Newly found fossils provide more proof of evolution?

[KaineDamo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8286160.stm

Pretty fascinating stuff!

In my own opinion, the only reason that there is still debate about whether or not evolution is a fact, is because of the age old friction between science and religion.

There just seems that there is too much proof for any reasonably minded adult to say that there is nothing to the theory of evolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/06/04/040608_peppered_moth_feature.shtml

“The peppered moth story is easy to understand," he explained, "because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death. That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand.”
Adding: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. After all, it provides the proof of evolution."


Evolution in action...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225834.000-review-2006-evolution-in-action.html


24 myths about evolution...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html


What are your thoughts?

[CanadianJudo]

evolution is real,
its proven.. eveyone knows it happins...

the debat is about the theory of life.
im still waiting for the bible to give me some scientific proof.
and waiting for scientific proof proving it for evolution.

[Antrel]

The reason we still debate it is because it's a theory. I personally believe in the theory, but that doesn't change what it is.

[Drawz]

Substitue the word "evidence" for "proof" and I agree.

[byzantine catholic]

Evolution= false

[avergbear]

The problem I have with Liberals is that they use the latest scientific evidence to present a case for evolution, yet they use 1950’s Hollywood Movies to represent the beliefs of Christianity.

[Stantz]

These threads always get awesome.
/popcorn

[toreyj01]

The reason we still debate it is because it's a theory. I personally believe in the theory, but that doesn't change what it is.

A theory is not just a supposition.



Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Lets not get hung up on words, adaptation is real.

[Drawz]

The problem I have with Liberals is that they use the latest scientific evidence to present a case for evolution, yet they use 1950’s Hollywood Movies to represent the beliefs of Christianity.

That's a claim I haven't seen before. Could you give me an example?

[DougBH]

The problem I have with Liberals is that they use the latest scientific evidence to present a case for evolution, yet they use 1950’s Hollywood Movies to represent the beliefs of Christianity.

I have never understood why some find it necessary to see evolution as contrary to Christianity. If you can show me in the bible where it said that God was not allowed to use evolution as a process, I will be interested.

[avergbear]

That's a claim I haven't seen before. Could you give me an example?

When you hear the name “Moses,” can you tell me you don’t envision Charlton Heston standing in robes, arms outstretched?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/17532/thumbs/s-CHARLTON-HESTON-small.jpg

A large number of Americas today, particularly young Americans, get their information on Christianity from old Hollywood movies.

[bloods vs crips]

The problem I have with Liberals is that they use the latest scientific evidence to present a case for evolution, yet they use 1950’s Hollywood Movies to represent the beliefs of Christianity.

this is a strange claim. What's your reasoning here?

[Stantz]

When you hear the name “Moses,” can you tell me you don’t envision Charlton Heston standing in robes, arms outstretched?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/17532/thumbs/s-CHARLTON-HESTON-small.jpg

A large number of Americas today, particularly young Americans, get their information on Christianity from old Hollywood movies.

How is that the "liberals" fault? as opposed to their family and church? Its not the country's responsibility to educate your kids when it comes to your religion.

[James Juno]

These threads always get awesome.
/popcorn

Gimme a bowl, please. *sits down*

[avergbear]

How is that the "liberals" fault? as opposed to their family and church? Its not the country's responsibility to educate your kids when it comes to your religion.

I believe my statement was that those that promote evolution use the latest in scientific evidence, while using Hollywood for information on Christianity.

Now…correct me if I’m wrong, but you will usually find a Liberal on the other end of that argument, but I apply that to most that engage in such discussions.

[Stantz]

I have never understood why some find it necessary to see evolution as contrary to Christianity. If you can show me in the bible where it said that God was not allowed to use evolution as a process, I will be interested.

Herr Ratzinger would agree with you
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

[Conan]

this is a strange claim. What's your reasoning here?

Basic observation.

[bloods vs crips]

I believe my statement was that those that promote evolution use the latest in scientific evidence, while using Hollywood for information on Christianity.

Now…correct me if I’m wrong, but you will usually find a Liberal on the other end of that argument, but I apply that to most that engage in such discussions.

this is a massive logical fallacy

[James Juno]

Basic observation.

Agreed! *stares at your avatar*

[bloods vs crips]

Basic observation.

basic observation of what?

[Stantz]

I believe my statement was that those that promote evolution use the latest in scientific evidence, while using Hollywood for information on Christianity.

Now…correct me if I’m wrong, but you will usually find a Liberal on the other end of that argument, but I apply that to most that engage in such discussions.

Actually the two are not even in the same sphere, one is science and the other religion.
And when i discuss Christianity (its teaching, it's history, it's dogma) i like to go way back before the 1950s and discuss the early church fathers, the reformation, different theologians throughout the centuries, etc etc.

You seem to have a problem that there are many people out there with a cartoonish outlook on Christianity, ohh well maybe Christians can do something to change that outlook.

[avergbear]

How is that the "liberals" fault? as opposed to their family and church? Its not the country's responsibility to educate your kids when it comes to your religion.

Too bad Liberals don’t consider their own advice when indoctrinating our children into their religions of Global Warming, homosexuality, and Obama worship.

Today’s liberals have a lot in common with the 14th. Century Catholic Church when it comes to indoctrination.

[byzantine catholic]

Too bad Liberals don’t consider their own advice when indoctrinating our children into their religions of Global Warming, homosexuality, and Obama worship.

Today’s liberals have a lot in common with the 14th. Century Catholic Church when it comes to indoctrination.Ah thank you.:rolleyes:

[byzantine catholic]

That is wonderfully insightful.It was a "religion" of its own created by Darwin for atheists.

[Conan]

basic observation of what?

LOL

He's implying that you using the latest information to advance your beliefs but still using 50 years of outdated information against Christians.

[Conan]

Too bad Liberals don’t consider their own advice when indoctrinating our children into their religions of Global Warming, homosexuality, and Obama worship.

Today’s liberals have a lot in common with the 14th. Century Catholic Church when it comes to indoctrination.

Very true.

[byzantine catholic]

That's a wonderful opinion. Do you care to bring any evidence or facts to the discussion? Do you have anything that can dispute the newest fossils found?

In other words, I'm basically looking for you to bring something of value to the discussion.Of course there are fossils but are they however million years old and did we evolve from chimps? Humans evolving from apes is about as laughable as dinosaurs evolving from rats.

[avergbear]

LOL

He's implying that you using the latest information to advance your beliefs but still using 50 years of outdated information against Christians.

It’s not even “outdated information.”

It’s a screen script, written for a movie and loosely adapted from Bible fables.

It is no different than trying to understand modern science by watching old monster movies.

[Conan]

I think this is something of a weak attempt to change the subject, as I haven't seen any liberals use "outdated information against Christians" in this thread.

Re-read Bear post again.

You lib's crack me up.

[bloods vs crips]

LOL

He's implying that you using the latest information to advance your beliefs but still using 50 years of outdated information against Christians.

I'm using nothing. Who is using 50 years of "outdated" information against Christians, and how is it outdated?

[Conan]

It’s not even “outdated information.”

It’s a screen script, written for a movie and loosely adapted from Bible fables.

It is no different than trying to understand modern science by watching old monster movies.

True. But lib's still see Christians as they did back 50 years ago.......as if Christian are stuck in some kind of time warp. When in realities it is them that are still stuck in their view of Christians.

[byzantine catholic]

Just because you personally find it laughable doesn't mean there isn't any truth to it.

Mocking the argument rather than addressing it is Appeal to Ridicule, a logical fallacy.So we evolved from chimps and gorillas right?:rolleyes:We came from Tanzania or wherever they say we come from?

