Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America.'

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Originally Posted by CurtisCarter23

Their was a rumor that when darwin was on his death bed he prayed to god.

This was total fabrications made by Lady Hope. Many of her writings involving Darwin were outright wrong.

Darwin was a racist. I know that much; read the book myself so no propaganda there.

 

[craftsy21]

I still find it hilarious that you guys bash those who don't believe in evolution. Let people believe what they want, or should we all believe the same thing?

Stop it.

You believe saying this type of thing makes you more open-minded and accepting, but in reality is just makes you not have to take a side and thereforeweak-minded and simple.

I've seen this a lot on NT, where people are like "just let people think whatever they want" - but that's lazy, and it's thoughtless. Not to mention, it's backwards thought. It's one thing to be open to personal interpretations of ideas, but another to just dismiss every crazyargument as just "somebody elses opinion", and give them a pass.

What about the guy who thinks it's okay to still lynch black people for his own pleasure? Do we then just say, "oh that's just how he feels. don't be so close-minded, not everyone is the same"????

For somebody to not believe in the ideas of evolution, makes them spit directly in the face of hundreds of years of scientific study in trying to put thepieces together of how we got to this point, with no hard evidence whatsoever to dispute it.

all your apologies for Christianity have their roots in your lack of Christianity; with your defence plea you inscribe your own bill of indictment.

my man.

 

[craftsy21]

Originally Posted by PhilBalla09

Alot of christians believe in evolution

The ones that don't are Evangelical but go ahead and keep saying all christians reject it.

Well those Evangelicals will tell the other Christians they are going to hell with the rest of us thinking people.

Personally - I have a lot more respect for the people living most closely to the word of the bible than I do these half-%$+ Christians who make up their ownbelief system to suit their lifestyle better. I think they're all crazy as hell, but at least some of them have a spine about their beliefs.

Let me steal another quote from my main man here dealing directly with that:

If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.

 

[lawdog1]

Originally Posted by General Johnson

Originally Posted by YoungAnakin

and i've stopped engaging those who disbelieve in darwin's theory of evolution. it's like arguing with someone who insists 2 + 2 = 5, despite all evidence pointing to 2 + 2 = 4. and then they get upset and childishly defensive because...

"that's just what I BELIEVE! you have YOUR BELIEFS and I HAVE MINE!"

i mean, there's a guy in this thread claming to have seen someone "leave this dimension" (whatever the !%#! that means) and precedes it with some pseudo-string theory %%%+!#+%.

w/e...

I'm that guy.

I didn't say it was "someone", I said it was an entity. It actually resembled a ball of fire.

You can doubt me all day. I know what I saw. I was there.


I'll defend that til I die. What reason would I have to make that up? I'm not on some religious tirade trying to convince other people that I have all the answers. I don't.


You believe in a theory that is not yet a law, that was put forth by a man you don't personally know, that is supported by evidence you haven't personally touched or discovered yourself, but you have faith in it because a large group of people believe it and support it with you?

Sounds like religion to me.

See, here is my beef with whats' going on in this thread. You came in and basically asked NT to prove evolution to you, yet your alternativeto evolution is something that, pretty much by your own admission, can't be proven by anything other than your word. It just seems a little hypocriticalfor you to be questioning evolution and asking for proof when the system/scheme you're claiming is a lot more out there, at least from ascientific/evidentiary perspective.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Originally Posted by CurtisCarter23

Their was a rumor that when darwin was on his death bed he prayed to god.

This was total fabrications made by Lady Hope. Many of her writings involving Darwin were outright wrong.

Darwin was a racist. I know that much; read the book myself so no propaganda there.

So? That has nothing to do with Lady Hope's fabrications. Just think about it. What could be the biggest victory for evolutionist? If the father of theoryof evolution were to recant his beliefs. It's easy to see why she'd lie.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Locke, Hume, and Rousseau, (all of whom basically made our countries diction) All stated that ALL ideas good and bad must be heard. If the bad way wins outthen so be it. That is our born freedom. I assume you have no idea what you are talking about. There are millions who still feel we should lynch black peopleand that is fine by me, don't affect me at all. Just like other people's beliefs shouldn't affect you.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by PhilBalla09

Alot of christians believe in evolution

The ones that don't are Evangelical but go ahead and keep saying all christians reject it.

