Why People Believe in Evolution
Antimulticulture
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
by Wayne Jackson
September 25, 2002
People do not believe in evolution because they
have been led there by solid evidence. They are
stampeded into the Darwinian community by
superficial, emotional, and personal factors.
The most insidious and damaging ideology ever
foisted upon the mind of modern man is the notion
that human beings are but animals, and the
offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It
is known as the theory of organic evolution. This
concept has been reflected in recent years in such
volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal
(1986), and in the earlier production, The Naked
Ape (1967), (as man was characterized) by
zoologist, Desmond Morris.
Tragically, multiplied thousands across the land
have ingested, to a greater or lesser degree
(sometimes even with a religious flavor), this
nefarious dogma. But why? Have folks
intellectually analyzed the matter, and thus, on
the basis of solid evidence and argument, accepted
this viewpoint. Not at all; rather, for a variety
of emotional reasons, this concept is entertained
so readily.
In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book
titled, The Truth: God or Evolution? In the
opening section of this excellent volume, the
authors listed several reasons why the
evolutionary theory is embraced by so many. With
credit to them for the germ thoughts, I would like
to expand the discussion.
Brainwashing
Since the issuance of Charles Darwin’s, The Origin
of Species (1859), there has been a massive
campaign to flood the “intellectual market” with
evolutionary propaganda. Though such ideas by no
means originated with Darwin, he popularized
evolution more than anyone else. His book sold out
(1,025 copies) the first day of its release.
Another significant milestone was the famous
Scopes Trial, conducted in Dayton, Tennessee in
July of 1925. Twenty-four year old John Thomas
Scopes, a high school science teacher, had agreed
to violate Tennessee’s Butler law, which forbade
the teaching of any theory that holds man has
descended from a lower form of life. The entire
affair was “rigged,” but it brought together
William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic
nominee for president), who volunteered to
represent the state, and the famed criminal
defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended
Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast
on radio, brought national attention to the issue
of creation vs. evolution. As a result of that
encounter, the concept of creationism was cast
into an unfavorable light, and evolutionary dogma
gained considerable respectability, albeit undeserved.
From that time, however, the theory of evolution
has accelerated in influence via the media and the
public school system. Today, there exists a
determined campaign for the indoctrination of
evolution, and millions have absorbed it into
their minds.
Intimidation
Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the
impact of intimidation. Supposedly, evolutionary
doctrine has the endorsement of “science.” In
1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist,
circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists.
It asserted that evolution is a “scientific law”
which is as firmly established as the rotundity of
the earth.
Since most folks want to be thought of as
“educated,” and as they have been led to believe
that “all educated people believe in evolution,”
they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of
these individuals could not cite a solitary
argument in defense of evolution; they simply
believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”
Informed people should know the following:
Evolution is not a scientific law. It is a mere
hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the
scientific method (observation, experimentation,
and verification).
There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of
thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict
evolutionary assertions.
Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is
true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for
example, has conceded that belief in the
accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,”
much, he says, like faith in the power of a
Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York:
Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).
Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with
the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
is a fact of life are great con men, and the story
they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In
explaining evolution we do not have one iota of
fact ... It is a tangled mishmash of guessing
games and figure jaggling ... If evolution
occurred at all, it was probably in a very
different manner than the way it is now taught”
(Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).
It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the
pressures of evolutionary brow-beating. We ought
not to be cowed down; we should be more
aggressive, demanding that those who affirm their
confidence in evolution argue their case logically.
Religious Confusion
Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology
because they are repelled by the confused (and
sometimes cruel) state of the religious world.
Religionists have sacrificed their own children in
the name of “gods” (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far
East the cobra is worshipped as deity.
“Christians” (so-called) have warred with the
devotees of Islam.
Catholics allege that the bread and wine of “the
Eucharist” magically turn into the body and blood
of Jesus, while Protestants insist that such does
not occur. Some contend that “baptism” is
administered only by immersion, while others
allege that “sprinkling” or “aspersion” will
suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it
takes all three “modes” to constitute the “one
baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible
Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).
This disunity has driven many to disenchantment
with religion in general, which includes a
rebellion against divine revelation. This, of
course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He
admonished those who professed a loyalty to him to
be “one,” that “the world might believe” (Jn.
17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity
would produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.
But people need to realize that a departure from
the original does not negate the genuineness of
the original. The segmented status of
“religiondom” does not authenticate evolution. The
fact of the matter is, the evolutionists are as
divided as the religionists.
For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of
DNA, contended that biological life evolved here
on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle has
argued that “spontaneous generation” occurred in
outer space! Some Darwinians speculate that the
evolutionary process has occurred quite gradually,
over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the
lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Others (e.g., Richard Goldschmidt, and more
recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest that
evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.
There is wholesale disagreement among the
advocates of evolution. Those, therefore, who have
fled from religion because of its disunity, have
found no haven in Darwinism.
A World of Disorder
Many feel that our world environment, which is so
characterized by brutality and suffering, is more
consistent with Darwin’s tooth-and-claw,
“survival-of-the-fittest,” principle, than it is
with the notion that the earth is tended by a
benevolent God. There might be some leverage in
this argument if there were no other rational
explanation for the ills of this globe.
But the fact is, a compelling case can be made for
the proposition that life’s tragedies are the
result of man’s rebellion against his Creator; and
negative consequences have been allowed to follow
as an educational process on behalf of the human
family. In our recently published book, The Bible
and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter
chronicling some of the values of human affliction.
But here is another matter for consideration.
While the believer has some basis for explaining
the presence of “evil” in a fashion that is
consistent with the existence of a powerful and
benevolent God, the evolutionist has no reasonable
explanation as to why there is a human sensitivity
within man that judges some things to be “evil”
and others “good.” How can a package of mere
“matter,” which, according to atheism, is the sum
of man, arrive at a rational, moral judgment
concerning this phenomenon called “evil”? The
problem of “evil” is more challenging for the
evolutionist than for the creationist.
Tangible Evidence
Many folks are impressed with the evolutionary
case because it is buttressed, they believe, with
tangible evidence, whereas religion seems to
partake of a dreamy, surreal environment. After
all, scientists have “fossils” to prove their
case, don’t they?
This argument is exceptionally deceptive for the
following reasons:
All of the fossils ever collected represent less
than 1% of the potential evidence, according to
David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum (Museum
Bulletin, Jan., 1979, p. 50).
Not a single fossil has ever been discovered that
clearly demonstrates a link between basic organism
“kinds.”
All fossil evidence is subject to interpretation;
and even evolutionists dispute the data.
For example, when Donald Johanson and his
colleagues discovered the few bone fragments they
dubbed “Lucy,” back in 1974, they alleged that
this little creature walked on two legs, and was
on-the-way to becoming human. Numerous
evolutionists, however, seriously disputed this.
We discussed this matter in considerable detail in
the October, 1986 issue of the printed Christian
Courier.
But Bible believers are not without “tangible”
evidence in the defense of their case. Numerous
archaeological discoveries have been made which
support the historicity of the Scriptures (see our
book, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology.
If, then, a general case can be made for the
factual correctness of the Bible, one may
reasonably conclude that its affirmations
regarding the origin of humanity are correct as well.
Escape from Responsibility
Another reason why many so readily accept
evolution as the explanation for mankind, is that
such allows them to “cut loose” from God, and
hence to be free from moral and religious
obligations. They thus can become their own
“gods,” and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins
says that “Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind
Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 6).
This viewpoint was vividly illustrated some years
ago when Clarence Darrow spoke to the inmates of
the Cook County jail in Chicago. Hear him.
“I do not believe there is any sort of distinction
between the real moral conditions of the people in
and out of jail. One is just as good as the other.
The people here can no more help being here than
the people outside can avoid being outside. I do
not believe that people are in jail because they
deserve to be. They are in jail simply because
they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances
which are entirely beyond their control and for
which they are in no way responsible” (Arthur
Weinberg, Attorney For The Damned, New York: Simon
& Schuster, 1957, pp. 3-4; emp. WJ).
This shocking statement reveals the motive of some
evolutionists.
Conclusion
People do not believe in evolution because they
have been led there by solid evidence. They are
stampeded into the Darwinian community by
superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They
only delude themselves when they think otherwise.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multi-culty
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
Ordog
Antimulty-brainfart is not only a total political idiot but is also a
religious fundy who is posting creationist and similar crap to
political NGs!
This brain-dead article is not even worth the bandwith and the effort
needed to refute with scietific arguments.
Antimulty, great contribution! Now crawl back to the stone age and stay
there!
Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
Mike Eisler
Antimulticulture wrote:
> Why People Believe in Evolution
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
> by Wayne Jackson
> September 25, 2002
>
> People do not believe in evolution because they
"believe"?
Evolution is a scientific theory. One doesn't believe in
theories. If there are indeed people who believe in evolution the
way some people believe in religion then they are possibibly
going to be as disappointed in the people who believed in 1973 that
Jupiter has just 12 satellites. Science is about
seeking natural explanations for what we observe, and those
explanations have historically been very imperfect initially
(e.g. the Ptolemic and Copernican theories of the solar system, that
eventually fell to Kepler's theory, which has since been tweaked by
Einstein's theory).
The Darwinian theory of evolution is the first theory to address
the observation of that we have many different species today.
It would be foolish to think that the theory won't be modified,
or even replaced. But it is the best explanation today for a natural
process
that produced species we observe today, and the extinct species we have
fossil and historical records for.