[Conan]

I can only assume you're living on a different planet, where an entirely different discussion is taking place, because what yourself and Bear are talking about isn't taking place in this thread.

Really?

You sure have me fooled.

Now I might have to admit I missed understood what Bear point was but will see.

[Sinister Rouge]

So we evolved from chimps and gorillas right?:rolleyes:We came from Tanzania or wherever they say we come from?


You misunderstand the theory.
People shared a common ancestor with apes. We didn't evolve from Chimps, we evolved from the same thing they did.
And yes, the current theory states that human beings originated somewhere in Africa.

[bloods vs crips]

Really?

You sure have me fooled.

Now I might have to admit I missed understood what Bear point was but will see.

your projecting a belief onto someone and then trying to argue against it. It's a classic logical fallacy.

[Sinister Rouge]

I like how the anti-evolutionists here aren't even discussing the OP, instead just spouting off their anti-science rhetoric.

[byzantine catholic]

You misunderstand the theory.
People shared a common ancestor with apes. We didn't evolve from Chimps, we evolved from the same thing they did.
And yes, the current theory states that human beings originated somewhere in Africa.Oh so they finally changed it now where we didn't evolve from chimps.;)Funny since didn't the first civilizations come out of the M.E.?

[Dale in GA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8286160.stm

Pretty fascinating stuff!

In my own opinion, the only reason that there is still debate about whether or not evolution is a fact, is because of the age old friction between science and religion.

There just seems that there is too much proof for any reasonably minded adult to say that there is nothing to the theory of evolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/06/04/040608_peppered_moth_feature.shtml

“The peppered moth story is easy to understand," he explained, "because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death. That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand.”
Adding: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. After all, it provides the proof of evolution."


Evolution in action...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225834.000-review-2006-evolution-in-action.html


24 myths about evolution...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html


What are your thoughts?

Most scripture, whether Christian or otherwise, was written long ago and often in parable form so that the people of the time could understand it. I doubt that a holy book containing references to double helixes and amino acids would have found much traction with people, and God, having created us with freedom of thought and action, must conivnce us that His way is better - thus the holy books.

I've always believed, though, that while the words of the Bible might not always be literally true, they are allegorically so. The problem is determining which are literal and which are allegorical. Most religionists base their particular brand of religion on a firm belief that their set of determinations is actual and everyone else's is more or less off-base.

I think that every scientific advance simply confirms what the faithful have known all along - tha the Universe is God's creation and what happens therein does so because of His initiative.

I think the religionists resent science not because it confirms their beliefs, but because it removes the shroud of mystery from those beliefs.

And of course, I believe that all creatures living today evolved from more primitive creatures that roamed the earth hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago. I believe that God set forth the laws of nature, and then Himself largely follows them. And I think that even being omniscient, He doesn't know what I'm going to do next - He knows all the things I might do, and He probably has a pretty good idea what I will do, but I can surprise Him still - and I think that brings a lot of joy to Him, especially when I choose to do what He wants me to do.

And that, I think, brings this thread awfully close to being a candidate for relocation to the Religion forum.

[Sinister Rouge]

Oh so they finally changed it now where we didn't evolve from chimps.;)Funny since didn't the first civilizations come out of the M.E.?


They didn't change anything. You just misunderstood the theory.
And yes, the first civilization is believed to be in Mesopotamia. But as has been posted, humans are believed to have originated in Africa.

[byzantine catholic]

I like how the anti-evolutionists here aren't even discussing the OP, instead just spouting off their anti-science rhetoric.Isn't it anti-science to believe in a theory and not question it?

[Conan]

your projecting a belief onto someone and then trying to argue against it. It's a classic logical fallacy.

Its no fallacy.

I strongly believe in evolution.....but I've also witness the prosecution of Christians from radical left-wing extremist. The same argument that goes back since I've started following politics.

Last time I checked most Christian endorsed evolution theory.

[TimeToRelax]

SSDD

The assumptions, lies, and deceptions from the Evolution Community never ends....

Romans CH 1 beginning at vs. 18

MY earliest ancestor ... was created.

[byzantine catholic]

They didn't change anything. You just misunderstood the theory.
And yes, the first civilization is believed to be in Mesopotamia. But as has been posted, humans are believed to have originated in Africa.Yes like the Sumerians and some of the towns of 14,000 years ago in the Jordan River area so maybe humanity came from the M.E.?

[avergbear]

your projecting a belief onto someone and then trying to argue against it. It's a classic logical fallacy.

Fine.

If you believe in evolution, without any possibility of intelligent design being involved, then that is your prerogative.

When you insist that your opinion is superior to others, then you are turning it into a religion. And, as witnessed in many threads on this topic, most practitioners of your religion are zealots.

[Sinister Rouge]

Isn't it anti-science to believe in a theory and not question it?


Evolution is questioned, and as more evidence is collected, the theory evolves (heh).
"Questioning" a theory requires more than holding your fingers in your ears and screaming "NUH UH, GOD DID IT!"

[Conan]

meanwhile liberal views hadn't changed regarding Christians in the last 50 years.

[byzantine catholic]

This isn't bible class, buddy.

Loving the picture in your sig, by the way. Pretty much says it all.Discussion for another thread.

[monkeymom]

Herr Ratzinger would agree with you
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

I have always thought this way, and even though I fell away from the Catholic Church years ago I feel like I am in good company.

[bloods vs crips]

Isn't it anti-science to believe in a theory and not question it?

you aren't questioning anything, you are trying to ridicule something you clearly don't know much about.

[Sinister Rouge]

Fine.

If you believe in evolution, without any possibility of intelligent design being involved, then that is your prerogative.

When you insist that your opinion is superior to others, then you are turning it into a religion. And, as witnessed in many threads on this topic, most practitioners of your religion are zealots.


All it takes to be a religion to to believe that an opinion is superior to another?
So me believing that my opinion on how to make a taco (seasoned flavored meat) is superior to my girlfriend's opinion (non-seasoned meat, flavor comes from salsa) means that my religion revolves around taco seasonings?

Evolution isn't a religion. It isn't an admission of atheism--after all, the Pope believes in evolution. It's merely a conclusion based on observed evidence.

[tom1468]

I am just curious, when was the last time a fish grew legs and walked out of the water?
Why has the fish population quit evolving? Or the ape population or anything else for that matter

So can we now claim the global warming debate dead? it is Evolution, the earth is evolving

[bloods vs crips]

Its no fallacy.

I strongly believe in evolution.....but I've also witness the prosecution of Christians from radical left-wing extremist. The same argument that goes back since I've started following politics.

Last time I checked most Christian endorsed evolution theory.

It's terrible logic. Not one shred of evidence has been provided that shows "liberals" (which I assume many Christians would qualify as) use 1950's movies to define Christianity.

Most Christians endorse evolution?

[spinach]

What are your thoughts?

evolution is a lie
that isn't just a thought, it's the truth.

[avergbear]

So can we now claim the global warming debate dead? it is Evolution, the earth is evolving

Blasphemy!

MAN causes global warming!

[Conan]

It's terrible logic. Not one shred of evidence has been provided that shows "liberals" (which I assume many Christians would qualify as) use 1950's movies to define Christianity.

Most Christians endorse evolution?

That's right......but once again you're stuck in 1950 mentality.

You believe in evolution.....that is find so do I. But your views regarding Christianity hadn't evolved over the last 50 years..

[Sinister Rouge]

I am just curious, when was the last time a fish grew legs and walked out of the water?
Why has the fish population quit evolving? Or the ape population or anything else for that matter

So can we now claim the global warming debate dead? it is Evolution, the earth is evolving


Fish don't walk out of water because they've found a niche environment that works for them. The same with apes.
Either way, evolution takes millions, sometimes billions of years to make sometimes minor changes. Far too long for humans to observe on a macro level.
It can, however, be observed on a micro scale. Ever wonder why there's a different flu vaccine every year? Or why some bacterium are immune from penicillin?