Well those Evangelicals will tell the other Christians they are going to hell with the rest of us thinking people.

Personally - I have a lot more respect for the people living most closely to the word of the bible than I do these half-%$+ Christians who make up their own belief system to suit their lifestyle better. I think they're all crazy as hell, but at least some of them have a spine about their beliefs.

Absolutely! I agree with this. To me they are all bat @++* crazy. Oddly enough, it's always the fundamentalist who seem to really have faithand aren't just configuring their beliefs by what they are able to abide by. As scary as fundamentalist are, they have a belief system rooted in somethingother than what they are comfortable with abiding by.

 

[general johnson]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

If LINK is that crap that was hailed as the "GREATEST DISCOVERY" and ran on cable this summer, I saw it.

I'm not convinced.


EDIT: No need to break down evolution to me. I understand the theory. I'm just pointing out holes in the theory.

contact the press, the scientists all over the world... this guy has just completely unraveled the theory of evolution!! How are you not getting a Nobel prize for this?

You're a loon, man.

You believe in a theory that is not yet a law, that was put forth by a man you don't personally know, that is supported by evidence you haven't personally touched or discovered yourself, but you have faith in it because a large group of people believe it and support it with you?

Sounds like religion to me.

Is this really your logic?

Evidence we haven't personally "touched"? The hell is that supposed to mean? If you want simple proof of evolution, consider why there's no cure for the common cold yet, or the flu. These virus and bacteria adapt to everything we throw at them over time in order to survive.

How have we not ALL experienced that first hand?

And is your faith in Christianity really based on the fact that a large number of people believe it? That's kind of pathetic.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/362.html
To borrow a quote from one of my favorite philosophers...

What distinguishes us [scientists] from the pious and the believers is not the quality but the quantity of belief and piety; we are contented with less. But if the former should challenge us: then be contented and appear to be contented! - then we might easily reply: 'We are, indeed, not among the least contented. You, however, if your belief makes you blessed then appear to be blessed! Your faces have always been more injurious to your belief than our objections have! If these glad tidings of your Bible were written on your faces, you would not need to insist so obstinately on the authority of that book... As things are, however, all your apologies for Christianity have their roots in your lack of Christianity; with your defence plea you inscribe your own bill of indictment.


First, I never claimed to have unraveled the theory. My point is that a theory thatis proven beyond question becomes a law, right?

Are the religious zealots keeping it a theory out of fear that the lid will soon be blown off ofreligion? (lemme try that)

Secondly, if you try reading what I've been saying, I've stated a couple of times that Iam not religious. I'm definitely not a Christian.



Thirdly, by claiming that I'm a loon you just dismiss the fact that evolution is not a proventheory AND throw my experience out of the window? Ad hominem much?



Lastly, do these

add any credence to your argument?

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

If LINK is that crap that was hailed as the "GREATEST DISCOVERY" and ran on cable this summer, I saw it.

I'm not convinced.


EDIT: No need to break down evolution to me. I understand the theory. I'm just pointing out holes in the theory.

contact the press, the scientists all over the world... this guy has just completely unraveled the theory of evolution!! How are you not getting a Nobel prize for this?

You're a loon, man.

You know there are many scientist who revoke the theory ofevolution. The theory is not set in stone. Just many people who choose not to believe hold the theory as their "Bible" when the Charles Darwin mayhave actually believed in Go himself. Im not taking sides but that statement alone had to be rebutted.

"We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. Wedo not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever beendemonstrated - adaptations to antibiotics or herbicides are equivalent to immunological adaptation to diseases, and not a creation of a new function. We keepon searching for natural explanations of everything in nature. If we have no explanations we should say so, and not claim that an unproven theory is a fact."

Maciej Giertych
Institute of Dendrology,
Polish Academy of Sciences,

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It isuseless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum,later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling maybe the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The FresnoBee, August 20, 1959.

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinianinterpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History,Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory onlybecause it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant,October, 1982.)