If evolution has flaws, using those flaws as a justification to
replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design makes as much sense
as replacing the Copernican theory with Church Teachings because
Copernicus' circular orbit theory didn't quite match observations.
If we believed Church Teachings over Copernicus, we'd have never moved
on to Kepler's ideas, and so we'd have never have mastered the
technology
for sending Pioneer probes to Jupiter and discovering that it had
more than 12 satellites.
David Moss
som...@somewhere.com writes...
> People do not believe in evolution because they
> have been led there by solid evidence.
Go tell it to a farmer.
They could do with a good laugh, what with the drought and all.
--
DM
personal opinion only
Adrian Bailey
news:1125925298.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Antimulticulture wrote:
> > Why People Believe in Evolution
Thank you. Although science is about truth, much of the science we
teach/learn is the closest we think we've got to the truth so far. Science
isn't anti-religion, it just so happens that science continually overtakes
religion. Religion is unscientific and has no place in our science
teaching/learning.
Adrian
Robert Henderson
<som...@somewhere.com> writes
>People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by
>solid evidence.
Hilarious Christian projection. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Ernest
wrote:
Until a theory has been proven to be fact beyond
an doubt it is just a theory and you can either
believe that the theory is true or believe it is not
true, or you can believe that you do not know the
answer. Either way your position on the issue is
only a belief.
The above applies to both the evolutionist theory
and the creationist theory. The fact that the
evolutionist theory has so many flaws shows that
there is no evidence to prove it as fact.
A true scientist does not accept or promote a
theory as fact until it has been thoroughly proven,
the evolutionist theory has not been so proven.
One should always be very wary of linking any
teachings with all the people who are connected
with it - the teachings of the various churches are
not always upheld and carried out by the people
in power within the church; the same applies to
those within science. Many people, be they in
a church organisation or a scientific organisation,
believe in the power of authority and will happily
keep touting any statement from an authority figure
that they respect over any other proof or evidence
that may be available. That is why so many scientific
people refused to accept the explaination and the
existence of germs and bacteria for many years
after they were identified and explained; many
scientists kept insisting that a heavier than air
machine could never fly and some even accused
the Wright bros of conducting a hoax; and dont
forget the scientists that have fallen for the many
scientific hoaxes over the years either.
Many people are searching for the truths re the
origins of mankind and it is possible that some
day that truth may be generally known. Such
knowledge may then support the evolutionist
theory/belief or the creationist theory/belief or
the the theory and belief of those who believe
that humans were transplanted here. Until then
all of these are just personal beliefs in which is
the correct theory, and no more.
Deadly Ernest
(typographical errors deliberately included to test
the reader's skills - anyway - that's my excuse.)
Quite Normal
Man, so that's your mission here! You're a fundie xtian.
Why is it that the fundie xtians are always aligned to the xenophobic
rabid right?
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
news:MBXSe.7897$pm2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
since when has science on the subject of cross-species evolution overtaken
religion? in fact the worthless *theory* has undertaken cos there's less
proof for cross-species evolution now than at Darwin's time. The problem are
the Christian hating lefty teachers that promote it as 100% fact in the
classroom when in reality it's a flawed theory that more and more scientists
are dismissing. Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
Dr. Sunil
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
news:1125926002....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
the problem is the Christian hating lefty teachers promote it as 100%, it is
not taught simply as a theory. Tell 10 school kids about how the
Neanderthals were just deformed humans, how DNA couldn't possibly have
evolved and how the classic school room evolution chart of ape -> man is
total bullshit and you'll find how brainwashed they are by the lefty
scumbags - the typical frustrated response being "BUT there is something
which proves evolution is true, I just can't remember what it is". I don't
know of any other theory that so-called scientists are so obsessed with and
believe in so much soley on faith and are quite prepared to even use lies
and misinformation to promote as fact.
Harry the Horse
message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
> many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
it covers and answers everything, it explains the flaws in the theory of
cross species evolution, it probably has more popular support than
evolution, no lies or misinformation are involved.
Luther
>In message <sMWSe.185$dv4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>, Antimulticulture
><som...@somewhere.com> writes
>>People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by
>>solid evidence.
>
>Hilarious Christian projection. RH
When Jesus sat down that fateful day and wrote the Bible, he remembered the
fable about Jerry the Emasculator; that's why Jesus wrote the Bible in
American so that everone culd understand it an accept its facts over left
wing junk science and book learnin' mumbo jumbo.
Harry the Horse
>
> the problem is the Christian hating lefty teachers promote it as 100%, it
> is
> not taught simply as a theory.
>
imperialism and racism when it suited its agenda. The idea that evolution
is the left's hobby horse is farcical.
> Tell 10 school kids about how the
> Neanderthals were just deformed humans, how DNA couldn't possibly have
> evolved and how the classic school room evolution chart of ape -> man is
> total bullshit and you'll find how brainwashed they are by the lefty
> scumbags - the typical frustrated response being "BUT there is something
> which proves evolution is true, I just can't remember what it is".
>
So how many school children could cite the empirical evidence for Newton's
theory of gravitation? And no, the fact that things fall to the ground (*)
does not prove or disprove the inverse square law.
(*) not when you are in an aeroplane doing a loop-the-loop
> I don't
> know of any other theory that so-called scientists are so obsessed with
>
How many scientists do you know?
> and
> believe in so much soley on faith and are quite prepared to even use lies
> and misinformation to promote as fact.
>
What particular lies?
Harry the Horse
> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote
>> in
>> message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >
>> > Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
>> > many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>> >
>> Name them.
>
> it covers and answers everything,
>
explain anything.
> it explains the flaws in the theory of
> cross species evolution, it probably has more popular support than
> evolution,
>
Who cares? Science is not a popularity contest.
> no lies or misinformation are involved.
>
When defending their 'theory', creationists routinely misrepresent what a
scientific theory is.
TD
"Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
(appeal to numbers)
> no lies or misinformation are involved.
It has no scientific basis. That it is being promoted as science is
extremely dishonest.
mimus
> Why People Believe in Evolution
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
> by Wayne Jackson
> September 25, 2002
>
> People do not believe in evolution because they
> have been led there by solid evidence.
You mean solid evidence like the book of Genesis?
Moron.
--
Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
Liberalism = plutocracy + bureaucracy + hypocrisy
John Baker
<allbla...@political.correctness> wrote:
>"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
>> message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >
>> > Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
>> > many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>> >
>> Name them.
>
>it covers and answers everything,
Which no real scientific theory ever attempts or claims to do.
>it explains the flaws in the theory of
>cross species evolution,
It creates easily refuted strawmen that bear little resemblance to any
actual scientific claim and then makes a great show of "debunking"
them.
>it probably has more popular support than
>evolution,
Argumentum Ad Numeratum carries no weight in true science. The truth
of falsity of any proposition is not decided by the number of people
who believe (or don't believe) it.
>no lies or misinformation are involved.
Except that whopper you just now told, eh? <G>.
Do yourself a favor, Sparky. Learn some *real* science. ID is
bullshit. It's nothing more than spin-doctored creationism.
John Baker
Given the crap they try to pass off as science, I think it's more
likely that they honestly don't understand what a scientific theory
is.
>
James
> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>
>>"Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
>>message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
>>>many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>>>
>>
>>Name them.
>
>
> it covers and answers everything,
How so? What experiments have been done to prove it? What experiments
have been done that provide evidence for it, and what experiments can be
done in a high school science environment?
> it explains the flaws in the theory of
> cross species evolution
I believe it says "godditit." That is not an explanation.
> it probably has more popular support than
> evolution,
Now *that* is just plain funny. Virtually every scientist in the world
accepts evolution while ID can't get taken seriously anywhere other than
the American Bible Belt.
> no lies or misinformation are involved.
I'm not sure about lies, but most of the work I've seen encouraging ID
and insulting evo relies on a basis of absolutely no education in
biology. This includes such claims as evo trying and failing to explain
the origins of life (it does not), evo failing to provide a believable
explanation for the diversity of life (it most certainly does), and a
so-called "glass ceiling" between microevolution and macroevolution
(there is no such thing).
I must conclude, then, that there is a great degree of misinformation
involved.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
David Segall
>Why People Believe in Evolution
>http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
>by Wayne Jackson
>September 25, 2002
>Conclusion
>
>People do not believe in evolution because they
>have been led there by solid evidence. They are
>stampeded into the Darwinian community by
>superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They
>only delude themselves when they think otherwise.
I have no doubt that everyone would subscribe to a creationist theory
if only the proponents would agree on a few simple facts. How long, in
today's measurement of time, is a day as described in Genesis? Did God
create the fossils when he created the Earth? Of course, _you_ know
the answer but until all the other Christians agree with you the rest
of us are trapped in the "Darwinian community". There are even people
who claim to be devout Christians who are in it. Why can't those who
are not "deluded" and who know "the truth" present a single consistent
view?
DanielSan
> Such as?
>
Australopithecus? Darwin's Finches? Drosophila? Archaeopteryx?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
DanielSan
Except that "covers and answers everything" is lies and misinformation.
It is called "God in the Gap."
Virgil
"Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness>
Christian Creationism and IDiocy are not scientific theories. Science
can deal with evolutionary theory and accept it or reject if on the
physical evidence, but there is not, and cannot be, physical evidence
either for or against creationism or ID, so they are both scientifically
irrelevant.
To argue that either ought to be taught as a scientific theory is mere
propaganda for the teaching of particular religion in public schools.
Virgil
"Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness>
Neither Creationism nor ID offers any scientifically verifiable or
scientifically refutable explanation of anything.
Thus neither is scientifically relevant.