And global warming doesn't really apply here, evolution is part of biology, climate change is part of meteorology and climatology. Also, the earth is not a living organism.

[byzantine catholic]

you aren't questioning anything, you are trying to ridicule something you clearly don't know much about.Yes in the evolution theory your first ancestor is Australopithecus aferensis which came from Africa 3.8 million years ago I believe, then they have Australopithecus bolakai whichis from 3.5 million years ago to 2.5 million I believe. Then there is homo habilis, then homo erectus, then homo sapien which is composed of two groups Neanderthalensis and homo sapien sapien which is our species according to the theory and then neanderthals die out and then there is Homo sapien sapien left which creates agriculture, herds animals, and starts the first civilization and they would be us according to the theory.

[bloods vs crips]

Fine.

If you believe in evolution, without any possibility of intelligent design being involved, then that is your prerogative.

When you insist that your opinion is superior to others, then you are turning it into a religion. And, as witnessed in many threads on this topic, most practitioners of your religion are zealots.

wow, your absolutely incredible inability to reason is shocking.

I never claimed any belief in evolution. The rest of your post is flawed based on that assumption.

Seperately, believing an opinion is superior to another is hardly qualifiable as religion. Good grief.

[Sinister Rouge]

evolution is a lie
that isn't just a thought, it's the truth.


Good argument there, champ.

Allow me to counter--You're wrong. That isn't just a thought, it's the truth.

[Conan]

That's right......but once again you're stuck in 1950 mentality.

You believe in evolution.....that is find so do I. But your views regarding Christianity hadn't evolved over the last 50 years..

This is what I though avergbear was trying to convey.....but I missed understood him.

[avergbear]

It's terrible logic. Not one shred of evidence has been provided that shows "liberals" (which I assume many Christians would qualify as) use 1950's movies to define Christianity.

Most Christians endorse evolution?

Since religion (except Islam) cannot be discussed in school, or viewed in public venues, where do children from non-Christian homes get their information of Christians?


The logical answer is from media sources that they access, which is television and the internet.

It doesn’t take a Government Study to know how Christians are portrayed in those venues.

[James Juno]

I am just curious, when was the last time a fish grew legs and walked out of the water?
Why has the fish population quit evolving? Or the ape population or anything else for that matter

So can we now claim the global warming debate dead? it is Evolution, the earth is evolving

1. Most likely sometime during the Devonian Period, around 400 million years BP.
2. It hasn't.
3. It hasn't. Nor has anything else. Rates vary based on an organism's given adaptability to its current environment/ecology, the latter of which also changes at different rates. Your short lifetime isn't long enough to observe obvious evolutionary changes in most cases involving multicellular organisms.
4. Climate variability has nothing to do with biotic evolution. But hey, let's toss it into the mix. It's all the same liberal conspiracy anyway.

[Sknyluv]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/272/jesusdinosaur.jpg

[byzantine catholic]

Since religion (except Islam) cannot be discussed in school, or viewed in public venues, where do children from non-Christian homes get their information of Christians?


The logical answer is from media sources that they access, which is television and the internet.

It doesn’t take a Government Study to know how Christians are portrayed in those venues.Nope religion is out of public schools to please the minority.

[byzantine catholic]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/272/jesusdinosaur.jpgNobody said there were not dinosaurs just that the theory of evolution is flawed and wrong.

[Conan]

Seriously, dude - start a new topic. I don't care about what you're talking about and it has NOTHING to do with this topic.

It has everything to do with this topic.

You started this thread to poke Christians in the eye with it.

[Sinister Rouge]

Since religion (except Islam) cannot be discussed in school, or viewed in public venues, where do children from non-Christian homes get their information of Christians?


The logical answer is from media sources that they access, which is television and the internet.

It doesn’t take a Government Study to know how Christians are portrayed in those venues.


Actually, Christian history is part of most European history courses.
It's not the school's job to promote religion.

But it is the job of the science class to teach scientific theories like evolution, or the theory of gravity.

[byzantine catholic]

Actually, Christian history is part of most European history courses.
It's not the school's job to promote religion.

But it is the job of the science class to teach scientific theories like evolution, or the theory of gravity.Of course because to please the minority you must teach the latter and not the former.

[bloods vs crips]

That's right......but once again you're stuck in 1950 mentality.

You believe in evolution.....that is find so do I. But your views regarding Christianity hadn't evolved over the last 50 years..

and this is why you are a walking logical fallacy. You have no idea what I believe regarding evolution or Christianity. Making an assumption and then trying to argue against it is the essence of illogical thougt.

[Sinister Rouge]

It has everything to do with this topic.

You started this thread to poke Christians in the eye with it.


Funny how you equate presenting evidence with "poking Christians in the eye."
:((

[Sinister Rouge]

Of course because to please the minority you must teach the latter and not the former.


Schools have no business in making students pray.
Students are free to pray on their own.

Or would you feel comfortable with them being taught protestant Christianity?

[Conan]

But it is the job of the science class to teach scientific theories like evolution, or the theory of gravity.

Indeed it is.

Morality and religious teachings should be the parents job.....not the school, YOU or any one else.

[Sknyluv]

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2231/dino2h.jpg

/just for some humor guys. Continue your discussion ...

[Kelzan]

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2231/dino2h.jpg

/just for some humor guys. Continue your discussion ...

Keep 'em coming, they're hysterical.

[James Juno]

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2231/dino2h.jpg

/just for some humor guys. Continue your discussion ...

Aha. The dinosaurs are going the wrong way. So THAT'S why they went extinct.

[Sinister Rouge]

http://bossdork.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/04-28-2009-wwwtvterroristcom_images_dino_riders-dinosaurs_with_lasers.jpg

Too big to post the image...

[Conan]

and this is why you are a walking logical fallacy. You have no idea what I believe regarding evolution or Christianity. Making an assumption and then trying to argue against it is the essence of illogical thougt.

How hard is it for YOU to understand that liberals haven't evolved in the last 50 years in their understandings of Christians?

[bloods vs crips]

Since religion (except Islam) cannot be discussed in school, or viewed in public venues, where do children from non-Christian homes get their information of Christians?


The logical answer is from media sources that they access, which is television and the internet.

It doesn’t take a Government Study to know how Christians are portrayed in those venues.

Your talk radio view of reality is appaulling. Islam isn't taught in school as a belief system, and Christianity is discussed in a myriad of courses. Just because kids aren't forced to accept Christian beliefs doesn't make it disappear.

Don't the majority of people still consider themselves to be Christian? Which would imply that nearly every person is either themself a Christian or is personally connected to one.

[Va-Oh]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/272/jesusdinosaur.jpg


Behemoth, Tanniyn, and Leviathan.

[byzantine catholic]

Schools have no business in making students pray.
Students are free to pray on their own.

Or would you feel comfortable with them being taught protestant Christianity?No just that schools should have a non-denominational prayer.

[byzantine catholic]

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2231/dino2h.jpg

/just for some humor guys. Continue your discussion ...Why are you posting these?

[Conan]

Funny how you equate presenting evidence with "poking Christians in the eye."
:((

He started this thread to ridicule Christians.

KaineDamo In my own opinion, the only reason that there is still debate about whether or not evolution is a fact, is because of the age old friction between science and religion.

There just seems that there is too much proof for any reasonably minded adult to say that there is nothing to the theory of evolution.

[Sinister Rouge]

How hard is it for YOU to understand that liberals haven't evolved in the last 50 years in their understandings of Christians?


