Please do not take any offensive “hate mail” written by Christians as an example of Christianity. We are not very good Christians; we who use words of hate. You must understand, however, that you have completely pissed us off. This site is just stupid. The concept is stupid. I can give you evidence against evolution if you so desire.
I do sort of agree that ID should not be taught in schools, but neither should evolution. It is wrong that evolution, classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is taught as a fact. Teaching evolution in schools is just as offensive to us as teaching ID in schools is to you. We are all people.
The majority of Christians do not want to press our beliefs upon anybody else. The same cannot be said for scientists, it appears. Plus, while Christians want to bring wayward people to God for the wayward people’s sake, scientists want to study and elaborate on evolution because they think they can discover something wonderful and get rich off of it. So, there is still a difference between the two sides.
I think this whole fight is futile. It is written that God’s children will be hated by all, and I can see that’s the way it’s going. Everybody hates Christians…
-Yet Another Christian
One Eyed Jack, There is no way to test intelligent design (as you already know). The only way we could know if the universe was created by an all powerful being is if that all powerful being made himself known to us in some way. Since he has not done this, there is no good reason to believe in him.
That is why I believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I have no good reason to believe that he exists. I do know that certain things are hard to explain (our existence for example) therefore I conclude that the flying spaghetti monster must have created me. You see the fact that I can not explain something is evidence for his existence. Neato. It was once very hard for humans to explain mental illness, and we used to think that it was demons in there bodies put there by god- but we now know that it is just, what? yes the impersonal laws of nature messing with brain chemistry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gravity, like evolution, is not a fact, it is a theory.
A theory indicates that something has moved well beyond being a hypothesis by the virtue that it has accrued both mountains of scientific evidence, studies, tests in support of it and mountains of scientific studies, tests, etc. which have failed to refute it.
No theory is fact because theories can neither be proven nor disproven. In fact, theories progress through history dialectically (consult Hegel if you have never heard of dialectics) like any other idea.
For example, Newtonian physics assumed the speed of light could be reached with enough energy. Einstein later came and showed that the speed of light cannot be reached because there is an asymptote at the speed of light. Velocity in relation to energy was also shown to have a square relationship (E=mc2) rather than a linear relationship. However, at relatively small velocities Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are virtually the same. This argument is a dialectic as Newton’s theory was the thesis, Einstein’s theory the antithesis, and the result that Newton is essentially still correct at small velocities but otherwise invalid is the synthesis.
Now to the point. Because science is continually progressing, in education there is the responsibility to teach not only what was previously thought, but also give a current view of thought. If we were to teach only fact, there would be no science, history, math, english, or even religion (as hard as it is for some to accept). None of these are fact, they are all made of systems, theories, and modes of thought which are continually changing (even a dialectic is a theory of philosophy, it too has changed and will continue to change through time). Language changes, our view of history changes, ways of viewing math change and its models change (base 10 is a model, not a fact), science definitely changes, religions change; in summary, our schools are here to reflect modes of thought. When were younger things are presented as fact because a foundation has to be established to build upon. Later in life it is shown everything we were taught was accepted theory, but this is seen when we are mature enough to understand such things (or perhaps it is seen by those willing to understand it). Thus, our educational systems would not exist if it taught facts instead of theory.
Socrates stated it best: I only know one thing for sure, and that is that I know nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Uhhhhhhhhhhh last time I checked Scientists back there data up where as dumb Christians just say stuff out there ass.
For the unintelligent who might be reading this let me tell you what evolution really is.
Evolution happens with populations and not individuals. Meaning that your genes are not going to change in your life time and it will take many generations to get any changes and these changes can be social or physical. Let me be more specific.
1.) Genetic drift: 2 great examples of this would be Genetic Drift and Fonder Effect. You wonder why no one gets the bubonic plague any more… hmmmmmm I guess “god†is not pissed off any more.
2.) Gene flow: the gain or loss of genetic traits by the movement of individuals in a population.
3.) Mutation: causes new Gambits in DNA; however it is mostly bad but can sometimes work out well.
4.) Non-random Mating: Selection of a mate other than by chance and will favor particular characteristics over time.
