we made it almost 800 pages before Godwin's Law kicked in . . .

I just love it when the high school set arrives to show us the error of our ways . . .

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies

Nope. The point of abortion is all because for some reason, the woman hasn't been able to terminate the unwanted pregnancy beforehand.



And before you know it, we'll be killing prisoners because they've committed crimes just so we don't have to deal with them anymore.



Then you know nothing about science.

Oh, there's holes in our knowledge about the Universe. That means the Universe must be flawed. Instead of believing in the Universe, why don't you believe that this world is a dream?

Oh, wait, there's holes in our knowledge about gravity. That means the Theories of Gravity must be flawed. Instead of believing in gravity, why don't we believe in Intelligent Falling.

Creationism is not science. It will never be science. Christian bishops have denounced the teaching of Creationism in schools, as deterimental to the faith. Evolution is and will be for the forseeable future, the only decent explanation of how we came to be.



You mean Social Darwinism. Why is it that you anti-Evolutionists always have to invent new terms for things when there's no need. Why call it Nazi Evolution when there's already the term Social Darwinism? Why invent the term Islamofascist when the term terrorist (if referring to Islamic terrorists) will do just as well or Islamic Dictatorship?

"Given the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the lack of any evidence for either ID or Creationism , how can intelligent people hold such views? After all, most theologians and religious people accept evolution. The real issues behind ( Creationism and ID) --are purpose and morality: specifcally the fear that if evolution is true, then we are no different from other animals, not te special work of God's creation. We are but a contingent product of natural selection, and so we lack real purpose and our morality is just the laws of the jungle. Tom Delay read a view into the House record on June 16 1996. Explaining the causes of the massacre at Columbine High School, he read a letter in a Texas Newspaper that suggested that "it couldnt have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial muddy soup".

The notion that naturalism and materialism are the enemies of morality and purpose, and that religion is the only ally, is pervasive in Creationist thought and the writings of ID...
The acceptance of evolution need not efface morality or purpose. It is merely a theory of the process and patterns of lifes diversity, not a grand philosophical scheme about the meaning of life. There is no logical connection between evolution and immorality. Nor is there a causal connection. In Europe, religion is far less intrusive than it is in the US and acceptance of evolution is more widespread, somehow the continent remains civilized. Most religious scientists, laymen, and theologians have not found the cceptance of evolution to impede living an upright , menaingful life. The idea that religion provides the sole foundation for meaning and morality also is not correct, since the world is full of skeptics, agnostics, and atheists who live good and meaningful lives.

Barring a miracle, the Dover School District will lose its case... and, when they do (this article was written in August 2005) , we can certainly expect that they will regroup in a new disguise even less obviously religious. I await 'The Right to TeachProblems With The Evolution Movement""
Jerry Coyne's "The Case Against Intelligent Design-The Faith that dare not speak its name"

IDers have helped stir the pot and continue the doubts Americans have about evolution. Gallup did a pole in 2004 of average Americans (statistical sampling was in play) 45% of Americans Agreed tha6t 'God created humans pretty much as we see them , all within the last 10000 years or so" When asked if evolution was supported by evidence, 35% of Americans said yes, 35 % said no, and 29 % said they lacked the knowledge to reply. As a rationalist , Coyne stated that he believes that the percentage in the first group would swell were Americans thoroughly taught the evidence for evolution. This is rarely done in high schools. Coyne said hes seen students who were creationists become "evolutionists" (sic) when they learn about biogeography or examine the skulls of mammal like reptiles or amphibial like fish, or bird like dinosaurs. He stated that we dont need less evo-devo( Evolution and development) in schools, but MORE.

Jerry Coyne is a professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago.

Great essay, thanks, farmerman.

wolf said

To bolster this , an initial magesterial opinion which ultimately led to the Epperson decision in the US Supreme court was produced by a judge Overton
"The application and contents of the First Amendment are not determined by public opinion or a majority vote. Whether the proponents of (ACT 590) constitute the majority or minority is quite irrelevant under the constitutional form of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others"
Te decision was one of the first to shoot down the control that anti-evolution thinking had among the schools in the south during the early part of the century (20th). There were a few states that had anti-evolution laws and , most were anti-evolution in tradition. While these laws were rarely enforced, the textbook publishers didnt screw with the state laws in the entire south, so anti-evolution textbooks were almost an exclusively available way of teaching biology until Arkansas Act 590 and, the SCopes Trial, and the later (post 1960's) big battles where Creationism was finally taken on and treated as Judge Overton suggested. It took almost an entire century to remove the anti-evolutionist teaching in the US, so , having the rl's and this new dude try to mount a moral high ground , just doesnt agree with history.
PS, Ive amassed quite a collection of old biology and Physical science text books as part of a "search fro the truth" . Its interesting how some early 1905 (+/-) text books are out and out prosyletizing for a Biblical world with some science thrownin. One of these years Im going to publish a "5 ft bookshelf of quotes from some of these texts to let the IDers see that their ancestral links are based pretty much on superstition, myth, and otherwise, totally evidence free)