"The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence.Science is against the theory of evolution." - biochemist Michael Behe, who also claims there is evidence of an outside "designer"

The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master's degree or above in a recognized field of science.In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicingprofessional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.


Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
[size=-1](partial list, in alphabetical order)[/size]

1. Agard, E. Theo
2. Allan, James
3. Anderson, Kevin
4. Armstrong, Harold
5. Arndt, Alexander
6. Austin, Steven
7. Barnes, Thomas
8. Batten, Don
9. Baumgardner, John
10. Bergman, Jerry
11. Boudreaux, Edward
12. Byl, John
13. Catchpoole, David
14. Chadwick, Arthur
15. Chaffin, Eugene
16. Chittick, Donald
17. Cimbala, John
18. Clausen, Ben
19. Cole, Sid
20. Cook, Melvin
21. Cumming, Ken
22. Cuozzo, Jack
23. Darrall, Nancy
24. Dewitt, David
25. DeYoung, Donald
26. Downes, Geoff
27. Eckel, Robert
28. Faulkner, Danny
29. Ford, Dwain
30. Frair, Wayne
31. Gentry, Robert
32. Giem, Paul
33. Gillen, Alan
34. Gish, Duane
35. Gitt, Werner
36. Gower, D.B.
37. Grebe, John
38. Grocott, Stephen
39. Harrub, Brad
40. Hawke, George
41. Hollowell, Kelly
42. Holroyd, Edmond
43. Hosken, Bob
44. Howe, George
45. Humphreys, D. Russell
46. Javor, George
47. Jones, Arthur
48. Kaufmann, David
49. Kennedy, Elaine
50. Klotz, John
51. Koop, C. Everett
52. Korochkin, Leonid
53. Kramer, John
54. Lammerts, Walter
55. Lester, Lane
56. Livingston, David
57. Lopez, Raul
58. Marcus, John
59. Marsh, Frank
60. Mastropaolo, Joseph
61. McCombs, Charles
62. McIntosh, Andrew
63. McMullen, Tom
64. Meyer, Angela
65. Meyer, John
66. Mitchell, Colin
67. Morris, Henry
68. Morris, John
69. Mumma, Stanley
70. Parker, Gary
71. Peet, J. H. John
72. Rankin, John
73. Rosevear, David
74. Roth, Ariel
75. Rusch, Wilbert
76. Sarfati, Jonathan
77. Snelling, Andrew
78. Standish, Timothy
79. Taylor, Stephen
80. Thaxton, Charles
81. Thompson, Bert
82. Thomson, Ker
83. Vardiman, Larry
84. Veith, Walter
85. Walter, Jeremy
86. Wanser, Keith
87. Whitcomb, John
88. White, A.J.(Monty)
89. Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
90. Wile, Jay
91. Williams, Emmett
92. Wise, Kurt
93. Wolfrom, Glen
94. Zuill, Henry

 

[ruleofthirds]

A theory is no longer a theory when it is proven...keep that in mind fellas

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by PhilBalla09

Alot of christians believe in evolution

The ones that don't are Evangelical but go ahead and keep saying all christians reject it.

Well those Evangelicals will tell the other Christians they are going to hell with the rest of us thinking people.

Personally - I have a lot more respect for the people living most closely to the word of the bible than I do these half-%$+ Christians who make up their own belief system to suit their lifestyle better. I think they're all crazy as hell, but at least some of them have a spine about their beliefs.

Absolutely! I agree with this. To me they are all bat @++* crazy. Oddly enough, it's always the fundamentalist who seem to really have faith and aren't just configuring their beliefs by what they are able to abide by. As scary as fundamentalist are, they have a belief system rooted in something other than what they are comfortable with abiding by.

ok. There are hundreds of sects of Christianity so because one doesn't interpret it the same they are doing it wrong?

these pseudo athiests killme. Prior to Vatican 2 it was illegal to own a bible because of the risk of different interperetations. You sit here and bash people for accepting christianityin different ways, and applying it differently. Athiests want things to be so black and white (hence their religious choice) it is just not that way, life isgrey.

 

[general johnson]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by PhilBalla09

Alot of christians believe in evolution

The ones that don't are Evangelical but go ahead and keep saying all christians reject it.