To support the teaching of such nonscience as science in the public
schools is propaganda to cover the forced teaching of particular
religion beliefs in the public schools.
Haximus
news:sMWSe.185$dv4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Why People Believe in Evolution
That item did a very good job of explaining why people believe in evolution
and still do!
One would have thought if the author was trying to debunk evolution, he
would at least try to identify one scientific assertion and give some valid
proof as to why it is wrong. If anything, the article reinforces evolution
because of his complete failure to debunk a single known fact.
The item should be renamed "Evolution is Incompatible with my Religious
Dogma and I just won't stand for it!"
Bob M
evolution" is that there is no independent verifiable evidence for the
alternative now obsolete "god theory of creation".
Bob M
AlanG
Dunno.
Didn't the Chief constable of Manchester used to get his instructions
from god?
Roger Dewhurst
"Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> news:MBXSe.7897$pm2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > "Ordog" <odbo...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1125925298.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> religion? in fact the worthless *theory* has undertaken cos there's less
> proof for cross-species evolution now than at Darwin's time.
What is this "cross species evolution" you write about? Species is simply a
convenient grouping, both in time and space, of animals or plants that
successfully interbreed though it includes some, such as horses/donkeys and
lions/tigers which will interbreed occasionally but which generally produce
sterile offspring.
The concept of species in time is hard for some to grasp because we cannot
know how far back in time the ancestral forms would have been capable of
interbreeding with modern forms. Could Cro Magnon man, if resurrected
today, be able to breed with a modern human? Who knows? Perhaps he could
but if we go back in time far enough the genetic differences which have
accumulated since that time will eventually preclude interbreeding.
The concept of species in space is somewaht easier to grasp. A good example
is provided by the distribution of the Lesser Black backed Gull and the
Herring Gull around the Arctic Circle. The two species do not interbreed
where they overlap geographically but nevertheless they form an
interbreeding series of hybrid birds areound the remaider of the Arctic
Circle.
R
Roger Dewhurst
"TD" <tdef...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfhtcf$9q4$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Why then is it almost universally accepted among natural scientists around
the world and the only opposition comes from religious fundamentalists and a
few people without training in natural science?
R
>
>
Tom P.
difficult to do. The next obvious question is: How was God created?
If man is such a complex creature that he could not have been
spontaneously or evolutionary created, How could such a complex being as
God come to be?
I have asked this question before and the answer is: He was always
there. In a universe with a beginning and an end, this is highly unlikely.
Darwinism has it's problems also, like the time evolution would need to
evolve from scum to human, but Darwinism is up for debate and a good
starting point.
Perhaps Creationism is something simplified so primative people would
have something they could understand.
Antimulticulture wrote:
> Why People Believe in Evolution
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
> by Wayne Jackson
> September 25, 2002
>
> People do not believe in evolution because they
> have been led there by solid evidence. They are
> stampeded into the Darwinian community by
> superficial, emotional, and personal factors.
> The most insidious and damaging ideology ever
> foisted upon the mind of modern man is the notion
> that human beings are but animals, and the
> offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It
> is known as the theory of organic evolution. This
> concept has been reflected in recent years in such
> volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal
> (1986), and in the earlier production, The Naked
> Ape (1967), (as man was characterized) by
> zoologist, Desmond Morris.
>
(*snip*)
>
> Conclusion
>
> People do not believe in evolution because they
> have been led there by solid evidence. They are
> stampeded into the Darwinian community by
> superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They
> only delude themselves when they think otherwise.
>
> --
> Jim
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
> Union Against Multi-culty
>
> "Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
>
>
>
>
Clough
wrote:
>Perhaps Creationism is something simplified so primative people would
>have something they could understand.
Primitive people and Americans.
Very much the same thing.
Clough
Roger_Nickel
> Why People Believe in Evolution
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
> by Wayne Jackson
> September 25, 2002
>
> People do not believe in evolution because they
> have been led there by solid evidence. They are
> stampeded into the Darwinian community by
> superficial, emotional, and personal factors.
> The most insidious and damaging ideology ever
> foisted upon the mind of modern man is the notion
> that human beings are but animals, and the
> offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It
> is known as the theory of organic evolution. This
> concept has been reflected in recent years in such
> volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal
> (1986), and in the earlier production, The Naked
> Ape (1967), (as man was characterized) by
> zoologist, Desmond Morris.
>
> have ingested, to a greater or lesser degree
> (sometimes even with a religious flavor), this
> nefarious dogma. But why? Have folks
> intellectually analyzed the matter, and thus, on
> the basis of solid evidence and argument, accepted
> this viewpoint. Not at all; rather, for a variety
> of emotional reasons, this concept is entertained
> so readily.
>
> In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book
> titled, The Truth: God or Evolution? In the
> opening section of this excellent volume, the
> authors listed several reasons why the
> evolutionary theory is embraced by so many. With
> credit to them for the germ thoughts, I would like
> to expand the discussion.
>
> Brainwashing
>
> Since the issuance of Charles Darwin’s, The Origin
> of Species (1859), there has been a massive
> campaign to flood the “intellectual market” with
> evolutionary propaganda. Though such ideas by no
> means originated with Darwin, he popularized
> evolution more than anyone else. His book sold out
> (1,025 copies) the first day of its release.
>
> Another significant milestone was the famous
> Scopes Trial, conducted in Dayton, Tennessee in
> July of 1925. Twenty-four year old John Thomas
> Scopes, a high school science teacher, had agreed
> to violate Tennessee’s Butler law, which forbade
> the teaching of any theory that holds man has
> descended from a lower form of life. The entire
> affair was “rigged,” but it brought together
> William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic
> nominee for president), who volunteered to
> represent the state, and the famed criminal
> defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended
> Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast
> on radio, brought national attention to the issue
> of creation vs. evolution. As a result of that
> encounter, the concept of creationism was cast
> into an unfavorable light, and evolutionary dogma
> gained considerable respectability, albeit undeserved.
>
> From that time, however, the theory of evolution
> has accelerated in influence via the media and the
> public school system. Today, there exists a
> determined campaign for the indoctrination of
> evolution, and millions have absorbed it into
> their minds.
>
> Intimidation
>
> Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the
> impact of intimidation. Supposedly, evolutionary
> doctrine has the endorsement of “science.” In
> 1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist,
> circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists.
> It asserted that evolution is a “scientific law”
> which is as firmly established as the rotundity of
> the earth.
>
> Since most folks want to be thought of as
> “educated,” and as they have been led to believe
> that “all educated people believe in evolution,”
> they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of
> these individuals could not cite a solitary
> argument in defense of evolution; they simply
> believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”
>
> Informed people should know the following:
>
> Evolution is not a scientific law. It is a mere
> hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the
> scientific method (observation, experimentation,
> and verification).
>
> There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of
> thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict
> evolutionary assertions.
>
> Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is
> true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for
> example, has conceded that belief in the
> accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,”
> much, he says, like faith in the power of a
> Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York:
> Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).
> Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with
> the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:
>
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
> is a fact of life are great con men, and the story
> they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In
> explaining evolution we do not have one iota of
> fact ... It is a tangled mishmash of guessing
> games and figure jaggling ... If evolution
> occurred at all, it was probably in a very
> different manner than the way it is now taught”
> (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).
> It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the
> pressures of evolutionary brow-beating. We ought
> not to be cowed down; we should be more
> aggressive, demanding that those who affirm their
> confidence in evolution argue their case logically.
>
> Religious Confusion
>
> Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology
> because they are repelled by the confused (and
> sometimes cruel) state of the religious world.
> Religionists have sacrificed their own children in
> the name of “gods” (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far
> East the cobra is worshipped as deity.
> “Christians” (so-called) have warred with the
> devotees of Islam.
>
> Catholics allege that the bread and wine of “the
> Eucharist” magically turn into the body and blood
> of Jesus, while Protestants insist that such does
> not occur. Some contend that “baptism” is
> administered only by immersion, while others
> allege that “sprinkling” or “aspersion” will
> suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it
> takes all three “modes” to constitute the “one
> baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible
> Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).
>
> This disunity has driven many to disenchantment
> with religion in general, which includes a
> rebellion against divine revelation. This, of
> course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He
> admonished those who professed a loyalty to him to
> be “one,” that “the world might believe” (Jn.
> 17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity
> would produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.
>
> But people need to realize that a departure from
> the original does not negate the genuineness of
> the original. The segmented status of
> “religiondom” does not authenticate evolution. The
> fact of the matter is, the evolutionists are as
> divided as the religionists.
>
> For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of
> DNA, contended that biological life evolved here
> on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle has
> argued that “spontaneous generation” occurred in
> outer space! Some Darwinians speculate that the
> evolutionary process has occurred quite gradually,
> over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the
> lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
> Others (e.g., Richard Goldschmidt, and more
> recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest that
> evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.
>
> There is wholesale disagreement among the
> advocates of evolution. Those, therefore, who have
> fled from religion because of its disunity, have
> found no haven in Darwinism.
>
> A World of Disorder
>
> Many feel that our world environment, which is so
> characterized by brutality and suffering, is more
> consistent with Darwin’s tooth-and-claw,
> “survival-of-the-fittest,” principle, than it is
> with the notion that the earth is tended by a
> benevolent God. There might be some leverage in
> this argument if there were no other rational
> explanation for the ills of this globe.
>
> But the fact is, a compelling case can be made for
> the proposition that life’s tragedies are the
> result of man’s rebellion against his Creator; and
> negative consequences have been allowed to follow
> as an educational process on behalf of the human
> family. In our recently published book, The Bible
> and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter
> chronicling some of the values of human affliction.