5.) Natural Selection: Populations are influenced by environmental pressures and population will adapt accordingly.
Hope that helps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Fireeye
…For the unintelligent who might be reading this let me tell you what evolution really is….
I want to pull you up on that comment.
Your implication is that anyone who isn’t familar (read: hasn’t been taught) with the finer points of the different levels on which evolutionary pressures occur is unintelligent.
Not so. However, I am familiar with these terms and what you are describing is classed as macro-evolotion. (Population Gentetics to be more concise) It is also impossible to separate macro- and micro-evolution in the overall scheme of things. Your points are correct. The final level of selection (and therefore adaptation) works at the population level based on fitness and reproduction (survival), resulting in heredity of beneficial mutations.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BTW Fireeye brings up an interesting topic. Inbreeding. Conservation geneticists measure gene flow (comparing the the amount of variability in gene sequences using same techniques as for paternity testing) in and between populations to determine their extinction risk. A very useful tool. Like all fields of biology and science in general though, they debate amongst themselves as to which species are most importantly saved.(using the amount of money/time/enviroment available) This “paternity testing” saves a lot of time and money in identifying the different species at risk. Bet the god-botherers don’t like the inbreeding analysis tools we have available either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Er Gunner, you do know that it has been known for about 50 years or so that Lucy wasn’t one of our anscestors, she was in fact another branch of the human family. Please, read something from an actual science book on evolution (preferably published within the last 10 years, with something about DNA in it, a lot of changes have occured) or a website if you don’t have a library in your town. Your arguments are like saying a steak looks nothing like a cow so they can’t have once been the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ND
.
“scientists found this ancient micro-organism that has a tail, so they looked to see what makes this tail move, and there’s a motor-like thing in it’s body, and no one can find out where it came from.”
.
What you are referring to is Behe’s argument for irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellar motor. His example is flawed. It has been shown how parts of the motor have functioning purposes separate from the motor, indicating they could have evolved separately and combined at a later time. For a detailed explanation, see “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller.
.
You’re right that evolution of the motor can’t be proven, but it doesn’t need to be. The basis of ID is irreducible complexity… no part of the whole could have served a purpose prior to it’s present construction. All that needs be shown is a resonable possible use for the components of the motor or a less evolved version of it and the example falls to pieces.
.
The ID advocates search for examples like this and each one in turn is knocked down. How do they respond? They go out to find another, and another, and another… It’s pointless and it’s bad science. All they are doing is looking for something that hasn’t been thoroughly studied in this context and saying “you don’t know, so it must be by design.” Bad, bad, baaaad science… but typical religion.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution- why it doesn’t work for me… and no, I do not believe a big, white-bearded man in a robe created the earth in six days. However, evolution is a theory that was a great idea in its time (Darwin’s) but in the ensuing years has just not checked out. It is unreasonable to believe in something because you have been told it is so. I think most people who believe in evolution have never checked their facts. It’s what they were taught in school and therefore, to them, it’s true. I used to believe it too, but then I started actually looking for evidence and discovered that
· Every well-known “proof†of evolution throughout history has turned out to be a hoax. Piltdown man, Orce man, Java man, Nebraska man, Haeckel’ Forgeries, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: Dinosaur-bird ancestor, the “moths†in England that were supposedly evolving due to air pollution and were actually planted by the scientists, and so on and so forth
· the “list of vestigal organs” drawn up by evolutionists at the beginning of the 20th century is now without foundation
· The fossil record doesn’t support it. Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. EVER. You would think if there was all this evolving going on, over the millennium, the fossils would have some small example of it, don’t you?
· embryonic evidence, which Darwin himself said was “second to none in importance.” Is. Not. There. As I said before, the so-called “proof†of it, created by Haeckle, turned out to be another big lie… a lie that is still in some school textbooks today. When he was caught, he defended himself by saying that other evolutionists had committed similar offenses. Great reasoning.
· science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, as found by James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made the calculations: he applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth – all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) Similar conclusions have been come to by Emile Bore, Sir Fred Hoyle, and others.