Well those Evangelicals will tell the other Christians they are going to hell with the rest of us thinking people.

Personally - I have a lot more respect for the people living most closely to the word of the bible than I do these half-%$+ Christians who make up their own belief system to suit their lifestyle better. I think they're all crazy as hell, but at least some of them have a spine about their beliefs.

Let me steal another quote from my main man here dealing directly with that:

If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.

So I either have to be a Christian or an evolutionist? You go ahead and pick for me, okay? I am neither.

 

[kix4kix]

For those of you that do not remember back to the old school days, I will take a moment to remind you about what Darwin taught.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Commonly called The Origin of Species). The book explained that the world had been taught the wrong ideal for years as to how humans came to Earth. He explained the course of evolution and let the world know about how we evolved from apes.

While this theory has been debated for years by scientists, and religious, evolution has been predominately taught in schools and universities. The majority of the members of the scientific community has scoffed at the other two theories of creationism and, "intelligent design," for decades.

"Intelligent design," takes both creationism and evolution into consideration and blends them into a congruent theory. "Intelligent design," teaches that evolution did happen, but it was guided by a higher source then just happenstance. It explains that God must have guided evolution to eventually lead to where we are now, or where we will be eventually in the future.
In the upcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein will be looking into the reasons why the theory of, "intelligent design," has been ignored for so long by the majority of the scientific community. Stein will be looking into different cases in which professors have been harassed by universities for teaching the alternative theory of, "intelligent design."

 

[sylvestermcgrizzly]

i will see this

 

[younganakin]

@ cartune:

all of your quotes are nearly 3 decades old.

and from, self-admittedly, creationists (an already debunked belief system).

 

[ruleofthirds]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

For those of you that do not remember back to the old school days, I will take a moment to remind you about what Darwin taught.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Commonly called The Origin of Species). The book explained that the world had been taught the wrong ideal for years as to how humans came to Earth. He explained the course of evolution and let the world know about how we evolved from apes.

While this theory has been debated for years by scientists, and religious, evolution has been predominately taught in schools and universities. The majority of the members of the scientific community has scoffed at the other two theories of creationism and, "intelligent design," for decades.

"Intelligent design," takes both creationism and evolution into consideration and blends them into a congruent theory. "Intelligent design," teaches that evolution did happen, but it was guided by a higher source then just happenstance. It explains that God must have guided evolution to eventually lead to where we are now, or where we will be eventually in the future.
In the upcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein will be looking into the reasons why the theory of, "intelligent design," has been ignored for so long by the majority of the scientific community. Stein will be looking into different cases in which professors have been harassed by universities for teaching the alternative theory of, "intelligent design."

The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumventcourt rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[sup][4][/sup][sup][5][/sup][sup][6][/sup] Intelligent design's leadingproponents - all of whom are associated with the DiscoveryInstitute, a politically conservative think tank[sup][7][/sup][sup][8][/sup]- believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[sup][9][/sup][sup][1[/sup]

 

[younganakin]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

For those of you that do not remember back to the old school days, I will take a moment to remind you about what Darwin taught.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Commonly called The Origin of Species). The book explained that the world had been taught the wrong ideal for years as to how humans came to Earth. He explained the course of evolution and let the world know about how we evolved from apes.

While this theory has been debated for years by scientists, and religious, evolution has been predominately taught in schools and universities. The majority of the members of the scientific community has scoffed at the other two theories of creationism and, "intelligent design," for decades.

"Intelligent design," takes both creationism and evolution into consideration and blends them into a congruent theory. "Intelligent design," teaches that evolution did happen, but it was guided by a higher source then just happenstance. It explains that God must have guided evolution to eventually lead to where we are now, or where we will be eventually in the future.
In the upcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein will be looking into the reasons why the theory of, "intelligent design," has been ignored for so long by the majority of the scientific community. Stein will be looking into different cases in which professors have been harassed by universities for teaching the alternative theory of, "intelligent design."

intelligent design = neo-creationism.

 

[general johnson]

Just so no one thinks I'm dodging their question, I'm out for a while.

Gotta go handle some biz.