>
> But here is another matter for consideration.
> While the believer has some basis for explaining
> the presence of “evil” in a fashion that is
> consistent with the existence of a powerful and
> benevolent God, the evolutionist has no reasonable
> explanation as to why there is a human sensitivity
> within man that judges some things to be “evil”
> and others “good.” How can a package of mere
> “matter,” which, according to atheism, is the sum
> of man, arrive at a rational, moral judgment
> concerning this phenomenon called “evil”? The
> problem of “evil” is more challenging for the
> evolutionist than for the creationist.
>
> Tangible Evidence
>
> Many folks are impressed with the evolutionary
> case because it is buttressed, they believe, with
> tangible evidence, whereas religion seems to
> partake of a dreamy, surreal environment. After
> all, scientists have “fossils” to prove their
> case, don’t they?
>
> This argument is exceptionally deceptive for the
> following reasons:
>
> All of the fossils ever collected represent less
> than 1% of the potential evidence, according to
> David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum (Museum
> Bulletin, Jan., 1979, p. 50).
>
> Not a single fossil has ever been discovered that
> clearly demonstrates a link between basic organism
> “kinds.”
>
> All fossil evidence is subject to interpretation;
> and even evolutionists dispute the data.
> For example, when Donald Johanson and his
> colleagues discovered the few bone fragments they
> dubbed “Lucy,” back in 1974, they alleged that
> this little creature walked on two legs, and was
> on-the-way to becoming human. Numerous
> evolutionists, however, seriously disputed this.
> We discussed this matter in considerable detail in
> the October, 1986 issue of the printed Christian
> Courier.
>
> But Bible believers are not without “tangible”
> evidence in the defense of their case. Numerous
> archaeological discoveries have been made which
> support the historicity of the Scriptures (see our
> book, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology.
>
> If, then, a general case can be made for the
> factual correctness of the Bible, one may
> reasonably conclude that its affirmations
> regarding the origin of humanity are correct as well.
>
> Escape from Responsibility
>
> Another reason why many so readily accept
> evolution as the explanation for mankind, is that
> such allows them to “cut loose” from God, and
> hence to be free from moral and religious
> obligations. They thus can become their own
> “gods,” and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins
> says that “Darwin made it possible to be an
> intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind
> Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 6).
>
> This viewpoint was vividly illustrated some years
> ago when Clarence Darrow spoke to the inmates of
> the Cook County jail in Chicago. Hear him.
>
> “I do not believe there is any sort of distinction
> between the real moral conditions of the people in
> and out of jail. One is just as good as the other.
> The people here can no more help being here than
> the people outside can avoid being outside. I do
> not believe that people are in jail because they
> deserve to be. They are in jail simply because
> they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances
> which are entirely beyond their control and for
> which they are in no way responsible” (Arthur
> Weinberg, Attorney For The Damned, New York: Simon
> & Schuster, 1957, pp. 3-4; emp. WJ).
> This shocking statement reveals the motive of some
> evolutionists.
>
> Conclusion
>
> People do not believe in evolution because they
> have been led there by solid evidence. They are
> stampeded into the Darwinian community by
> superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They
> only delude themselves when they think otherwise.
>
> --
> Jim
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
> Union Against Multi-culty
>
> "Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
>
>
>
>
solid evidence to that belief or not?. Talk about begging the
question!.
John Baker
The OP was talking about ID having no scientific basis, not
evolutionary theory. <G>
>
>R
>>
>>
>
fritz
Diversity Isn't A Codeword wrote ...
Hey !
How does 'Intelligent Design' explain the human appendix ?
(Maybe we have descended from a species that needed one, eh?)
Or the way hip joints seem to fail first when we get older ?
(Maybe we have descended from a species that walked differently, eh?)
Or congenital deformities, malaria, cancer, the Ebola virus, influenza,
the common cold, etc. etc. etc.
The Lord God made them all !!!!!
'Intelligent design covers everything.' Yeah, if you are a fruitcake.
fritz
Ordog wrote ...
> Antimulticulture wrote:
> > Why People Believe in Evolution
<crap snipped>
> Antimulty-brainfart is not only a total political idiot but is also a
> religious fundy who is posting creationist and similar crap to
> political NGs!
> This brain-dead article is not even worth the bandwith and the effort
> needed to refute with scietific arguments.
>
> Antimulty, great contribution! Now crawl back to the stone age and stay
> there!
Antimulticulture posts this sort of bullshit and then runs under the bed
and hides. Either that or he is a troll.
> Ordog
> "Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
>
fritz
Ernest wrote ...
<snip>
> Until a theory has been proven to be fact beyond
> an doubt it is just a theory and you can either
> believe that the theory is true or believe it is not
> true, or you can believe that you do not know the
> answer. Either way your position on the issue is
> only a belief.
That is just armchair philosophical bullshit.
You don't understand science at all.
Theories are never 'facts' or 'true' in science,
the most successful theories are just the best attempts
so far to understand the underlying rules of the
game of nature so far.
> The above applies to both the evolutionist theory
> and the creationist theory. The fact that the
> evolutionist theory has so many flaws shows that
> there is no evidence to prove it as fact.
>
> A true scientist does not accept or promote a
> theory as fact until it has been thoroughly proven,
> the evolutionist theory has not been so proven.
The term 'fact' is really only appropriate for
events that have occurred in the past.
It does not apply to theories.
> One should always be very wary of linking any
> teachings with all the people who are connected
> with it - the teachings of the various churches are
> not always upheld and carried out by the people
> in power within the church; the same applies to
> those within science. Many people, be they in
> a church organisation or a scientific organisation,
> believe in the power of authority and will happily
> keep touting any statement from an authority figure
> that they respect over any other proof or evidence
> that may be available. That is why so many scientific
> people refused to accept the explaination and the
> existence of germs and bacteria for many years
> after they were identified and explained; many
> scientists kept insisting that a heavier than air
> machine could never fly and some even accused
> the Wright bros of conducting a hoax; and dont
> forget the scientists that have fallen for the many
> scientific hoaxes over the years either.
You are talking about science in the early days
when many 'scientists' held religious beliefs over
rational thought.
That is why the scientific method was devised.
Observation, reason and experiment.
There is no room for the 'authority figure' anymore.
By the way, please cite just one of the 'many scientists
who insisted that heavier than air machines could never fly',
and what area of science he actually worked in.
I think you are just bullshitting, and cannot name even one.
The principle that allows heavier-than-air machines
to fly was published by Daniel Benoulli in 1738, any
scientist aware of Benoulli's work would not have
accused the Wright brothers.
> Many people are searching for the truths re the
> origins of mankind and it is possible that some
> day that truth may be generally known. Such
> knowledge may then support the evolutionist
> theory/belief or the creationist theory/belief or
> the the theory and belief of those who believe
> that humans were transplanted here. Until then
> all of these are just personal beliefs in which is
> the correct theory, and no more.
Short of the second coming (snigger) of Christ,
I fail to see how 'intelligent design' will ever
be preferred over a far more rational theory.
>
>
> Deadly Ernest
> (typographical errors deliberately included to test
> the reader's skills - anyway - that's my excuse.)
Quite Normal
Hey yeah. And president Bush says godot told him to invade Iraq.
--
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
Paul Hyett
wrote :
>Why People Believe in Evolution
>
>People do not believe in evolution because they
>have been led there by solid evidence. They are
>stampeded into the Darwinian community by
>superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They
>only delude themselves when they think otherwise.
Well, given the utter absurdity of the religious alternative, the Theory
of Evolution is very much the lesser of two evils.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
TD
Magwitch
> "Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MBXSe.7897$pm2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "Ordog" <odbo...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125925298.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Antimulticulture wrote:
>>>> Why People Believe in Evolution
>>> Because it fits the scientific observations!
>>
>> Thank you. Although science is about truth, much of the science we
>> teach/learn is the closest we think we've got to the truth so far. Science
>> isn't anti-religion, it just so happens that science continually overtakes
>> religion. Religion is unscientific and has no place in our science
>> teaching/learning.
>
> since when has science on the subject of cross-species evolution overtaken
> religion? in fact the worthless *theory* has undertaken cos there's less
> proof for cross-species evolution now than at Darwin's time. The problem are
> the Christian hating lefty teachers that promote it as 100% fact in the
> classroom when in reality it's a flawed theory that more and more scientists
> are dismissing. Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
> many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>
Q. So where's the Intelligent Design (peer reviewed) research published?
A. Nowhere. It doesn't exist.
For example, say teachers have a choice between teaching Theory A
(Evolution) and Theory B (ID) to explain natural phenomena. Teaching Theory
A would involve collecting fossils, data etc. assembling a collection of
real evidence. Whereas Theory B would involve a complete cinematic record of
God's behaviour on the day he went to work on say, mammalian ear bones.
Where's this divine videotape? The first few paragraphs of Genesis don't
exactly cut the mustard.
Magwitch
> "Mike Eisler" <spami...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125926002....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Antimulticulture wrote:
>>> Why People Believe in Evolution
>>> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
>>> by Wayne Jackson
>>> September 25, 2002
>>>
>>> People do not believe in evolution because they
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> "believe"?
>>
>> Evolution is a scientific theory. One doesn't believe in
>> theories. If there are indeed people who believe in evolution the
>> way some people believe in religion then they are possibibly
>> going to be as disappointed in the people who believed in 1973 that
>> Jupiter has just 12 satellites. Science is about
>> seeking natural explanations for what we observe, and those
>> explanations have historically been very imperfect initially
>> (e.g. the Ptolemic and Copernican theories of the solar system, that
>> eventually fell to Kepler's theory, which has since been tweaked by
>> Einstein's theory).