What the hell are you talking about?
I was raised Catholic, my parents still go to mass every week. I think I understand Christians pretty well--even though I'll admit that I'm not a theology major.
Now, as to my understanding of Christianity 50 years ago, I don't know what to tell you, I wasn't alive 50 years ago.

And I think it's safe to say that the Pope, who believes in the theory of evolution, understands Christians pretty well.

[bloods vs crips]

How hard is it for YOU to understand that liberals haven't evolved in the last 50 years in their understandings of Christians?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you don't realize the implication you're making, that liberal cannot be Christian.

[Sinister Rouge]

No just that schools should have a non-denominational prayer.


Non-denominational, or non denominational Christian?

You REALLY want the government forcing our kids to pray?

[Sinister Rouge]

He started this thread to ridicule Christians.
:((:((:((
Waaaa... The facts don't jive with my beliefs...he's presenting evidence that I dont undersand...waaa...:((:((:((

[byzantine catholic]

Non-denominational, or non denominational Christian?

You REALLY want the government forcing our kids to pray?Force? First of all I would get rid of the government in our schools and return it to the states.

[byzantine catholic]

What the hell are you talking about?
I was raised Catholic, my parents still go to mass every week. I think I understand Christians pretty well--even though I'll admit that I'm not a theology major.
Now, as to my understanding of Christianity 50 years ago, I don't know what to tell you, I wasn't alive 50 years ago.

And I think it's safe to say that the Pope, who believes in the theory of evolution, understands Christians pretty well.Catholicism is still a very socially conservative religion. BTW you know the Church has become more liberal since Vatican II?;)

[Sinister Rouge]

Catholicism is still a very socially conservative religion. BTW you know the Church has become more liberal since Vatican II?;)


Yes, it's liberal to accept scientific theories.:rolleyes:
I guess you'd go back to when they were persecuting Galileo and burning witches at the Stake? Or go back to the REAL good ol' days of Catholicism, when popes would dig up the corpses of their predecessors and put them on trial...

And OK, so you support STATE governments forcing people to pray. That makes perfect sense.

[Conan]

What the hell are you talking about?
I was raised Catholic, my parents still go to mass every week. I think I understand Christians pretty well--even though I'll admit that I'm not a theology major.
Now, as to my understanding of Christianity 50 years ago, I don't know what to tell you, I wasn't alive 50 years ago.

And I think it's safe to say that the Pope, who believes in the theory of evolution, understands Christians pretty well.

This lag is getting bad on my end, so I may have to cut out.

I was alive and I witness the same ridiculing of Christians today as back them. Its like nothing had change in their views of Christians.....even thou since then most Christians updated their thinking that includes evolution. As you just stated that the Pope, who believes in the theory of evolution himself.

[byzantine catholic]

Yes, it's liberal to accept scientific theories.:rolleyes:
I guess you'd go back to when they were persecuting Galileo and burning witches at the Stake? Or go back to the REAL good ol' days of Catholicism, when popes would dig up the corpses of their predecessors and put them on trial...

And OK, so you support STATE governments forcing people to pray. That makes perfect sense.It seems you have a very negative view of Catholicism or at least traditional Catholicism. You should see some of the real liberal schools out there who suspend students for praying.

[Sinister Rouge]

This lag is getting bad on my end, so I may have to cut out.

I was alive and I witness the same ridiculing of Christians today as back them. Its like nothing had change in their views of Christians.....even thou since then most Christians updated their thinking that includes evolution. As you just stated that the Pope, who believes in the theory of evolution himself.


I don't have any problem with Christians, I have problems with people who believe in fairy-tales and superstitions over science.
I also have problems with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, ghost-whisperers, and psychics.

[Conan]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you don't realize the implication you're making, that liberal cannot be Christian.

Go ahead and go out on that limb.......

You and I are to far apart in our thinking and in politics that we should end all of our discussions together.

Have a nice day.

[Drawz]

How hard is it for YOU to understand that liberals haven't evolved in the last 50 years in their understandings of Christians?

Patently false. I'm 34 and a liberal and MY understanding of Christians comes from (among other things) my mother, CCD classes and seventeen years of Mass on Sunday.
Your assertion is bunk, accept it.

[bloods vs crips]

It seems you have a very negative view of Catholicism or at least traditional Catholicism. You should see some of the real liberal schools out there who suspend students for praying.

no school is allowed to suspend students for prayer. Please link to such claims.

[spinach]

It has everything to do with this topic.

You started this thread to poke Christians in the eye with it.

it makes no difference what the OP's intentions were-
evolution is a lie.

and the only 'eye' that is poked is the evolutionists.
they persist in wanting to believe lies, and that has a consequence.
A very serious one.

Every time a person rejects the truth, they become hardened to it.
And there comes a point where they no longer can be saved, and are doomed to the lake of fire.

In fact, a person who denies God is a fool-
and has one foot already in the fire.

[Conan]

I don't have any problem with Christians, I have problems with people who believe in fairy-tales and superstitions over science.
I also have problems with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, ghost-whisperers, and psychics.

Same here.

But the point I'm making is that Liberals views toward Christians hadn't changed in the last 50 years.

I'm out. I can't stand this lag any more.

[Sinister Rouge]

It seems you have a very negative view of Catholicism or at least traditional Catholicism. You should see some of the real liberal schools out there who suspend students for praying.


I don't. I just know my history. Look up Pope Stephen IV and Pope Sergius III sometime.

And schools are not allowed to punish students for praying. Either you're referring to students who got in trouble for trying to lead prayers at graduation, or schools that punished students when they shouldn't have.
Either way, I'd love to see your links.

[heritagemom]

Most scripture, whether Christian or otherwise, was written long ago and often in parable form so that the people of the time could understand it. I doubt that a holy book containing references to double helixes and amino acids would have found much traction with people, and God, having created us with freedom of thought and action, must conivnce us that His way is better - thus the holy books.

I've always believed, though, that while the words of the Bible might not always be literally true, they are allegorically so. The problem is determining which are literal and which are allegorical. Most religionists base their particular brand of religion on a firm belief that their set of determinations is actual and everyone else's is more or less off-base.

I think that every scientific advance simply confirms what the faithful have known all along - tha the Universe is God's creation and what happens therein does so because of His initiative.

I think the religionists resent science not because it confirms their beliefs, but because it removes the shroud of mystery from those beliefs.

And of course, I believe that all creatures living today evolved from more primitive creatures that roamed the earth hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago. I believe that God set forth the laws of nature, and then Himself largely follows them. And I think that even being omniscient, He doesn't know what I'm going to do next - He knows all the things I might do, and He probably has a pretty good idea what I will do, but I can surprise Him still - and I think that brings a lot of joy to Him, especially when I choose to do what He wants me to do.

And that, I think, brings this thread awfully close to being a candidate for relocation to the Religion forum.

This is really interesting, my son attends a christian (non-catholic) school and holds many of these same beliefs. Needless to say, he is a thorn in their sides. He is also a gifted student academically and we like the rigor of the curriculum overall, which is why he attends this school. They REALLY like that he keeps their test scores high. We are a christian family (perhaps a bit luke warm for the school), but have always encouraged our son to question things, think, discuss, and then decide, hence the thorns. We will be leaving the school after this year because he is not able to explore fully those things he is interested in, nor does he feel comfortable expressing his views. I see how limiting some thinking can be and how it doesn't serve our christian kids to cut off the dialogue at "the earth is 6000 years old". And now, this thread is awfully close to being a candidate for relocation to the Education forum.

[bloods vs crips]

Go ahead and go out on that limb.......

You and I are to far apart in our thinking and in politics that we should end all of our discussions together.