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by YoungAnakin

@ cartune:

all of your quotes are nearly 3 decades old.

and from, self-admittedly, creationists (an already debunked belief system).

Theory of Evolution is more than a century old dont see the point. There hasnt been many groundbreaking breakthroughs to prove the theory wrong orright yet.

and I dont see why you're assuming the quotes are all from creationists either.

Here are some more recent quotes

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'specialcreation,' is clearly impossible." D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University hmmmmm

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't showgradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossilrecord. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution oughtto be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, thatbrings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)

"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can besaid with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims aboutevolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. Andyet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformationshave ever occurred." Wolfgang Smith

"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still onexhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth intextbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of thespeculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got aproblem." Dr. Niles Eldridge

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on anunproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..."(Dr. L. Harrison Matthews


"…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as manyflaw & holes as sound parts." - CharlesDarwin

 

[mr kuter]

Originally Posted by YoungAnakin

@ cartune:

all of your quotes are nearly 3 decades old.

and from, self-admittedly, creationists (an already debunked belief system).

And how old is Darwins stuff? What relevance is there in how old the quotes are?

 

[recycledpaper]

General Johnson, I'm feeling what you're saying about the dimensions and such. Your beliefs and experiences revolve around the most concrete thingwe're all familiar with and that is science.

 

[craftsy21]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by PhilBalla09

Alot of christians believe in evolution

The ones that don't are Evangelical but go ahead and keep saying all christians reject it.

Well those Evangelicals will tell the other Christians they are going to hell with the rest of us thinking people.

Personally - I have a lot more respect for the people living most closely to the word of the bible than I do these half-%$+ Christians who make up their own belief system to suit their lifestyle better. I think they're all crazy as hell, but at least some of them have a spine about their beliefs.

Absolutely! I agree with this. To me they are all bat @++* crazy. Oddly enough, it's always the fundamentalist who seem to really have faith and aren't just configuring their beliefs by what they are able to abide by. As scary as fundamentalist are, they have a belief system rooted in something other than what they are comfortable with abiding by.

ok. There are hundreds of sects of Christianity so because one doesn't interpret it the same they are doing it wrong?

these pseudo athiests kill me. Prior to Vatican 2 it was illegal to own a bible because of the risk of different interperetations. You sit here and bash people for accepting christianity in different ways, and applying it differently. Athiests want things to be so black and white (hence their religious choice) it is just not that way, life is grey.

There is a distinct difference between those who abide by the Bible's every written word, and those who make their own interpretation of it where they seefit.

Locke, Hume, and Rousseau, (all of whom basically made our countries diction) All stated that ALL ideas good and bad must be heard. If the bad way wins out then so be it. That is our born freedom. I assume you have no idea what you are talking about. There are millions who still feel we should lynch black people and that is fine by me, don't affect me at all. Just like other people's beliefs shouldn't affect you.
Yes - you disagree with me so you think I have no idea what I'm talking about... quite open-minded of you.

How is that any different than the point I was making?

contradicting yourself time after time...

You're a joke - every post I read from you convinces me of this further. I'm not going to waste another reply to you, it's obvious at this pointyou're either trolling or delusional, and I don't have time for either.

So I either have to be a Christian or an evolutionist? You go ahead and pick for me, okay? I am neither.
Not a Christian or evolutionist - you just either believe in the theory of evolution or you don't. I suppose there are infinite possibilitiesyou could be besides somebody who believes in evolution, but none of them would have as much proof for their existence as evolution.

You know there are many scientist who revoke the theory of evolution. The theory is not set in stone. Just many people who choose not to believe hold the theory as their "Bible" when the Charles Darwin may have actually believed in Go himself. Im not taking sides but that statement alone had to be rebutted.

And 99.9 percent of them are considered quacks by their peers.

And just because Darwin may have believed in a creator, which there is no legitimate proof of this anyways, doesn't mean evolution is proven false.

A creator doesn't negate the idea of evolution... however, the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and we were all born from Adam and Eve DOESnegate it. And that's what we're talking about here.

First, I never claimed to have unraveled the theory. My point is that a theory that is proven beyond question becomes a law, right?