But don’t believe me- look it up for yourself. The “proof†is not there. It’s not real. I find the idea of Adam and Eve about as likely as the FSM… but just because the biblical account of creation isn’t true doesn’t mean evolution is, either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
holy smokes, this has 208 comments! sorry, being an ignorant atheist, i can’t be bothered to read. so pardon repititions.
.
There are evidences against evolution, there are evidences for evolution. I’m actually quite interested in some evidences against evolution. The 5000 year old T Rex that some creationist meuseum found? ID is not SCIENCE. There is no SCIENCE to ID. ID cannot go through the highly rational and intelligent process known as the Scientific Method. There is just nothing to proceed with…
.
The Bible is NOT considered evidence. You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible is true. With that said, I don’t see where else ID can get it’s “evidences” from.
.
Evolution has been observed not just in Genes. Try doing a google search on Memes, which I think originated from Dawkins (be pasta on him!). Evolution does not necessarily concern DNA and Genes. Evolution is simply a product of Differential Survival of Replicating Entities. The Replicator, on Earth, has been identified as the Gene and more recently (and controversially), the Meme. Somewhere in outer space, I won’t be surprised if there are other forms of Evolving Replicators in the form of Crystal Lattice or Eletromagnetic Waves.
.
We are insignificant in this Universe. I believe it is very arrogant of anyone to believe that there is a God who created us, the only thing “living” thing in this Universe. The word “living” meaning anything that replicates and propagates itself with inheritable properties.
.
I may have said this in previous posts. ID is a very dangerous thing to believe in. Any one with a rational inquisitive mind will start thinking why are some animals “Intelligently Designed” the way they are. And if everything was supposedly created by one fella, that fella has to be a real nasty person.
.
In fact, we are right at the birthplace of the Meme, relative to the Gene. Man is still unsure how the first replicating “gene” was evolved, but it is almost certainly not by magic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Every well known proof of evidence? What about Lucy discovered in Africa, was that a hoax too?
Vestigial organs? What about the human appendix? Tailbone?
Thousands of transitional fossils have been found, where are you getting this information? Mudhoppers, fish with legs, reptiles with feathers, i mean seriously.
Embryonic Evidence – look at comparative pictures of pig, human, fish, etc embryos. Why do human embryos start out with gills? Are you kidding?
I have never heard of James Coppedge or his research, but examine the Miller/Urey experiment in which they, well, formed amino acids out of base elements that are thought to have existed in early-earth days.
Also, are you also trying to deny microevolution? Because if you are, then I’d encourage you to look into the matter more – insects evolving to adapt to pesticides, diseases adapting to our treatments, finch beaks, the list goes on and on, not even ID is contesting microevolution because it’s observable in the every day world. It’s a very simple concept of creatures adapting to changing environments and the best suited surviving better than those who are ill-suited.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
headthrick. my website is http://www.usas.org what the hell are you talking about??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Matt, i’m going to rebutt every single one of your arguements. bwahaha.
.
What about Lucy discovered in Africa
—”She died in the Great Flood.”
.
Vestigial organs? What about the human appendix? Tailbone?
—”Intelligent Design my friend. We will discover God’s purpose for them in time to come.”
.
Thousands of transitional fossils have been found, where are you getting this information? Mudhoppers, fish with legs, reptiles with feathers, i mean seriously.
—”Great Flood. No space for them on the Ark. pfft… aren’t you listening??? *rolls eyes*”
.
Embryonic Evidence – look at comparative pictures of pig, human, fish, etc embryos. Why do human embryos start out with gills? Are you kidding?
—”God made us so. It is part of his plan.”
.
I have never heard of James Coppedge or his research, but examine the Miller/Urey experiment in which they, well, formed amino acids out of base elements that are thought to have existed in early-earth days.
—”You don’t know the environment of Earth back in those days! You can’t simulate an unknown environment, can you? Hah, Gotcha! And by the way, I have a 5000 year old T Rex to prove that the Earth is 6000 years old. =D”
*The Atheist in me speaks: Yup, those experiments are darn cool. It at least tells us that it IS possible for complex molecules to arise from simple discrete molecules under correct conditions. When you consider there are billions of planets and billions of years have passed, it is ALMOST DEFINITE, that “life” would have evolved some where. I would believe that there is a supernatural being if Life NEVER evolved…
.
