Evolution? How?

wiz, The damn thing is actually 31 pages but most of it is a destructive critique of "Of Pandas and People" the selected ID text book that was so quickly copied from Creationist **** that the editor merely did a word search for Creation or Creationism , and merely substituted "Intelligent Design" in its place.
****, the methods of the IDers are nothing but semi-criminal, so Ive always asked at seminars'How can you mount any moral high ground , when you employ methods that are otherwise covered under RICO statutes?"

I actually joined in this fine AM after the new kid bitched about how we control the printing presses, when he has no clue that it had been the other way around for half a century. Also, his shriking to the contrary, many books like
"Of Pandas and People", Darwins Black Box" etc etc, share a healthy sales record among the IDers and are used quite extensively by the Home-Schooling crowd .

They want to sugar spoon feed their ideas to politicians in an attempt to get Creationism or ID taught in public schools. It will, of course, be an uphill battle and, I think, ultimately fail. The main force are institutes of higher learning. Universities and colleges are not going to change their curriculum to comply so how do these people believe (sic) they will ever be successful. It's called blind faith and, to be sure, they are truly blind.

evolutionist or not, you have to be interested in this

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70816&start=0

Eorl,

My purpose in coming into this thread was not to present evidence. I really couldn't care less what you or anyone else believes on this topic. I honestly came in here because I am sick and tired of evolutionists and atheists treating Christians llike we are a bunch of morons. Unfortunately, I am not sure of the guys name (I can get it for you if you like), but one of the leading atheists throughout the 20tth century (The Carl Sagan of the 50s) finally came to the conclusion that there was too much evidence to say that there wasn't a good. Eorl, we've made amends; I consider you my forum friend. All I ask is that you don't join in these petty little attacks on people as people.



The............

Eorl,

My purpose in coming into this thread was not to present evidence. I really couldn't care less what you or anyone else believes on this topic. I honestly came in here because I am sick and tired of evolutionists and atheists treating Christians llike we are a bunch of morons. Unfortunately, I am not sure of the guys name (I can get it for you if you like), but one of the leading atheists throughout the 20tth century (The Carl Sagan of the 50s) finally came to the conclusion that there was too much evidence to say that there wasn't a God. Eorl, we've made amends; I consider you my forum friend. All I ask is that you don't join in these petty little attacks on people as people.



The............

I am runnning late for work, so I will have to comment on everyones responses later. Look if everyone will just stick to the topic and not attack people as people I will back down. I joined this forum to discuss the issues; not to go into threads and find people making fun of me for my beliefs.


The.............

We are so happy to hear that "you will back down" and if you can find anyone directly attacking Christianity in this thread, you'd have something to be upset about. However, only ignorance has been attacked on this thread. If you qualify there, that's unfortunate, but if you qualify as a Christian, I don't think you will find anyone attacking your for your beliefs. You have the right to believe anything you want, you do not have the right attack others for not believing. This forum, incidentally, is a privelege to participate in (strongly urge you read the TOS you agreed to when you joined). It is not a right. If you have a bone to pick about being called a moron (which is nowhere in these pages), I'd take it elsewhere.

What undiluted drivel . . . no one here was even aware of your pathetic existence until you showed up here flinging turds at everyone in sight. No one here could have been making fun of your beliefs because no one here even knew you existed.

Undone.

The history of thsis thread parallels the history of the Creationist movement in the US. First it was the Creationists whove used the "atheist" attack in their attempts at defeating science. They had their own version of science under HenryMorris and the "Deluge Society" Theyd been quick on the attack of standard science. Actually it all began with The Good Reverend bishop Wilberforce who tried to take Darwin apart. (Darwin was kind of a wuss, so he used designated alterntes like Huxley and Hooker to "discuss" evolution .

This thread started with its own title "Evolution How?" and was a series of discussions between those who take scientific evidence as its presented, discuss it and critue it. Then there are those who, standing up with their personal religious beliefs, try to deny the evidence without even understanding it.
You may feel "put upon " all you wish, That doesnt count for much of anything IMHO. Because you may believe in the Loch Ness monster and I show evidence that Loch Ness is only full of salmon, doesnt mean I have to give way to your beliefs. Evidence trumps belief any day.
The phony "morality card" is used extensively by Creationists just because theyve lostr so much control and are a dying breed.
Had all of you lived back in 1920 and didnt make such a big show of force to exclude evolution from the classrooms of the Bible Belt, perhaps there wouldnt be the chasm between natural sciences and religion. After all, its only a rather small minority of Evangelicals who are so obtuse as to neither accept nor even understand what evolution is built on.