Have a nice day.

we haven't even discussed politics. You are making claims of what liberals think about Christianity. You haven't defined liberal, and are essentially stating that liberals cannot possibly be Christian or else cannot be a Christian without living in the 1950's version. It's idiotic logic.

And that is where I have a problem. I don't care what your politics are, but you need to be able to reason.

[Sinister Rouge]

it makes no difference what the OP's intentions were-
evolution is a lie.

and the only 'eye' that is poked is the evolutionists.
they persist in wanting to believe lies, and that has a consequence.
A very serious one.

Every time a person rejects the truth, they become hardened to it.
And there comes a point where they no longer can be saved, and are doomed to the lake of fire.

In fact, a person who denies God is a fool-
and has one foot already in the fire.

Again, you have nothing to back up that claim.
Your entire argument is based on ridiculing those you disagree with.

[avergbear]

Here you go.

A group of modern day liberals worshiping their God, Barack Hussein Obama.

The following is a video of a meeting of the Gamaliel Foundation in Washington, D.C.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_3884G2s6A


Obviously, this is an accurate representation of all Liberals.

[byzantine catholic]

no school is allowed to suspend students for prayer. Please link to such claims.Here ya go. http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2009/04/13/student-suspended-praying
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070303/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school/index.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94397

[James Juno]

Same here.

But the point I'm making is that Liberals views toward Christians hadn't changed in the last 50 years.

I'm out. I can't stand this lag any more.

Liberals can't be Christians (or religious at all)? This attitude probably hurts the public perception of conservatism more than anything else.

In fact, it's even possible to be both agnostic (or atheist) and conservative at the same time. Imagine that.

[James Juno]

This is essentially a worthless post if you're unable to back it up with any facts.

Kaine, my friend, good luck on your quest.

[Sinister Rouge]

Here ya go. http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2009/04/13/student-suspended-praying
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070303/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school/index.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94397


The first and third story were at a private college, not a high school.
Either way, the students should not have been suspended. You have found two examples, not quite a widespread suppression of student prayer.

[spinach]

Again, you have nothing to back up that claim.
Your entire argument is based on ridiculing those you disagree with.

I don't need to back it up.
it's the truth-
and it's plain for every single person to see.

if you reject plain truth, then there is nothing to argue.
knowing the truth of God is not dependent on me, and not dependent on some persons ability to 'discuss it'.

Knowing the truth of God is solely dependent on whether a person rejects what God has shown them.

If you want to believe in evolution, God will let you do that.
But He also, in the end, will let you also have the consequences of that choice.
It's a foolish choice- but God will let you choose that end, if you want it.

[byzantine catholic]

The first and third story were at a private college, not a high school.
Either way, the students should not have been suspended. You have found two examples, not quite a widespread suppression of student prayer.And what if someone does not stand and put their hand over their heart during the Pledge of Allegiance?

[Sinister Rouge]

Here you go.

A group of modern day liberals worshiping their God, Barack Hussein Obama.

The following is a video of a meeting of the Gamaliel Foundation in Washington, D.C.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_3884G2s6A


Obviously, this is an accurate representation of all Liberals.


Yes, completely accurate. I could post a video of snake handlers and say it's an accurate representation of Christians, but I don't--because it's not.
I don't know why these people worship Obama, but I don't. And most liberals don't.

Either way, we are getting way off topic.

[Drawz]

This is essentially a worthless post if you're unable to back it up with any facts.

I would have left out the qualifier and stopped typing after "post".

[Sinister Rouge]

And what if someone does not stand and put their hand over their heart during the Pledge of Allegiance?


I had a friend who was a JW. She sat through the pledge, and did not participate in the (student-led) prayers some guys on our track team did. None of us had a problem with that.

[byzantine catholic]

i had a friend who was a jw. She sat through the pledge, and did not participate in the (student-led) prayers some guys on our track team did. None of us had a problem with that.jw?

[tom1468]

I don't need to back it up.
it's the truth-
and it's plain for every single person to see.

if you reject plain truth, then there is nothing to argue.
knowing the truth of God is not dependent on me, and not dependent on some persons ability to 'discuss it'.

Knowing the truth of God is solely dependent on whether a person rejects what God has shown them.

If you want to believe in evolution, God will let you do that.
But He also, in the end, will let you also have the consequences of that choice.
It's a foolish choice- but God will let you choose that end, if you want it.
I do not buy into evolution either but it doesnt have to be a either or, choice
Unless you believe that evolution is God
otherwise you can have evolution and God both, You can have the big bang and God , it doesnt have to be either or

That isnt to say that I believe in evolution, Cause I just dont buy it

[adroit]

Fine.

If you believe in evolution, without any possibility of intelligent design being involved, then that is your prerogative.

When you insist that your opinion is superior to others, then you are turning it into a religion. And, as witnessed in many threads on this topic, most practitioners of your religion are zealots.

Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution does not negate the possibility of ID. It's just that ID deals with metaphysical phenomena while science deals only with physical phenomena. Therefore, ID belongs in the science classroom just as much as astrology.

Some ideas are superior than others when it comes to science. That's why the leading theory of grabity is Einstein's theory of gravitation (general theory of relativity) rather than Newton's theory of gravitation.

[Sinister Rouge]

I don't need to back it up.
it's the truth-
and it's plain for every single person to see.

if you reject plain truth, then there is nothing to argue.
knowing the truth of God is not dependent on me, and not dependent on some persons ability to 'discuss it'.

Knowing the truth of God is solely dependent on whether a person rejects what God has shown them.

If you want to believe in evolution, God will let you do that.
But He also, in the end, will let you also have the consequences of that choice.
It's a foolish choice- but God will let you choose that end, if you want it.


So how do you explain that fossil? Or the fact that snakes have hip bones? Or that whales have vestigial foot bones?

Or that the Pope believes in evolution?

[adroit]

jw?

Jehovah Witness

[byzantine catholic]

Jehovah WitnessAh yes.

[bloods vs crips]

Here ya go. http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2009/04/13/student-suspended-praying
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070303/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school/index.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94397

the first link is a blog based on the third one, and my understanding of the situation is that there hasn't been a suspension, only the threat of one. It will be dealt with or the school will be severely sued. Which means, schools aren't allowed to do it.

As for the christianpost, which I've never heard of, the story doesn't demonstrate your claim at all. According to the VP, the students simply weren't allowed to disrupt a high traffic area and were told to go outside and pray, which they DIDN'T do. They were certainly afforded the opportunity to pray if they wanted to.

[Sinister Rouge]

jw?


Jehovah's Witness.

[avergbear]

What on earth has THAT got to do with THIS topic?

Being intellectually dishonest does not serve your cause. It only makes you look like a partisan intellectual coward.

Since you are new to the board (at lease with your current user name), may I suggest that before you begin posting that you read the TOS regulations. Particularly the part about attacking the post, and not the poster.

Just a word to the wise.

Oh, and welcome to the board.

[byzantine catholic]

Jehovah's Witness.Yes I know my stepsister's family is JW. I am the only Catholic and my family is a bunch of Baptists and Methodists. But anyway JWs do not pray?

[Sinister Rouge]

Since you are new to the board (at lease with your current user name), may I suggest that before you begin posting that you read the TOS regulations. Particularly the part about attacking the post, and not the poster.

Just a word to the wise.


Saying that a post you made is intellectually dishonest is not an attack.
It is accurate.
You have yet to address the OP, rather you have filled your posts with anti-liberal rhetoric.

[bloods vs crips]

And what if someone does not stand and put their hand over their heart during the Pledge of Allegiance?

what? Your arguments sound like you're still in high school, is that correct?

[byzantine catholic]

what? Your arguments sound like you're still in high school, is that correct?Nope just graduated.