>>
>> The Darwinian theory of evolution is the first theory to address
>> the observation of that we have many different species today.
>> It would be foolish to think that the theory won't be modified,
>> or even replaced. But it is the best explanation today for a natural
>> process
>> that produced species we observe today, and the extinct species we have
>> fossil and historical records for.
>>
>> If evolution has flaws, using those flaws as a justification to
>> replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design makes as much sense
>> as replacing the Copernican theory with Church Teachings because
>> Copernicus' circular orbit theory didn't quite match observations.
>> If we believed Church Teachings over Copernicus, we'd have never moved
>> on to Kepler's ideas, and so we'd have never have mastered the
>> technology
>> for sending Pioneer probes to Jupiter and discovering that it had
>> more than 12 satellites.
>
> the problem is the Christian hating lefty teachers promote it as 100%, it is
> not taught simply as a theory. Tell 10 school kids about how the
> Neanderthals were just deformed humans, how DNA couldn't possibly have
> evolved and how the classic school room evolution chart of ape -> man is
> total bullshit and you'll find how brainwashed they are by the lefty
> scumbags - the typical frustrated response being "BUT there is something
> which proves evolution is true, I just can't remember what it is". I don't
> know of any other theory that so-called scientists are so obsessed with and
> believe in so much soley on faith and are quite prepared to even use lies
> and misinformation to promote as fact.
>
It's called DNA.
In a human cell, 96% percent of it is identical to that of a chimpanzee, but
in your case, 99.9%.
WeAteAllThePies
> "Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MBXSe.7897$pm2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "Ordog" <odbo...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125925298.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Why People Believe in Evolution
>>
>> Thank you. Although science is about truth, much of the science we
>> teach/learn is the closest we think we've got to the truth so far.
>> Science isn't anti-religion, it just so happens that science
>> continually overtakes religion. Religion is unscientific and has no
>> place in our science teaching/learning.
>
> since when has science on the subject of cross-species evolution
> overtaken religion? in fact the worthless *theory* has undertaken cos
> there's less proof for cross-species evolution now than at Darwin's
> promote it as 100% fact in the classroom when in reality it's a
> flawed theory that more and more scientists are dismissing.
> Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as many
> merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
No, creationism is merley a hypothesis.
Evolution is a theory.
There is a world of difference. Look it up.
Pie Muncher
Timmy Flame
> I don't
>> know of any other theory that so-called scientists are so obsessed with
>> and believe in so much soley on faith and are quite prepared to even use
>> lies and misinformation to promote as fact.
>>
>It's called DNA.
>
Watch for him to reply that DNA wasn't mentioned in the Bible, so how could
it exist? :)
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
> message news:ds_Se.792$2n6...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
> >> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote
> >> in
> >> message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> >
> >> > many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
> >> >
> >
> > it covers and answers everything,
> >
> explain anything.
God is eternal, like I said God existing explains everything.
> > it explains the flaws in the theory of
> > cross species evolution, it probably has more popular support than
> > evolution,
> >
> Who cares? Science is not a popularity contest.
it is in the case of cross-species evolution, otherwise such a preposterous
flawed theory wouldn't be taught as fact so much.
> > no lies or misinformation are involved.
> >
> When defending their 'theory', creationists routinely misrepresent what a
> scientific theory is.
same goes for the evolutionists.
mimus
> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pD_Se.216157$kM5....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
>> message news:ds_Se.792$2n6...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>>>> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote
>>>> in
>>>> message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> >
>>>> > Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
>>>> > many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>>>> >
>>>> Name them.
>>>
>>> it covers and answers everything,
>>>
>> Who created the creator? Shuffling the problem down the line doesn't
>> explain anything.
>
> God is eternal, like I said God existing explains everything.
Why not just assume the Universe is eternal, which would equally explain
everything?
--
Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
Liberalism = plutocracy + bureaucracy + hypocrisy
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
news:BF432FF7.1BAA2%Magwitch@b.c...
I think you're confusing me with your dead mother.
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
news:kk7ej3fej26y.15...@40tude.net...
invent a time machine, go back and tell Darwin and I'm sure we'd be hearing
that in classrooms today.
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
> >
> > the problem is the Christian hating lefty teachers promote it as 100%,
it
> > is
> > not taught simply as a theory.
> >
> imperialism and racism when it suited its agenda. The idea that evolution
> is the left's hobby horse is farcical.
so what, the right don't teach it as 100% fact in classrooms to our kids,
like the lefty Christian hating evolutionists do, you maroon.
> > Tell 10 school kids about how the
> > Neanderthals were just deformed humans, how DNA couldn't possibly have
> > evolved and how the classic school room evolution chart of ape -> man is
> > total bullshit and you'll find how brainwashed they are by the lefty
> > scumbags - the typical frustrated response being "BUT there is something
> > which proves evolution is true, I just can't remember what it is".
> >
> So how many school children could cite the empirical evidence for Newton's
> theory of gravitation? And no, the fact that things fall to the ground
(*)
> does not prove or disprove the inverse square law.
I don't know of any other hugely popular opposing theory which could be
considered otherwise. But I'm glad you agree with me that evolution is
taught as 100% fact by the lying lefty scumbag teachers in our schools, even
though it *IS* nothing more than a theory, full of holes (of course the
holes are NEVER mentioned in schools).
> (*) not when you are in an aeroplane doing a loop-the-loop
>
> > I don't
> > know of any other theory that so-called scientists are so obsessed with
> >
> How many scientists do you know?
several more than you.
> > and
> > believe in so much soley on faith and are quite prepared to even use
lies
> > and misinformation to promote as fact.
> >
> What particular lies?
the chart showing monkey becoming man, my fave though was Piltdown Man! HE
WAS 100% PROOF!!! OOOPPS! HAHAHAHH!
John Baker
I don't know that I'd give it even that much credit.
mimus
> the chart showing monkey becoming man, my fave though was Piltdown Man! HE
> WAS 100% PROOF!!! OOOPPS! HAHAHAHH!
My fave's the assertions that the book of Genesis proves the existence of
God and God's creation of the Universe.
It's not that the original conceivers, writers and believers in Genesis
were reprehensibly wrong, since that is an early attempt at understanding
the world, and understandably (considering it was, what? about three
thousand years before, say, Boole?) wrong.
What is amazing is how three thousand or so years later we can still have
savages demanding that that nonsense be imposed by law upon us, and that
children be punished, if only by bad grades, for not parroting it.
Clough
<allbla...@political.correctness> wrote:
>I don't know of any other hugely popular opposing theory which could be
>considered otherwise. But I'm glad you agree with me that evolution is
>taught as 100% fact by the lying lefty scumbag teachers in our schools, even
>though it *IS* nothing more than a theory, full of holes (of course the
>holes are NEVER mentioned in schools).
Evolution is a fact. Dawins Theory of Evolution is just that. A theory
to explain the fact of evolution. So far it is the best theory there
is.
If you think that Intelligent Design is a better theory, explain why.
Tell us the mechanisms involved in species development and change over
time. How did biological diversity arise?
Put some substance where at present you ony have hot air.
Tell us how intelligent design explains the way the world and the
creatures that inhabit it arose and developed.
Darwin did it as best he could, and so far no-one has bettered him.
You have a go and we'll see how good your theory is.
Clough
Clough
<allbla...@political.correctness> wrote:
>I think you're confusing me with your dead mother.
He couldn't do that. His dead mother is far brighter than you.
Clough
Michael Voytinsky
> the problem is the Christian hating lefty teachers promote it as 100%, it is
> not taught simply as a theory
You haven't stayed in school long enough to take high school biology,
have you?
WeAteAllThePies
I would tend to agree but my main point is that most people arguing against
science misuse the term 'theory' completely.
>>
>> Evolution is a theory.
>>
>> There is a world of difference. Look it up.
>>
>> Pie Muncher
--
Pie Muncher
Craig Pennington
> Diversity Isn't A Codeword wrote ...
>> covers and answers everything, it explains the flaws in the theory of
>> cross species evolution, it probably has more popular support than
>> evolution, no lies or misinformation are involved.
> Hey !
> How does 'Intelligent Design' explain the human appendix ?
The same way ID 'explains' everything -- God^H^H^HAn unnamed
intelligent designer just magicked it that way. Works in mysterious
ways, so there's certainly a good reason mine got all infected and had
to be cut from my gut a few months back. ID answers every question
one might care to ask just as helpfully.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
Kapsool Seo
man to piece together his own answers. Creatures were ment to adapt to the
world. Evolution is simply a term that some man made up. Adaptation on the
other hand, is not a Theory or a non-proven fact. Adaptation happens and
occurs all the time. Until Evolution is a proven Fact and called the 'Law of
Evolution' and not 'THEORY of Evolution", people don't and shouldn't accept
the Theory. It's honestly retarded. Seriously just because pigs have some
hair, and similar organs as a man, does that mean we might have evolved from
a pig? I can hardly consider a Gorilla or Ape to be my half-blood brother.
In otherwords, there is no Choice between 2 Theorys. There is no choice.