The fact that you believe that there are holes in evolution theory is probably a mistatement.
You are not aware of the tons of data that is available to explain those areas that you describe as holes. Its more a business of your unawareness , than it is about a "hole" in a theory.
Nobody's come up with anything that discredits evolution. Even the frauds are quickly outed by science.

Now there is a real issue. Outright lying by a faction of society that supposedly believes in high moral values, in order to prove their side is right is the perversity here.

Chumly,

Thanks for giving me his name. I will try to contact him the next chance I get.

The........

LW wrote:
Now there is a real issue. Outright lying by a faction of society that supposedly believes in high moral values, in order to prove their side is right is the perversity here.


The bigger picture tells the better story; the right wing fundamentalist christians work to change the laws of Roe vs Wade, because "each life is precious." Bush is responsible for the killing of over 30,000 innocent Iraqis, but that is nonconsequential, because they're not American babies. George Bush keeps saying "no president wants to go to war," but he's the one that chased out the UN Weapon's Inspectors to start his war based on shoddy intelligence. We now have over 2,300 American soldiers dead and over 16,000 soldiers injured - some with permanent disabilities.

The experts also tell us that one-third of the soldiers coming home from Iraq have some mental health issues. Many officers are getting divorced.

The chaos in Iraq is a quagmire while this president continues to tell the American People "we are making progress." Even though most dictionaries define what's happening in Iraq as a "civil war," both Rummy and Bush tells us it's not. And they have the gall to tell us this war may go on beyond the next president.

That's all from these so-called "christians." They have audacity to push ID in our science curriculum, because "god" is the answer for everything.

I hope their god burns all of them in hell.

Xingu,

I understand your frustration with approaching creationists pertaining to the matter of the origins of the universe, but just because most creationists (I admit even myself) only have a basic understanding of this topic doesn't make it wrong. Understand, that Evolution is the dominant theory, so even many Christians are so deeply inundated with the stuff that unless they go to christian schools they are most likely only go to hear bits and pieces of the creation theory in Sunday school, And even then they are going to listen to some teacher who tells them something like God created evolution.
I will admit that evolution is scientifically possible, but the possibility of evolution is dependent on two things--in order to prove that micro evolution is true a person must first prove that the universe has existed long enough for it to have happened; that person must also prove that the conditions for it to have become this must have also happened. I see to great of an improbabillity for that to have become this. As I once said to someone, yes it appears that the universe could have come about through the process of micro evolution, but try to prove to me that all of this happened from the Big Bang seems like telling me that the Sears Tower is held up by a tooth pick.

It is not the theory of macro evolution that I disagree with; it is the foundation of the theory of micro evolution that seems preposterous.


Like I said, I am not an expert, so I will refer you to www.icr.org


The.........

First, you should understand that there is no 'macro' or 'micro' evolution. These are creationist terms.
Evolution is evolution. If enough changes happen on a small scale it manifests on a large scale. There is no distinction.

Sentanta,

The high school set? I wish I were that young again. Okay maybe not that young, but younger than I am.

The..........

Wolf said,

"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."

Anthony Flew is the name of the atheist turned creationist. I am sure there are many people who have started out on one side and gone to the other. However, that doesn't prove one side or the other; it simply proves that humans are rational creatures.

If memory serves me correctly, Social Darwinism refers to a theory developed during the early 20th century that suggested that a person was born into an upper, middle or lower class through a process of socialized evolution. Though, I am sure the term has morphed over the past several decades; however, I believe the original meaning of it has been dismissed by pretty much every sociologist alive.

The..........

Farmerman,

I will try to remember to respond to your arguments within the next few days. I am trying to get out of here quickly, so I don't have the time to read multiple paragraphed debates.


The.........

The terms macro and micro evolution were first introduced to me at a secular college, in a seculat text book. I would tell you which one, but I threw it away the minute after I finished my final. Dang editors and their new editions.


The.........

Light,

Do not attack people as people. I don't care if they are Christians, Muslims, or Homosexuals.

The rules of TOS state:

"personal attacks are not acceptable here."

I have attacked no one. I have only attacked the level of argumentation and have in no way pin pointed my attacks to any one person. I have only asked people not to base their arguments on ad hominems and have said that to do so is childish and petty.

One poster commented:

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

I would consider this a backhanded personal attack on my intelligence.

Another poster said,

"What undiluted drivel . . . no one here was even aware of your pathetic existence until you showed up here flinging turds at everyone in sight. No one here could have been making fun of your beliefs because no one here even knew you existed."


Another poster in another thread said,

"your reference to ad hominems is bootless and idiotic."


I have reviewed all statements that I have made since joining this site, and I have found no statements that attacked anyone personally. I do admit, however, that I did use analogies of immaturity to refer to the level of discussion, but if anyone is in violation of TOS they are the authors of the above posts, not me.





The............