[Sinister Rouge]

Yes I know my stepsister's family is JW. I am the only Catholic and my family is a bunch of Baptists and Methodists. But anyway JWs do not pray?


I don't know enough about them.
But apparently they don't pray with non-JWs. Or celebrate birthdays (I made a major faux pas on that once...)

[adroit]

It has everything to do with this topic.

You started this thread to poke Christians in the eye with it.

I'm a Christian and I didn't get the impression he was trying to poke me in the eye. He was simply giving evidence for evolution.

[byzantine catholic]

I'm a Christian and I didn't get the impression he was trying to poke me in the eye. He was simply giving evidence for evolution.Evolution is not compatible with Chirstianity.

[avergbear]

And I'd advise you to read the TOS in regards to sticking to the topic.

If you fell I have violated TOS, you know where the MOD forum is.

I suspect you have been there before.

[spinach]

So how do you explain that fossil? Or the fact that snakes have hip bones? Or that whales have vestigial foot bones?

Or that the Pope believes in evolution?


the "fossil" is a manufactured thing, either a monkey
or a mix of separate bones. It is not a 'missing link', such things do not exist.

and it's mans "opinion" that snakes have hip bones, and that whales have foot bones.

and as for the 'pope', he's just another person like you.

I have already given you the answer--in my previous post
and you aren't at all really interested in the truth.
But I have done what the Lord has commanded, and pointed out the truth.
I am done now, on this thread, there is nothing to argue. The truth of God does not need to be argued, because it is already revealed by Him to everyone.
If you reject His revelation, you surely won't accept what some 'human' says to you.

[adroit]

Evolution is not compatible with Chirstianity.

That is false. My acceptance of evolution bears no negative implications towards my faith.

[byzantine catholic]

If you fell I have violated TOS, you know where the MOD forum is.

I suspect you have been there before.Bear let's just chill and keep debating okay.:cool:

[byzantine catholic]

That is false. My acceptance of evolution bears no negative implications towards my faith.Darwin created the theory of evolution to combat Christianity.

[Sinister Rouge]

Darwin created the theory of evolution to combat Christianity.


No.
He created it after observing evidence of it in Galapagos on the HMS Beagle.

[bloods vs crips]

Darwin created the theory of evolution to combat Christianity.

proof?

[byzantine catholic]

1. Do you have proof of this?

2. Even if true, that wouldn't discredit the theory of evolution.It is true. Read his life story where after his daughter died he cursed God and made himself an agnostic and then tried anything to combat the Christian theory.

[Sinister Rouge]

the "fossil" is a manufactured thing, either a monkey
or a mix of separate bones. It is not a 'missing link', such things do not exist.

and it's mans "opinion" that snakes have hip bones, and that whales have foot bones.

and as for the 'pope', he's just another person like you.

I have already given you the answer--in my previous post
and you aren't at all really interested in the truth.
But I have done what the Lord has commanded, and pointed out the truth.
I am done now, on this thread, there is nothing to argue. The truth of God does not need to be argued, because it is already revealed by Him to everyone.
If you reject His revelation, you surely won't accept what some 'human' says to you.

Just because facts dispute your theory doesn't mean the facts are hoaxes. There have been hoaxes on both sides of the debate, and they are eventually proven false. That's why science has peer-review.

You can observe that snakes have vestigial hip bones. And that whales have vestigial foot bones. You can view them yourself. That means it's a fact, not an opinion. Maybe God is playing some sort of prank on you.

[Sinister Rouge]

It is true. Read his life story where after his daughter died he cursed God and made himself an agnostic and then tried anything to combat the Christian theory.


Link? Please back up your claims.

[avergbear]

Uh... nope, I haven't.

And you were the first to bring up violations of TOS, so I can say the same to you.

Stop whining, and discuss the topic.

If you want to discuss something other than evolution (such as pathalogical anti-liberal babbling), take it to a different topic.

I brought up TOS when you chose to attack me on a personal level and engage in name calling.

When you bring up the topic of evolution on a political message board, you should not be surprised when a discussion of religion ensues.

[Drawz]

Darwin created the theory of evolution to combat Christianity.

Nonsense. Everyone knows that he created the theory of evolution to combat Zen Buddhism.

[byzantine catholic]

Link? Please back up your claims.You did not hear about his daughter dying?

[adroit]

Darwin created the theory of evolution to combat Christianity.

No, he didn't. That is a lie. Darwin was a Christian and in his younger years he was pretty much the equivalent of a current day ID theorist. Throughout the years of his study and observations of the natural world, he discovered more and more things that he believed were simply not intelligently designed. Eventually he broke away from this natural theology worldview.

[byzantine catholic]

No, he didn't. That is a lie. Darwin was a Christian and in his younger years he was pretty much the equivalent of a current day ID theorist. Throughout the years of his study and observations of the natural world, he discovered more and more things that he believed were simply not intelligently designed. Eventually he broke away from this natural theology worldview.Darwin became an agnostic after his daughter died.

[heritagemom]

It is true. Read his life story where after his daughter died he cursed God and made himself an agnostic and then tried anything to combat the Christian theory.

If he hated God and Christianity that much, wouldn't he have become an "atheist" ?

[bloods vs crips]

You did not hear about his daughter dying?

back up your claims.

[Sinister Rouge]

You did not hear about his daughter dying?
Darwin had 10 children, 2 died young.
You still haven't shown how this made him decide to wage a war on Christianity.

[byzantine catholic]

If he hated God and Christianity that much, wouldn't he have become an "atheist" ?I am just saying what he became. He became an agnostic after 1851.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Link? Please back up your claims.

I couldn't find any legitimate sourch through google. Only crazy religious sites that say the same thing all sourcing back and forth to one another.

[Sinister Rouge]

I brought up TOS when you chose to attack me on a personal level and engage in name calling.

When you bring up the topic of evolution on a political message board, you should not be surprised when a discussion of religion ensues.


That wasn't namecalling, it was calling you out on being intellectually dishonest in your arguments.

You still have yet to address the OP.

[byzantine catholic]

Provide a source.In 1851 Darwin was devastated when his daughter Annie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Darwin) died. By then his faith in Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) had dwindled, and he had stopped going to church.[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#cite_note-jvw41-138)

[ddye]

Part of the problem comes from evangelical social conservatives who believe that you cannot be a "real" Christian unless you are also an evangelical social conservative.

There is no reason that you cannot believe that God used evolution, one of His creations, to grow life. None at all.

Doug

[byzantine catholic]

Part of the problem comes from evangelical social conservatives who believe that you cannot be a "real" Christian unless you are also an evangelical social conservative.

There is no reason that you cannot believe that God used evolution, one of His creations, to grow life. None at all.

DougYeah except that you have to believe in a Godless theory.

[heritagemom]

I am just saying what he became. He became an agnostic after 1851.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

OK, I see that. But it is curious that he would still "leave the door open" so to speak. I'll leave you alone now.

[byzantine catholic]

Part of the problem comes from evangelical social conservatives who believe that you cannot be a "real" Christian unless you are also an evangelical social conservative.

There is no reason that you cannot believe that God used evolution, one of His creations, to grow life. None at all.

DougI am not an evangelical.

[chemguy]

Yeah except that you have to believe in a Godless theory.

Isn't atomic theory and germ theory "godless" also?

[PaleoPaul]

In 1851 Darwin was devastated when his daughter Annie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Darwin) died. By then his faith in Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) had dwindled, and he had stopped going to church.[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#cite_note-jvw41-138)
He was an agnostic during the "downfall," though.

Agnosticism means an "unsureness" of a faith in God, or the concept of such a being. It's not atheism or anti-theism.