Are the religious zealots keeping it a theory out of fear that the lid will soon be blown off of religion? (lemme try that)

Secondly, if you try reading what I've been saying, I've stated a couple of times that I am not religious. I'm definitely not a Christian.

I was only referencing the quote I pulled from you, none of which mentioned your lack of Christian faith - which I had to assume at that point youwere a part of, considering the topic of the thread. (Christians not allowing the movie to show here).

Don't get hung up on semantics, it's tough to even become a theory in the scientific world, let alone stay one for the last 100+ years in the face ofmillions of angry religious people trying to disprove such an idea.

This is why science > religion... even though all the signs point to the fact that we should just accept evolution as a LAW of science, it's can'tbe done until there is indisputable evidence 100 percent of the time. Hell, you've probably heard it before, but according to the general interpretationof gravity, it's still a theory also because we have to assume that it's the same across places we haven't been to before in the universe.. withoutassuming such things we wouldn't be able to prove a lot of other laws and theories in science, relative to our own gravity's behavior.

For the record:

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
And

In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

moving on...

Thirdly, by claiming that I'm a loon you just dismiss the fact that evolution is not a proven theory AND throw my experience out of the window? Ad hominem much?
see my last post.. a theory in the scientific world, by definition, is proven already in many ways. Don't confuse it with a hypothesis.

Lastly, do these

add any credence to your argument?

Credence? No - but that's not really what I was going for. I just happen to think when people try to use logic to refute science they end uplooking silly, hence my laughing.

Do you feel like underline/bolding every line you type somehow makes what you say more important? Personally I find it hard to read and quite child-like. Butthat's just me.

 

[craftsy21]

Originally Posted by Mr Kuter

Originally Posted by YoungAnakin

@ cartune:

all of your quotes are nearly 3 decades old.

and from, self-admittedly, creationists (an already debunked belief system).

And how old is Darwins stuff? What relevance is there in how old the quotes are?

Because those are old quotes meant to somehow discredit Evolution, and they haven't one bit... meaning, they are basically forgotten at thispoint as just forgotten rebuttals to Evolution.

The fact that Evolution has stood up this long to all the scientific (and otherwise) scrutiny it's been put under for over 100 years now... should tell youall you need to know about how concrete the theory is. If somebody were actually able to take the argument apart, science would be forced to change theirstance on it - whereas with a religion, despite thousands of years of people disputing it, never has to change a word - although they will anyways to shore uptheir lines of defense.

 

[nyvictory45]

The fact that millions of people happen to believe in the story of Genesis still doesn't make the story any more credible than whatever nonsense anyone canmake up in their heads. Which is why I've learned to avoid engaging creationists in this "debate." There is absolutely nothing credible about thestory of Genesis, the only thing that gives it any credence and even the slightest air of an "argument" is the fact that evolutionists get so workedup and try to disprove everything they say.

And this is exactly what creationists count on, it's what they NEED. Without the consent of the evolutionist to engage in any type of argument in the firstplace, there can be no "debate." Allowing the creationist to play the role of a "debater" in an arena that closely resembles a debate isthe only thing that allows the creationist and any spectator to think that the creationist view is any bit credible. Simply ignoring the creationist andhis/her unsubstantiated claims deprives them of the charade that they need to make their superstitious beliefs look plausible.

So next time, don't bother listing facts, don't bother trying to explain to the mystics what exactly evolution is, don't bother writing a point bypoint refutation of the creationist story. They don't care to hear opposition to their beliefs, they don't care to even prove their own claims. Allthey want is for you to grant them the facade of debate so that they can't grant themselves and others the facade of credibility.

 

[lobotomybeats]

To me the most harmful use of reason is asking all sciences to be backed with checkable facts while religious 'facts' are explained by ' god can doanything.' Just because Science hasn't yet proven something beyond a doubt (

) shouldn't give religion any more credence. I think that happenstoo often. If someone doesn't believe something because of some scrupulous detail or whatever, in no way does this add levity to any claims for religion.Religion begs you to accept the unseen and unbelievable in the name of faith. Ironically, Religion also begs you to not believe in science due to a lack of100% checkable facts.


"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding. " -Richard Dawkins