Just 1 theory and 1 fact. We never evolved, we Adapted. Throught out history
man Adapted. Adaptation can hardly be called 'Evolution'. Evolution involves
the complete transformation from one creature to a whole new one. If so, why
does man still have Eyebrows? Hair? Fingernails? Wisdom Teeth? Apendex? We
don't need them and thus after so many years of being on the earth, why
haven't we evolved out of them? Simple. There is no evolution.We see fossils
that show small fragments of what MIGHT be evolution but again, those aren't
real facts, just simple showings of animals that have similar bone
structures. Also, there is no hating teachers that promote 100% fact in the
classroom. Infact people support 100% fact. People don't support 100%
unproven ideas.
What then do people believe? Well just like Darwin, people believe in thier
beliefs and ideas. So, the scientific observers will continue to try to
observe the world and say that people are evolving to the next generations
of apes, and Christians will continue to laugh and support thier believe in
thier Creator. Again seeing a single celled organisim change and adapt to
surroundings is not Evolution. It's called Adaptation. If thats the case,
then man going to space should be called Evolution , but it's not. It's man
Adapting to the world and using that method to launch into space.
As to my personal choice between the 2, I choose the mustard of Genisis.
Because it makes more sense that a divne being created us then to believe
that our galaxy formed and made Evolving creatures on one planet called
earth, which just happens 'scientifically' to be perfect to support life at
just the right axial degrees. We all believe what we will and support the
ideas that we believe in, but overall, ALL people do NOT believe in
Evolution. An it doesn't fit in Scientific observations, because if it did,
then we should also consider the rat, pigs, birds as our evolutionary
grandparents and not just the apes.
"Magwitch" <Magwitch@b.c> wrote in message
news:BF432D87.1BAA1%Magwitch@b.c...
maff
Isn't bearing false witness a sin in your religion?
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/White/
Andrew Dickson White
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Andrew%20Dickson%20White%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Andrew+Dickson+White%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Andrew+Dickson+White%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
John William Draper
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e9bb83a65649d8a5
_The Creationists_ by Ronald L. Numbers
"The best young-earthers can do in response to this book is to call the
author an "apostate" (just see their materials, full of name-calling
and the like). Do most Christians realize that young-earthism traces
its history to cults like Seventh-day Adventists and New Age beliefs
(i.e., no death of life before adam)? Let's rid YEC psuedoscience from
Christianity."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520083938/
_Science and Earth History : The Evolution/Creation Controversy_ by
Arthur N. Strahler
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879754141/
_Scientists Confront Creationism_ by Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393301540/
_God's Own Scientists : Creationists in a Secular World_ by Christopher
P. Toumey
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813520444/
_Summer for the Gods : The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate
over Science and Religion_ by Edward J. Larson (Preface)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674854292/
_Fundamentalism and American Culture_ by George M. Marsden
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195030834/
_Creationist Movement in Modern America (Social Movements Past and
Present Series)_ by Raymond A. Eve, Francis B. Harrold
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805797416/
_Tower of Babel : The Evidence Against the New Creationism_ by Robert
T. Pennock
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/026216180X/
_Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between
God and Evolution_ by Kenneth R. Miller
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060175931/
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in public
school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the dissenting
opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the amicus curiae
brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution
also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared
ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil,
anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a
fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause
evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution
is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Science in Simple Steps
http://snipurl.com/bmxd
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers - Paperback -
288 pages 3rd edition (July 1999) Open Univ Pr; ISBN: 0335201091
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0335201091/
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520206894/
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Glenn Morton's Creation/Evolution Page
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
Statements from Educational Organizations
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9438_statements_from_educational_o_8_8_2003.asp
Statements from Religious Organizations
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1028_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp
Table Of Contents:
American Jewish Congress
American Scientific Affiliation
Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
Central Conference Of American Rabbis
Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002) *
The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
The Lutheran World Federation
Roman Catholic Church (1981)
Roman Catholic Church (1996) *
Unitarian Universalist Association (1977)
Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)
United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
United Methodist Church
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982)
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1983)
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/344_statements_from_scientific_an_12_19_2002.asp
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the
stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he
holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive
and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in
Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing
situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and
laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
[...]
Harry The Horse
> kids, like the lefty Christian hating evolutionists do, you maroon.
>
intelligent. Few of them post here, however. If you can *anyone* in a UK
school who teaches 'creation science' (sic) who is not a god bothering hick,
I'll buy you a cigar.
>>>
>> So how many school children could cite the empirical evidence for
>> Newton's theory of gravitation? And no, the fact that things fall
>> to the ground (*) does not prove or disprove the inverse square law.
>
> I don't know of any other hugely popular opposing theory which could
> be considered otherwise.
>
There isn't any other hugely popular opposing theory to evolution.
> But I'm glad you agree with me that
> evolution is taught as 100% fact by the lying lefty scumbag teachers
> in our schools, even though it *IS* nothing more than a theory, full
> of holes (of course the holes are NEVER mentioned in schools).
>
No I said it was unlikely that many children could cite the empirical
evidence for law of gravitation. To follow your own tortuous logic this
must mean that teachers are 'brainwashing' children about gravitation as
well.
>> How many scientists do you know?
>
> several more than you.
>
How do you know? I haven't said how many I know. Have you left school yet
Diversity? Sometimes your mode of argument is rather immature.
>>> and
>>> believe in so much soley on faith and are quite prepared to even
>>> use lies and misinformation to promote as fact.
>>>
>> What particular lies?
>
> the chart showing monkey becoming man, my fave though was Piltdown
> Man! HE WAS 100% PROOF!!! OOOPPS!
>
No, that was a fraud.
Harry The Horse
>
> God is eternal, like I said God existing explains everything.
>
anything is going to be a load of old willy.
Ordog
Is it not stange that the less people actually know about science (i.e.
they are completely illiterate even at basic high school level science)
the more fanatically they defend supernatural explanations to the
observed natural world.
Well the choice is yours, DIAC! Give up on science and rely on flying
carpets, teleportation, alchemists and witch doctors or join us in the
twentyfirts century civilisation!
fritz
Kapsool Seo wrote ...
> I believe in Adaptation and not evolution. Evolution is a theory made by one
> man to piece together his own answers.
Darwin didn't really push evolution in Origin of Species, he was explaining
natural selection. The word evolution only appears on three pages.
> Creatures were ment to adapt to the
> world. Evolution is simply a term that some man made up. Adaptation on the
> other hand, is not a Theory or a non-proven fact. Adaptation happens and
> occurs all the time.
True, but if an adaptation is passed on to the next generation then it is
by definition evolution.
> Until Evolution is a proven Fact and called the 'Law of
> Evolution' and not 'THEORY of Evolution", people don't and shouldn't accept
> the Theory. It's honestly retarded.
Not as retarded as the ridiculous psuedo-theory called 'intelligent design'.
> Seriously just because pigs have some
> hair, and similar organs as a man, does that mean we might have evolved from
> a pig? I can hardly consider a Gorilla or Ape to be my half-blood brother.
> In otherwords, there is no Choice between 2 Theorys. There is no choice.
You are seriously ignorant, a bit stupid in fact.
You may as well say pigs evolved from humans, that is the puerile level of
your argument.
> Just 1 theory and 1 fact. We never evolved, we Adapted. Throught out history
> man Adapted. Adaptation can hardly be called 'Evolution'. Evolution involves
> the complete transformation from one creature to a whole new one. If so, why
> does man still have Eyebrows? Hair? Fingernails? Wisdom Teeth? Apendex? We
> don't need them and thus after so many years of being on the earth, why
> haven't we evolved out of them? Simple. There is no evolution.
The appendix is a vestigial organ, that means it no longer does anything but
it did sometime in the past.
How do you explain that all proteins use L-alanine exclusively ?
Why should all living creatures use only the left-handed amino acid ?
Surely that indicates that all living creatures descended from the same
original organism.
>We see fossils
> that show small fragments of what MIGHT be evolution but again, those aren't
> real facts, just simple showings of animals that have similar bone
> structures. Also, there is no hating teachers that promote 100% fact in the
> classroom. Infact people support 100% fact. People don't support 100%
> unproven ideas.
>
> What then do people believe? Well just like Darwin, people believe in thier
> beliefs and ideas. So, the scientific observers will continue to try to
> observe the world and say that people are evolving to the next generations
> of apes, and Christians will continue to laugh and support thier believe in
> thier Creator. Again seeing a single celled organisim change and adapt to
> surroundings is not Evolution. It's called Adaptation. If thats the case,
> then man going to space should be called Evolution , but it's not. It's man
> Adapting to the world and using that method to launch into space.
>
> As to my personal choice between the 2, I choose the mustard of Genisis.
Do you really believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old ?
Do you really believe that Noah built an ark that saved every creature
from a world-wide flood ?
Yes or no.
Ernest
>
>Ernest wrote ...
><snip>
>> Until a theory has been proven to be fact beyond
>> an doubt it is just a theory and you can either
>> believe that the theory is true or believe it is not
>> true, or you can believe that you do not know the
>> answer. Either way your position on the issue is
>> only a belief.
>
>That is just armchair philosophical bullshit.
>You don't understand science at all.
>Theories are never 'facts' or 'true' in science,
>the most successful theories are just the best attempts
>so far to understand the underlying rules of the
>game of nature so far.
>
Then people who support them should not push them
as proven facts and insist that they have the only
possible correct answer. Many theories have been
proven in the past and moved from theory to factual
knowledge - this particular theory has not done that
yet most of its supporters push it as if it has.
>
>> The above applies to both the evolutionist theory
>> and the creationist theory. The fact that the
>> evolutionist theory has so many flaws shows that
>> there is no evidence to prove it as fact.
>>
>> A true scientist does not accept or promote a
>> theory as fact until it has been thoroughly proven,
>> the evolutionist theory has not been so proven.