Also, are you also trying to deny microevolution? Because if you are, then I’d encourage you to look into the matter more – insects evolving to adapt to pesticides, diseases adapting to our treatments, finch beaks, the list goes on and on, not even ID is contesting microevolution because it’s observable in the every day world. It’s a very simple concept of creatures adapting to changing environments and the best suited surviving better than those who are ill-suited.
—”Hah, you think I’ll lose? NOOOO… let me tell you, God started the entire motion of Evolution! Hah, pwn joo n00b!”
*The Atheist in me speaks: Evidence for Microevolution: Flu Virus. ’nuff said.
.
I really can’t stand it. I have stopped arguing with Christians who deny evolution or that Earth is about 3-4 billion years old. They can twist and warp ANYTHING to suit their arguement. These people belong to the “No-Contest” category.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Matt-Of course I’m not denying microevolution. Rarely does anyone deny that… changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species.
As for the “tailboneâ€â€¦ Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the “pelvic diaphragmâ€. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.
The appendix, like the once “vestigial” tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary “left over,” many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice.
According to Richard Leakey, one the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, “Lucy’s†skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of parisâ€. Leakey said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. But what about the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged)? “The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.†Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia. Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Neither are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.
It is a well-established fact that the human embryo (like all mammalian embryos) never has gills in any sense of the word. The fanciful notion of gills is based upon the presence of four alternating ridges and grooves in the neck region of the human embryo (called pharyngeal arches and pouches) that bear a superficial resemblance to gills. While similar arches do give rise to gills in certain aquatic vertebrates such as fish, their developmental fate in mammals has nothing to do with gills or even breathing. In man and other mammals, these arches and pouches develop into part of the face, muscles of mastication and facial expression, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
I am not familiar with the Miller/Urey experiment, honestly. I will look into it, though.
“Thousands of transitional fossils have been found, where are you getting this information? Mudhoppers, fish with legs, reptiles with feathers, i mean seriously.â€
Seriously, everywhere you look at such “proofs†of evolution, you can find reputable evidence against them. I’m not a “Creationist†out to prove jesus is the savior… I want the truth. I haven’t found it in evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
why can’t you apply microevolution, which is an undeniable fact, to macroevolution? Macroevolution does occur, all i can remember though is some frog with its eyes in the mouth…
.
well, if you wanna rebutt the Miller experiments, I have already done it for ya. no one can even imagine the chemical composition of the atmosphere of Earth 3 billion years ago. hence validity of Miller experiements as evidence for evolution remains controversial.
.
but to me, more “evident” than god… I would rather put my faith in something that is progressing and receptive rather in something that is being compromised with every scientific discovery as history has proven since the Renaissance… it is just a matter of time before even the most fundamental are challenged by science…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As naijiew says, within ten minutes of looking at the experiments, I found that this too, can be refuted, especially if you consider that it was begun with that flawed premise… Miller-Urey thought that earth’s initial atmosphere was a hydrogen rich environment, yet we don’t know… scientists now (particularly geochemists) believe that volcanic gasses were predominant in our atmosphere. When volcanic gasses are used the Miller-Urey experiment does not work.
Listen, for the third time, I’m not out to “prove” god. It is possible to doubt evolution and not believe in the creation sh*t either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To those of you who say christians dont press their beliefs on others.
thats completely true, as long as you exclude the hundreds of years of killing jews in europe, the crusades, and the countless preachers on this website.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen SRP…RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
According to the Christian faith they must try to spread the word, We at least according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, by not doing so you are not following the Christian ideology and are thus a bad Christian.
.
So how can you guys possibly say that you dont press your beliefs on others?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am sick and tired of what I see religion doing to the world, give it up – have some pasta!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not disagreeing with anything here. But, you must understand that Evolution is not just a theory, it is a most widely accepted SCIENTIFIC theory. In (public) school we learn science…religion? no. So, doesn’t it make just a litttle more sense to teach scientific theory?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I dont hate christians. I just dislike them very much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.stampandshout.com/_gfx/_bst/_ex/we-have-fossils.gif
How do you like me now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
naijiew, for a minute i didn’t realize you were joking!