[Sinister Rouge]

I am just saying what he became. He became an agnostic after 1851.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin


[/URL] Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#cite_note-148"][149] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#cite_note-147) but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#cite_note-jvw41-138) He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[150] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#cite_note-Fordyce-149) [151] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#cite_note-spencer-150) and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”[150] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#cite_note-Fordyce-149)[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#cite_note-Belief-78)


It doesn't say anything about him developing his theory to discredit Christianity.

[heritagemom]

Part of the problem comes from evangelical social conservatives who believe that you cannot be a "real" Christian unless you are also an evangelical social conservative.

There is no reason that you cannot believe that God used evolution, one of His creations, to grow life. None at all.

Doug

Doug, Doug, Doug, can it be, we agree. I think I've just met the man my son will become.

[tom1468]

I couldn't find any legitimate sourch through google. Only crazy religious sites that say the same thing all sourcing back and forth to one another.
See?
This is the problem with the "provide a link" form of debate
It is normally done to shut the other side down
But then if a link is provided , it is soon discredited

Anyone can find a source for anything on the internet

[Va-Oh]

Part of the problem comes from evangelical social conservatives who believe that you cannot be a "real" Christian unless you are also an evangelical social conservative.

There is no reason that you cannot believe that God used evolution, one of His creations, to grow life. None at all.

Doug


Could some of the problem be that some do not give God any credit at all in creation, and feel that people who do are small minded and stupid?

[Conservatizzle]

So Darwin was correct, then? Okay.

Any idea when this part of evolution theory is going to take place?


"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

The Descent of Man Chapter 7

[adroit]

Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source, as absolutely anyone can edit it.

It's well known that Darwin was an agnostic and he alludes to such in his own writings. Regardless, the claim that he created his theory to combat Christianity is just a straight up lie. He was developing his theory well before his daughter died and most of his research came from his voyages on the Beagle.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Yeah except that you have to believe in a Godless theory.

At least the theory is based in reality and observable evidence.

[avergbear]

That is false. My acceptance of evolution bears no negative implications towards my faith.

Personally, I do not find the two mutually exclusive. Nor do I try to force my opinions on others or belittle those that chose to believe in evolution alone.

For the most part, I think it’s mostly high school kids that think they know it all that have such disdain for creationism.

[PaleoPaul]

Yeah except that you have to believe in a Godless theory.
You do realize there are Christian evolutionists, right?

[James Juno]

Isn't atomic theory and germ theory "godless" also?

Science is clearly out to destroy religion.

[Conan]

I personally believe evolution is as real as breathing the air I'm breathing in. Not only do I believe in evolution right here on our planet, I believe our universe is also evolving as well. I also believe at the moment of big bang God was created. Those are my beliefs. Don't like it...... tough.

I never been to any church or any other place of worship......and never really care to do so in the future, for I carry my faith from within. I taken the knowledge that God gave me, and grace of man ability to discover that knowledge to come to my conclusion.

But I have personally seen how Christians been ridiculed from liberal media, entertainment and other outlets to poke fun at them. Even to a point where they were discriminated against. And that is just plane wrong. If they want to believe that God created them other then evolution that is their business......not yours. Nor do you have the right to ridicule them to their children.

Spinach I like you, you know I defended you many times when you came under attack from liberal bias......but your wrong and naive.

[adroit]

Yeah except that you have to believe in a Godless theory.

What do you mean you have to believe in a Godless theory?

[Sinister Rouge]

So Darwin was correct, then? Okay.

Any idea when this part of evolution theory is going to take place?


Darwin isn't the end-all be-all of evolution. He was merely the first person to propose it.
Obviously all of his ideas were not accurate. There have been tremendous advances in science and medicine since the 1840s.
This still doesn't discredit the theory of evolution, or the evidence thereof in the OP.

[adroit]

I personally believe evolution is as real as breathing the air I'm breathing in. Not only do I believe in evolution right here on our planet, I believe our universe is also evolving as well. I also believe at the moment of big bang God was created. Those are my beliefs. Don't like it...... tough.

I never been to any church or any other place of worship......and never really care to do so in the future, for I carry my faith from within. I taken the knowledge that God gave me, and grace of man ability to discover that knowledge to come to my conclusion.

But I have personally seen how Christians been ridiculed from liberal media, entertainment and other outlets to poke fun at them. Even to a point where they were discriminated against. And that is just plane wrong. If they want to believe that God created them other then evolution that is their business......not yours. Nor do you have the right to ridicule them to their children.

Spinach I like you, you know I defended you many times when you came under attack from liberal bias......but your wrong and naive.

The whole "liberals bashing Christians" topic does no belong in this thread. Create a new thread for it.

[byzantine catholic]

What do you mean you have to believe in a Godless theory?The evolution theory denies God.

[Sinister Rouge]

I personally believe evolution is as real as breathing the air I'm breathing in. Not only do I believe in evolution right here on our planet, I believe our universe is also evolving as well. I also believe at the moment of big bang God was created. Those are my beliefs. Don't like it...... tough.

I never been to any church or any other place of worship......and never really care to do so in the future, for I carry my faith from within. I taken the knowledge that God gave me, and grace of man ability to discover that knowledge to come to my conclusion.

But I have personally seen how Christians been ridiculed from liberal media, entertainment and other outlets to poke fun at them. Even to a point where they were discriminated against. And that is just plane wrong. If they want to believe that God created them other then evolution that is their business......not yours. Nor do you have the right to ridicule them to their children.

Spinach I like you, you know I defended you many times when you came under attack from liberal bias......but your wrong and naive.


Ridiculing Christianity, or any other religion is wrong. No matter who does it.

[James Juno]

Darwin isn't the end-all be-all of evolution. He was merely the first person to propose it.
Obviously all of his ideas were not accurate. There have been tremendous advances in science and medicine since the 1840s.
This still doesn't discredit the theory of evolution, or the evidence thereof in the OP.

It's easier to target one guy than 150 years of follow-up research.

[Sinister Rouge]

The evolution theory denies God.


No it doesn't.
Not according to the Pope, who I imagine would an authority on the subject, being God's vicar on Earth and all that.

What if God created evolution? What if that is how he manages his creations? Sounds good to me.

[natalie addict]

How hard is it for YOU to understand that liberals haven't evolved in the last 50 years in their understandings of Christians?

Because Christianity hasn't changed in 50 years? Maybe a little window dressing change here and there but still the same stuff as before. Or did I miss something?

[adroit]

Personally, I do not find the two mutually exclusive. Nor do I try to force my opinions on others or belittle those that chose to believe in evolution alone.

For the most part, I think it’s mostly high school kids that think they know it all that have such disdain for creationism.

I agree that people shouldn't force opinions or belittle others that believe contrary to what I believe. Having said that, evolutionary theory is the leading theory to describe the diversity of life on this planet (please note, for those that don't realize this, the theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life).

I have no ill-feelings towards ID, but it does not belong in the science classroom solely because it deals with a supernatural designer. That is outside the scope of the study of natural phenomena (science).

[Conan]

The whole "liberals bashing Christians" topic does no belong in this thread. Create a new thread for it.

Tough

[byzantine catholic]

No it doesn't.
Not according to the Pope, who I imagine would an authority on the subject, being God's vicar on Earth and all that.

What if God created evolution? What if that is how he manages his creations? Sounds good to me.Or maybe he created things all at once with a "wave of his hand" so to speak.

[adroit]

The evolution theory denies God.

That is false. The theory is agnostic to a supernatural being, as is all science. Where have you learned these lies?

[Conan]

Ridiculing Christianity, or any other religion is wrong. No matter who does it.

Indeed....and that is my point.

Ever since theory of evolution came out it was used to bash Christians.

[PaleoPaul]

List of Christian Evolutionists:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html (Most of the people listed are evangelicals or fundies.)