>
>The term 'fact' is really only appropriate for
>events that have occurred in the past.
>It does not apply to theories.
>
>> One should always be very wary of linking any
>> teachings with all the people who are connected
>> with it - the teachings of the various churches are
>> not always upheld and carried out by the people
>> in power within the church; the same applies to
>> those within science. Many people, be they in
>> a church organisation or a scientific organisation,
>> believe in the power of authority and will happily
>> keep touting any statement from an authority figure
>> that they respect over any other proof or evidence
>> that may be available. That is why so many scientific
>> people refused to accept the explaination and the
>> existence of germs and bacteria for many years
>> after they were identified and explained; many
>> scientists kept insisting that a heavier than air
>> machine could never fly and some even accused
>> the Wright bros of conducting a hoax; and dont
>> forget the scientists that have fallen for the many
>> scientific hoaxes over the years either.
>
>You are talking about science in the early days
>when many 'scientists' held religious beliefs over
>rational thought.
>That is why the scientific method was devised.
>Observation, reason and experiment.
>There is no room for the 'authority figure' anymore.
>
Yet we still have many scientists today who accept
the statements of authority figures of the past and
present and proclaim them as fact without proper
checking - it is only human nature.
>By the way, please cite just one of the 'many scientists
>who insisted that heavier than air machines could never fly',
>and what area of science he actually worked in.
>I think you are just bullshitting, and cannot name even one.
>The principle that allows heavier-than-air machines
>to fly was published by Daniel Benoulli in 1738, any
>scientist aware of Benoulli's work would not have
>accused the Wright brothers.
>
Next time I am near a major newspaper or library I
will look up the century old newspapers and list
the articles for you. In those early days every time
someone tried to fly a heavier than air machine and
failled the newspapers were full of articles by noted
scientists of the time proving, scientifically, why it
would not work and never would. I have seen some
TV specials on the early days of flight where they
showed and quoted many such articles by famous
scientists of that time. It was the lack of support by
the general scientific community that allowed so many
amateaur enthusiasts to be involved.
>
>
>> Many people are searching for the truths re the
>> origins of mankind and it is possible that some
>> day that truth may be generally known. Such
>> knowledge may then support the evolutionist
>> theory/belief or the creationist theory/belief or
>> the the theory and belief of those who believe
>> that humans were transplanted here. Until then
>> all of these are just personal beliefs in which is
>> the correct theory, and no more.
>
>Short of the second coming (snigger) of Christ,
>I fail to see how 'intelligent design' will ever
>be preferred over a far more rational theory.
>
You may be correct - however, if you go back to my
original and subsequent posts you will find that I have
not stated that intelligent design has been proven
either. My position is that whilst it is only a theory the
proponents of either arguement have no right to
demand that only their theory be presented, nor
should they present their theory as factual evidence
without the full support of such.
>
>>
>>
>> Deadly Ernest
>> (typographical errors deliberately included to test
>> the reader's skills - anyway - that's my excuse.)
>
Deadly Ernest
(typographical errors deliberately included to test
the reader's skills - anyway - that's my excuse.)
Matt Silberstein
<kap...@sbcglobal.net> in
<eAnTe.345$Xq6...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> wrote:
>I believe in Adaptation and not evolution. Evolution is a theory made by one
>man to piece together his own answers.
The theory of evolution, as it stands today, has been crafted by
thousands of researchers and theoreticians. It provides answers just
like other scientific theories.
> Creatures were ment to adapt to the
>world. Evolution is simply a term that some man made up.
All words are terms man made up.
>Adaptation on the
>other hand, is not a Theory or a non-proven fact. Adaptation happens and
>occurs all the time.
What is the difference between "Adaption" and "evolution"?
>Until Evolution is a proven Fact and called the 'Law of
>Evolution' and not 'THEORY of Evolution", people don't and shouldn't accept
>the Theory.
The theory (well, theories, actually) of relativity will remain
theories forever, they will never become facts. The theory of
thermodynamics will always be a theory, never a fact. That is how
science works. Facts are observed (not proven), theories explain those
facts.
>It's honestly retarded. Seriously just because pigs have some
>hair, and similar organs as a man, does that mean we might have evolved from
>a pig?
I agree. Humans and pigs evolved from a common ancestor. There are
millions of pieces of information that support that claim.
>I can hardly consider a Gorilla or Ape to be my half-blood brother.
You ability to consider is a limitation on you, not on the rest of the
world.
>In otherwords, there is no Choice between 2 Theorys. There is no choice.
>Just 1 theory and 1 fact. We never evolved, we Adapted. Throught out history
>man Adapted. Adaptation can hardly be called 'Evolution'.
How about you provide the scientific definition of evolution here,
just to show you have a starting clue.
>Evolution involves
>the complete transformation from one creature to a whole new one.
Nope. Not even close. Evolution is about *change*, not about "whole
new" anything. You are busy arguing against a scientific theory that
does not exist. If you had read as much as a single page from a
evolutionary biology textbook you would know more than you do right
now.
>If so, why
>does man still have Eyebrows? Hair? Fingernails? Wisdom Teeth? Apendex? We
>don't need them and thus after so many years of being on the earth, why
>haven't we evolved out of them?
That you don't understand things does not mean other people don't
understand them. There are answers to these. The most interesting
question in that jumble you don't even notice: why do humans have
eyebrows? Cats don't, dogs don't, cows don't. But humans and chimps
do. There is a reason, can you suggest one?
>Simple. There is no evolution.We see fossils
>that show small fragments of what MIGHT be evolution but again, those aren't
>real facts, just simple showings of animals that have similar bone
>structures. Also, there is no hating teachers that promote 100% fact in the
>classroom. Infact people support 100% fact. People don't support 100%
>unproven ideas.
Give us a call when you can figure out how to produce a coherent
English sentence.
>What then do people believe? Well just like Darwin, people believe in thier
>beliefs and ideas. So, the scientific observers will continue to try to
>observe the world and say that people are evolving to the next generations
>of apes, and Christians will continue to laugh and support thier believe in
>thier Creator.
I know an evangelical Christian who thinks that evolution explains
biological diversity, who has written a large essay, available on the
web, explaining the evolutionary history or whales. Do you want to
tell him he is not a Christian?
>Again seeing a single celled organisim change and adapt to
>surroundings is not Evolution. It's called Adaptation.
And the evolution of a colony of cells is evolution.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
John Baker
>
>Diversity Isn't A Codeword wrote ...
>> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> > "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
>> > message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> > >
>> > > Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
>> > > many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>> > >
>> > Name them.
>>
>> it covers and answers everything, it explains the flaws in the theory of
>> cross species evolution, it probably has more popular support than
>> evolution, no lies or misinformation are involved.
>
>Hey !
>How does 'Intelligent Design' explain the human appendix ?
>(Maybe we have descended from a species that needed one, eh?)
>Or the way hip joints seem to fail first when we get older ?
>(Maybe we have descended from a species that walked differently, eh?)
>Or congenital deformities, malaria, cancer, the Ebola virus, influenza,
>the common cold, etc. etc. etc.
>
>The Lord God made them all !!!!!
>
>
>'Intelligent design covers everything.' Yeah, if you are a fruitcake.
That's the problem. It's not that ID explains nothing, it's that it
"explains" everything. No real scientific theory attempts or claims to
do that, and it's ID's biggest stumbling block as far as being taken
seriously as science.
Oh, yeah, there's that complete lack of supporting evidence thing
too..... <G>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Clough
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> So how many school children could cite the empirical evidence for
>>> Newton's theory of gravitation? And no, the fact that things fall
>>> to the ground (*) does not prove or disprove the inverse square law.
Newtons 'Law of Gravity' is full of gaping, unexplained holes. Newton
himself couldn't expalin why things fell, he could only come up with a
few formulas to describe how.
The reason things fall is because God makes them.
Newtons 'Law of Gravity' belongs in the dustbin of junk science, along
with Darwins 'Theory of Evolution' and should be replaced in school
science classes by the Theory of Intelligent Falling:
www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_19737.shtml
Clough
Clough
>You are seriously ignorant, a bit stupid in fact.
>You may as well say pigs evolved from humans, that is the puerile level of
>your argument.
I think the fact that religious fundamentalist creationists exist lend
weight to the argument that pigs evolved from humans.
Clough
TD
"Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote in
> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pD_Se.216157$kM5....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness> wrote
>> in
>> message news:ds_Se.792$2n6...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> > "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:if_Se.215084$kM5.1...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> >> "Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <allbla...@political.correctness>
>> >> wrote
>> >> in
>> >> message news:cHZSe.95$k2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >> >
>> >> > Creationism(or the PC term 'Intelligent Design') has just as
>> >> > many merits as, if not more, than cross-species evolution.
>> >> >
>> >> Name them.
>> >
>> > it covers and answers everything,
>> >
>> Who created the creator? Shuffling the problem down the line doesn't
>> explain anything.
>
> God is eternal, like I said God existing explains everything.
In that case let's stop thinking.
>> > it explains the flaws in the theory of
>> > cross species evolution, it probably has more popular support than
>> > evolution,
>> >
>> Who cares? Science is not a popularity contest.
>
> it is in the case of cross-species evolution, otherwise such a
> preposterous
> flawed theory wouldn't be taught as fact so much.
If it is taught as fact, it is not the fault of its proponents.
Magwitch
<sigh>
Wally Anglesea™
<kap...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I believe in Adaptation and not evolution. Evolution is a theory made by one
>man to piece together his own answers.