But again, why can’t microevolution be extrapolated to hundreds of millions of years for macroevolution
Plus, we’re not descended from apes, we share a common ancestor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
in response to the original post though, scientists getting rich off of evolution, now that’s brilliant. Why aren’t scientists rolling around in cash from other concepts then? I would think that the law of thermodynamics would rake in the money
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@believeneither
“……changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species…..”
Oh dear! More research required believeneither! You seem a bit confused.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Take special note of the term “over time”. Also try the concept of accumulation of heritable changes (genetic mutations) “over time”
Hope that helps.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The ignorance… the ignorance… it hurts me so! Make it go away!
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wish I coulds OEJ. We must persevere. Suggest you take sacrament for strength and wash down with beer.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm …typing outside my ability yet again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, to the person who first posted, here’s a newsflash Walter Cronkite…….EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS A THEORY! That’s why many things are post-noted with the word theory….”The tectonic plate theory”…..”the atomic theory”…..”the big bang theory”….these things are often accepted as fact in the science world, but if substantial, provable evidence is shown to denote the theory at hand, then the theory will be dismissed for a better one, and THAT is the key difference between the rational science and the belligerent religion….Here’s some other facts for you to handle…evolution is not “random”….and, just because something is unknown does not mean it is unknowable (this is in reference to the common examples of “its-so-complex-god-must-have-done-it”…you do not explain one mystery with a BIGGER mystery)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You must understand, however, that you have completely pissed us off”
Where do you get off making a comment like that? What makes you so high and mighty? I don’t care if I, or this site, or homosexuals, or prawn-eaters, or women that teach and wear pants piss you off. Grow up, deal with it and act like an adult. It’s not like we make you come to this site.
Christianity gives me the shits sometimes but I don’t want to go to your sites and “flame” you guys, you know, when you piss me off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen Hacbarton
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Believeneither, you’re trying to use probablility to disprove evolution, yopu must be joking. the universe, as far as we know at any rate, is infinite, so, no matter how small the probability, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Forgive me for not being a biologist who can give you the name of the scientist that did these experimants, but evolution has been observed in bacterium. The life cycle of bacterium as I’m sure we all know is short enough to see them evolve. just grow a few, add some penicillen and let those that survive grow a new colony, add penicillen again, and, guess what, it doesn’t kill them. This is evolution by natural selection, all creationist who’ve gotten lost and wandered onto this site take note, the origional imunity came from a completely random mutation. perhaps you’d like to work out the probability of that?
Oh and, to all the creationist, I’m Christian, but I really don’t see the point in changing the therm, ‘I don’t understand’ to ‘God’. We were given the capacity for reasonable thought for a reason. Do you not think it’s wrong to refuse to advance knowledge because it doesn’t fit with an allegorical story? Allowing you’re mind to rot because you never let anything new in is wasteing that gift.
About scientists getting rich off the laws of thermodynamics, those laws are completely from observation, it was engineers who came up with them, besides, noone will get rich off them unless they break them, and if they do that, they’ll be able to create an overunity engine and solve all the world’s problems as far as power is concerened, which will make them very rich indeed, as well as the proud owner of a nobel prize.
Incase anyone thiks I’m crazy and up really early/late, I’m in Ireland, it’s well into morning now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course everybody hates Christians. Who wouldn’t hate a bunch of whiny, demanding, deluded epistemological and spiritual atavisms who want to run everything at the point of a sword, waving a purportedly magical book and Jeezis-crackers …and when anyone dissents, the Inquisitions, crusades, and stolen elections begin?
You want to have an imaginary friend? Great. Have a ball.
But keep it to yourself. I don’t care, and my ancestors came here 300 years ago to get away from Christianity. And all religion.
Grow up. Nobody cares about what you believe. It should be enough for you that you do, instead of running around demanding everyone agree, and everyone feel sorry for you. Go away and pray. In a closet alone, like Jesus said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I can give you evidence against evolution if you so desire”
/
Please do then I will give evidence that the sun is a giant light bulb – That the moon is made of cream cheese- That aliens from another planet are actualy the ruling classes- and John Edward is really a psychic.
/
If there was any evidence, that is real factual irrefutable evidence, against the THEORY of evolution, you and your ilk would have blasted it across the world.
/
What you mean is you have blind faith and anecdotal enforcement of nothing.
/
You should understand that scientists are continualy looking to refute evoloution not because of some mystic faith, but because science always questions, the fact the haven’t yet contradicted the THEORY isnt through lack of looking, but lack of contradictory evidence.
/
Suppose they could just say “thats not right because me and my mates say so” just like you do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is there a website that has the information for ID? Mainly all the websites I ve seen basicaly talk about the controversy surrounding it, but put forth no evidence. I would appreciate it if one of these christians that keep posting here would give us a link to look over. I m interested in both sides.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would just like to point out in response to believeneither’s earlier posts, the fact that peppered moths were placed on desired tree trunks does not change the fact that during the industrial revolution in England, melanic moths rose dramatically in numbers while typical moths declined. we may have got the original cause wrong, but the change in populations is still an example of evolution in action. something caused melanic forms to be more successful than typical forms, and we’re pretty certain it wasn’t deliberate eradication of typical forms.
Also, while Archeaoraptor turned out to be a hoax, the two fossils from which it had been constructed very much weren’t. The lower half of Archaeoraptor had been constructed from a relative of Avimimus (another feathered dinosaur) while the top half belonged to a dinosaur species with an arm structure very similar to archeaopterix. Prior to the “discovery” of archaeoraptor, neither of these species were known of. current investigations show that both of the fossils used to build archaeoraptor had very bird-like traits of their own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If religion had any shred of evidence there would be no dissent, there would still be bloody wars, but it would only be a matter of what flag to wave, what stoopid symbol to wear about your head/face/arse etc. You Christians just cant stand the fact that the Great Noodly One is as valid as your god.
Shiver me timbers…….pass the rum……..
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think scientists work very hard for less money than lawyers, lobbyists, evangelical preachers, and big energy businesses for the purpose of creating space travel, space stations, the study of chemistry (for breathing and eating in harsh surroundings) and the study of other planets so that when the religious wars consume the Earth, those of us like-minded non-believers have a place to go and wait it out until the wars and fallout have subsided so we can return to our planet of origin. Then we can rebuild and teach our descendants about that history, the science that allowed us to survive, peaceful ways to live, and that we did it all without God, or as it were, He that started the problem in the first place. Scientists work hard for us to survive or, at the very least, be more comfortable. Religion works hard for us to destroy ourselves in the guise of peace, love, and charity, none of which are actuallt practiced by the “faithful.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From an excellnet web site I just found, relevent here:
.
Claim CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.
.
Source: Moon, Rev. Sun Myung. 1990 (27 Mar.). Parents day and I. http://www.unification.net/1990/900327.html
.
Response:
1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
.
2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.
.
3. Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.
.
4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.
.
5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.
.
6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.
.
7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.
.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to make a point about a so called “argument” about the fossil record.
It is sometimes said that the fossil record can’t be right, because no transitional species have been found.
What exactly defines a transitional species? A creature that is an exact average, a perfect 50/50 melding of 2 other fossil creatures found?
Examine the dates people. We’re dealing with millions of years. Different spots that contain fossils will probably be millions of years different time periods. I’ll use a well known example, the dinosaurs. As everyone knows, dinosaurs are, in general, pretty popular fossils. So why haven’t we found any so called “transitional species”?
The truth is that we have, its just that they were so differently evolved that we named it a different species. We then put it in a family tree of what evolved into what! Look at modern day times, now. There are tons and tons of different species of, say, frogs. All of them, when buried and let to rot until only their bones remain, look about the same when dug up. Fossilogically, they look extremely similar! However, they are classified as different species because they are different in their skin and behavior and shape and size, etc. So, the truth is, we are constantly finding transitional species. It’s just that we classify them as new species…its how it works.
.