Since the above sentence shows how ignorant you are, then nothing more
needs to be said.
School was obviously wasted on you.
--
Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Dr. Sunil
Dr. Sunil
Clough
>>The reason things fall is because God makes them.
>God tells me that she hates your guts, It seems that the Bible was a big lie
>and that Christianity is the wrong religion, one that was invented for the
>purpose of making big cash.
Secular gravitists cannot explain such phenomenon as how angels fly,
how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of
Paradise.
Rockets lift off the Earth in defiance of gravity. This is proof of
the failure of atheistic gravitism and evidence of the will of God
manifesting itself in Intelligent Gravity.
God hating secular physicists would have us believe that given enough
time blocks of steel and plastic would evolve into space shuttles and
fly off all by themselves.
Clough
j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk
Console yourself with the thought that such people will burn in Hell
for eternity for their atheistic teachings.
Matt Silberstein
<fr...@address.com> in <dfl933$o8m$03$1...@news.t-online.com> wrote:
>
>Kapsool Seo wrote ...
>> I believe in Adaptation and not evolution. Evolution is a theory made by one
>> man to piece together his own answers.
>
>Darwin didn't really push evolution in Origin of Species, he was explaining
>natural selection. The word evolution only appears on three pages.
He "pushed" for common descent explained by descent with modification
as filtered by natural selection. Sure seems like evolution to me.
>> Creatures were ment to adapt to the
>> world. Evolution is simply a term that some man made up. Adaptation on the
>> other hand, is not a Theory or a non-proven fact. Adaptation happens and
>> occurs all the time.
>
>True, but if an adaptation is passed on to the next generation then it is
>by definition evolution.
>
>> Until Evolution is a proven Fact and called the 'Law of
>> Evolution' and not 'THEORY of Evolution", people don't and shouldn't accept
>> the Theory. It's honestly retarded.
>
>Not as retarded as the ridiculous psuedo-theory called 'intelligent design'.
True, but not relevant. Evolutionary biology stands on its own, not
just by comparison to the vacuity of Intelligent Design and Scientific
Creationism.
uk...@otherdayyjob.gravytrain.co.uk
For religion read: The triumph of gesture over substance!
ukmp
thomas p
>
>Kapsool Seo wrote:
snip
>
>Isn't bearing false witness a sin in your religion?
>
Stupidity and ignorance, however, are virtues.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
mimus
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 01:18:19 +0200, in alt.atheism , "fritz"
> <fr...@address.com> in <dfl933$o8m$03$1...@news.t-online.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Kapsool Seo wrote ...
>>> I believe in Adaptation and not evolution. Evolution is a theory made by one
>>> man to piece together his own answers.
>>
>>Darwin didn't really push evolution in Origin of Species, he was explaining
>>natural selection. The word evolution only appears on three pages.
>
> He "pushed" for common descent explained by descent with modification
> as filtered by natural selection. Sure seems like evolution to me.
Yeah, to deny that Darwin was an evolutionist is ludicrous.
But he was also a Christian.
Just a Christian not so arrogant as to tell God how to run things.
--
Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
Liberalism = plutocracy + bureaucracy + hypocrisy
Peter Wicks
> "Ordog" <odbo...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125925298.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Antimulticulture wrote:
>>
>>>Why People Believe in Evolution
>>
>>Because it fits the scientific observations!
>
>
> Thank you. Although science is about truth, much of the science we
> teach/learn is the closest we think we've got to the truth so far.
Science
> isn't anti-religion, it just so happens that science continually
overtakes
> religion. Religion is unscientific and has no place in our science
> teaching/learning.
>
>
>
There is no conflict between science and religion.
Only the fundamentalists beleive Genesis is a scientific
tract which can be used to explain the creation of the
world.
It is not, it was never intended to be. It is, like
all creation stories passed down via an oral tradition,
about the relationship between man and God.
Teose who try and 'explain' the physical world by applying
poetic metaphors and allegory will never see beyond
Mustard Seeds, Good Samaritans, Wheat falling on Hard Ground,
Loaves and Fishes, and will NEVER understand the nature of
parables, wonderful and memorable stories carrying a spiritual
lesson.
Their attempts to squeeze God into the gaps between science
and ignorance are absurd and doomed to failure.
Each advance by science makes THEIR God smaller.
I ask BOTH the fundie creationists AND teh Athiest knockers
who want to pretend that the fundies are the only, or even
the majority (but certainly not the rational) religious perspective;
Where in any of the religious texts Jewish, Muslim, Torah, do the
Prophets of those faiths proclaim " I am here to explain the
creation of the material world to you"?
Conversely, if the Greatest Commandment is clearly spelt out
in all of thiose faiths, and it isn't 'invent an alternative
for rational science' but "be the people you are capable of being'
then why the hell do people ignore the commandments and INVENT
their own creationist bullshit.. face it, you only make fools of
yourselves, diminish the real majesty of God's revelation, and
make the job of the rational religious harder.
There is no conflict between Science and Religion,
only between those who misunderstand either ot both;
Men of faith:
Blaise Pascal
Isaac Newton
Gallileao (DESPITE CHURCH PERSECUTION)
Einstein (sometimes, he flip flopped)
Johannes Kepler,
Michael Faraday,
Gregor Mendel
Francis Bacon (formulation of the scientific method ;-)
j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk
> Men of faith:
>
> Blaise Pascal
> Isaac Newton
> Gallileao (DESPITE CHURCH PERSECUTION)
> Einstein (sometimes, he flip flopped)
> Johannes Kepler,
> Michael Faraday,
> Gregor Mendel
>
> Francis Bacon (formulation of the scientific method ;-)
Don't you think some of these at least might have professed belief in
God because of fear of being burnt as heretics for professing disbelief?
TomV
More to the point, none of them were prepared to hide from scientific
truth because it contradicted the religious orthodoxy of the time.
There are plenty of christians who have no problems with evolution. I
think the scientists listed above would be far more likely to be in
that group.
...tom
mimus
fritz
Ernest wrote ...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 02:06:47 +0200, "fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ernest wrote ...
> ><snip>
> >> Until a theory has been proven to be fact beyond
> >> an doubt it is just a theory and you can either
> >> believe that the theory is true or believe it is not
> >> true, or you can believe that you do not know the
> >> answer. Either way your position on the issue is
> >> only a belief.
> >
> >That is just armchair philosophical bullshit.
> >You don't understand science at all.
> >Theories are never 'facts' or 'true' in science,
> >the most successful theories are just the best attempts
> >so far to understand the underlying rules of the
> >game of nature so far.
> >
> Then people who support them should not push them
> as proven facts and insist that they have the only
> possible correct answer. Many theories have been
> proven in the past and moved from theory to factual
> knowledge - this particular theory has not done that
> yet most of its supporters push it as if it has.
You still don't get it, Stan.
Theories in science can never become facts, at least in the
sense the fundies believe the bible is factual.
Science does not stop investigating an area of research just
because some 'authority figure' decrees 'WE HAVE FOUND
THE FACTS !'
A classic example is Newtons laws of motion, they seemed
to be absolutely accurate for over 200 years but then a few
odd results were discovered and Einstein came up with
a whole new set of laws. Newton was wrong. Science
didn't stop questioning Newton's theories.
I think you'll find that they present them as the best
theories that we have at present, if you actually talk
to them.
(Give me a present for using 'present' in three different ways !)
> >By the way, please cite just one of the 'many scientists
> >who insisted that heavier than air machines could never fly',
> >and what area of science he actually worked in.
> >I think you are just bullshitting, and cannot name even one.
> >The principle that allows heavier-than-air machines
> >to fly was published by Daniel Benoulli in 1738, any
> >scientist aware of Benoulli's work would not have
> >accused the Wright brothers.
> >
> Next time I am near a major newspaper or library I
> will look up the century old newspapers and list
> the articles for you. In those early days every time
> someone tried to fly a heavier than air machine and
> failled the newspapers were full of articles by noted
> scientists of the time proving, scientifically, why it
> would not work and never would. I have seen some
> TV specials on the early days of flight where they
> showed and quoted many such articles by famous
> scientists of that time. It was the lack of support by
> the general scientific community that allowed so many
> amateaur enthusiasts to be involved.
Dear old Stan, it will do no good just 'listing the articles',
you will have to establish that the 'scientists' quoted really
were qualified in the relevant area, what is known today
as fluid dynamics. If they were unaware of Benoulli's work
then they were not qualified to comment. If they were
aware they failed to understand the implications.
> >
> >> Many people are searching for the truths re the
> >> origins of mankind and it is possible that some
> >> day that truth may be generally known. Such
> >> knowledge may then support the evolutionist
> >> theory/belief or the creationist theory/belief or
> >> the the theory and belief of those who believe
> >> that humans were transplanted here. Until then
> >> all of these are just personal beliefs in which is
> >> the correct theory, and no more.
> >
> >Short of the second coming (snigger) of Christ,
> >I fail to see how 'intelligent design' will ever
> >be preferred over a far more rational theory.
> >
> You may be correct - however, if you go back to my
> original and subsequent posts you will find that I have
> not stated that intelligent design has been proven
> either. My position is that whilst it is only a theory the
> proponents of either arguement have no right to
> demand that only their theory be presented, nor
> should they present their theory as factual evidence
> without the full support of such.
I agree that only rational theories should be presented, and
that they should not be taught as the ultimate truth. That
criteria eliminates intelligent design because it is not
a rational theory. That leaves evolution as the only rational
theory, although it should be emphasised that no scientific
theory is an absolute truth when teaching it.