One of the most hotly debated topics is that of “The Fish That Walked”, or the magical fish-amphibian that had legs and was the first to haul its frame out of the water. This is the best example of a transitional species i have ever seen! (and yes, i have looked at the various species of legged fish that have been unearthed.) They have found a divirsity of fish ranging from a slightly long pair of front fins to completely muscled front and back legs. And everything in between. So if your complaining about not having a transitional species…
Just take a look around.
.
And also what about the whale that walked???
Fossils have also discovered transitional steps of the evolution of the whale. From a land creature to a giant otter-like creature to an aquatic beast with vestigial legs, all the way to the modern day whales. So there!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was under the impression that Pastafarianism, as an alternative Intelligent Design explanation, was actually a counter to the “theory” of evolution. Of course, evolution can work hand in hand with intelligent design anyway… I was under the impression evolution theory says as much about what’s happening now than what happened eons ago. But then again, I’m very impressionable.
By the way, there’s a direct correlation between the decline of pirates and the buildup of waste in landfills. I sure miss pirates :(
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hang on, some-one said something about the chances of single-celled organisms reproducing offspring with which will, in turn, produce ancestors which have lungs, muscles etc. Tiny changes through generations. For millions of years.
You find that hard to believe, yet you quite happily believe that there is no doubting that the world was created in a week, that the world is roughly 4000 years old, that a man can seperate a sea, that a man existed who could wake the dead and that the four horsemen shall be involved in the end of the world?
I don’t buy that you see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Uomo Felice Della Pasta
“…end of the world?”
The god-botherers are determined to make this bit come true!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Poopy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ nikkiee
.
‘The god-botherers are determined to make this bit come true!’
.
Which scares the eyepatch off me! You’ve seen the Rapture Index, have you?
.
Here’s a parallel for you:
.
September 11th. 3,000 innocent people die (give or take) in America. The western world shakes, mourns, and has to drag itself out of an all-too short post-cold-war feeling of safety. Meanwhile, in various localities elsewhere in the world, massed groups of civilians – many of whom have never committed a violent act in their life – celebrate this blow against the oppressor, or the infidel, as fair and just.
.
Today, tomorrow, yesterday – any day around now – in America. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people confidently expect an event in which billions will die in terror and violence, in sudden flames, in agony. The victims will not expect it, they will not understand it as it happens, and they will be consigned to an eternity of empty, cold, loveless, lonely horror. Among these thousands or millions of Americans – many of whom have never committed a violent acti in their lives – some actively look forward to this day, when the sinner, or the infidel, will get his/her just deserts.
.
To these people I say: I don’t care how much faith you have. I don’t care how true you think it is. I don’t care what Right to Believe you think you have. I have an issue with you, and so do the vast majority of people on earth. I don’t want you anymore. I don’t trust you, I am terrified of you and I am appalled by you. You threaten the rest of us with your preposterous, poisonous nonsense. If your god wants you, go to him. Get off our planet.
.
[Deep breath.] In the mean time, please keep thinking, and be nice to each other!
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(I hope I haven’t wrecked my Nice Pirate image with that last post. I’m a patient, sympathetic enough sort, really. Just sometimes, you know, when you see what Faith can do, and you see how the Faithful storm off our forums in a fit of self-defeating nonsense to go and carry on spreading Faith to the vulnerable…
.
Like any animal, I guess I bite when I’m threatened.)
.
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
.
Now I feel better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(@ Nikkiee, again,
.
You know none of that was actually *at* you, of course, don’t you…? I get where you’re coming from, and I’m glad we’re on the same side. Keep up the good work!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sorry to add more to this, but if it hasn’t already been said
1) all scientific facts are theories
2) the earth rotating aroung the sun is a theory, backed up by a LOT of evidence
3) if you reject evolution for being a theory, you also must reject 2)
do you reject 2) ?
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks J
“I’m a patient, sympathetic enough sort, really.”
I think everyone who reads the threads (and your posts) is aware of that.
I think that the wars initiated by fanatic cults (of any religion), which is what it boils down to, are the most frightning thing that this world has to deal with.
They would have us revert to ancient times, the time depending on the particular religion. They all seemed to be addicted to some type of natureally induced physcological drug. Worse than any horror movie I’ve ever seen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0