Christians CAN be Evolutionists:

http://www.asa3.org/evolution/veritas.html

[byzantine catholic]

That is false. The theory is agnostic to a supernatural being, as is all science. Where have you learned these lies?Okay so how did the first ever creature evolve?

[adroit]

Or maybe he created things all a tonce with a "wave of his hand" so to speak.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. If that were the cast, then he waved into existence evidence that creatures changed over a vast amount of time.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with science.

[Conan]

Very mature.

Again...... tough.

Don't like it there is a ignore button.

Use it.

[byzantine catholic]

Do you have proof of this?Genesis maybe.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Personally, I do not find the two mutually exclusive. Nor do I try to force my opinions on others or belittle those that chose to believe in evolution alone.

For the most part, I think it’s mostly high school kids that think they know it all that have such disdain for creationism.

The problem is one of them has to do with faith, the other one has to do with observation and evidence; it doesn't require "belief." Supporting the theory of evolution isn't a matter of belief its science. Now I could support the belief of a God sparking evolution or guiding it, but to say evolution is not occurring is denying what is happening in front of an individuals own eyes.

It's like someone saying one doesn't believe the sky is blue, or the earth is round, until they can provide evidence to the contrary, the sky is blue and the earth is round.

Just like we can observe the sky being blue and the earth as round we see evolution as an ongoing process that has and can be observed in seconds,minutes,years,centuries, and millenium.

[old guy]

the problem with the evolution-ID debate is that the ID debate depends on faith. not matter what evidence is presented the ID community will still say its not convincing enough because it goes against their faith.

logic cant win over faith because faith just dismisses eveidence that doesnt agree with them

[byzantine catholic]

The problem is one of them has to do with faith, the other one has to do with observation and evidence; it doesn't require "belief." Supporting the theory of evolution isn't a matter of belief its science. Now I could support the belief of a God sparking evolution or guiding it, but to say evolution is not occurring is denying what is happening in front of an individuals own eyes.

It's like someone saying one doesn't believe the sky is blue, or the earth is round, until they can provide evidence to the contrary, the sky is blue and the earth is round.

Just like we can observe the sky being blue and the earth as round we see evolution as an ongoing process that has and can be observed in seconds,minutes,years,centuries, and millenium.What is evolving right now?

[byzantine catholic]

the problem with the evolution-ID debate is that the ID debate depends on faith. not matter what evidence is presented the ID community will still say its not convincing enough because it goes against their faith.

logic cant win over faith because faith just dismisses eveidence that doesnt agree with themThat darn Christianity!:rolleyes:

[adroit]

Okay so how did the first ever creature evolve?

I'm not sure I understand your question. The first creature evolved similar to how creatures today evolved. They produced offspring and passed on their genetic data to that offspring. From generation to generation, that genetic data had small alterations.

How that first creature came into existence is outside the scope of evolution. That lies with the theory of abiogenesis. I wish Greyclouds were here. He's much better at this stuff than I am. <--- that was an extreme understatement

[yesterdaystomorrow]

What is evolving right now?

Viruses, bacteria, humans, animals, plants,insects, fungi... etc.

[Sinister Rouge]

What is evolving right now?


Everything.

Ever have a penicillin-resistant strain of a disease?

[ddye]

Could some of the problem be that some do not give God any credit at all in creation, and feel that people who do are small minded and stupid?
People who do not credit God for evolution do not lessen the validity of it. Evolution is a scientific theory, which does not attempt to explain where evolution came from.

The fact that an atheist might believe that evolution does not come from God doesn't mean that I can't also believe in evolution as a Christian. The atheist and I simply disagree on the "why", not the "how".

And I agree that the theory of evolution does not even attempt to deal with The Creation.

Doug

[adroit]

What is evolving right now?

Every living being that produces offpsring. That's the very definition of evolution: change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

[byzantine catholic]

Viruses, bacteria, humans, animals, plants,insects, fungi... etc.Humans!:rolleyes:Which humans are evolving?

[adroit]

Everything.

Ever have a penicillin-resistant strain of a disease?

You people post too fast for me.

[Sinister Rouge]

Humans!:rolleyes:Which humans are evolving?

Ze Germans.

(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2663601/German-girls-boobs-are-getting-bigger.html)

[byzantine catholic]

SO according to the evolution theory why have not our species homo sapien sapien evolved in the last 300,000 years?

[PaleoPaul]

the problem with the evolution-ID debate is that the ID debate depends on faith. not matter what evidence is presented the ID community will still say its not convincing enough because it goes against their faith.

logic cant win over faith because faith just dismisses eveidence that doesnt agree with them
ID doesn't equal creation.

[yesterdaystomorrow]

Humans!:rolleyes:Which humans are evolving?

I don't think you fully understand the concept of evolution. If you mean evolution as in happening now and observable within the period of a few days or years then your answer is viruses and bacteria.

As for humans, evolution is observable over a longer period of time, but it is still happening.

[byzantine catholic]

Ze Germans.

(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2663601/German-girls-boobs-are-getting-bigger.html)Something that is real evidence.

[adroit]

SO according to the evolution theory why have not our species homo sapien sapien evolved in the last 300,000 years?

You're not understanding the simplicity of evolution. A species doesn't have to evolve into another species for evolution to take place. Evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup from one generation of organisms to another.

[Sinister Rouge]

Something that is real evidence.


PM inbound.

[Sinister Rouge]

Alright, I'm out. FSU game is on.

[Sinister Rouge]

You're not understanding the simplicity of evolution. A species doesn't have to evolve into another species for evolution to take place. Evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup from one generation of organisms to another.


For example, heights increasing over time.

[ddye]

For example, heights increasing over time.
If you mean the fact that people are taller than they were 1000 years ago, that's due to nutrition and other factors, not evolution.

Doug

[Conan]

That seems to be the case in this thread.

It's difficult enough to get people to talk about the evidence, nevermind people dismissing the evidence.

It's quite sad, really.

It was you that brought up religion.

In my own opinion, the only reason that there is still debate about whether or not evolution is a fact, is because of the age old friction between science and religion.

There just seems that there is too much proof for any reasonably minded adult to say that there is nothing to the theory of evolution.

And it was you that attempted to redicule them with this comment. "any reasonably minded adult"

So stop your crying.

[adroit]

The evolution theory denies God.

You still haven't directly addressed my response that the theory of evolution is agnostic towards the existence of God. The existence or lack thereof makes no difference when it comes to the theory.

[adroit]

If you mean the fact that people are taller than they were 1000 years ago, that's due to nutrition and other factors, not evolution.

Doug

So the genes that determine height are the same today as they were 1000 years ago?

[Conservatizzle]

I know that some conservatives have unfortunately released edited versions of Darwin's work, so I'll ask you to provide a source.

And I'll also remind you that just because Darwin discovered evolution does not mean that everything he wrote on the topic was correct.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=201

[adroit]

It was you that brought up religion.



And it was you that attempted to redicule them with this comment. "any reasonably minded adult"

So stop your crying.

Well, I'd have to agree that any reasonably minded adult who has actually taken the time to read up on the current theory would not say there is nothing to the theory. Would you disagree?

*paging Greyclouds. Please come help out in this thread, you are 100000000x more knowledgeable than me in regards to this subject*

[old guy]

ID doesn't equal creation.

but both ID and creationism rely solely on faith rather than evidence.

ive yet to see one piece of evidence for ID or creationism that wasnt faith based

[avergbear]

I agree that people shouldn't force opinions or belittle others that believe contrary to what I believe. Having said that, evolutionary theory is the leading theory to describe the diversity of life on this planet (please note, for those that don't realize this, the theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life).

I have no ill-feelings towards ID, but it does not belong in the science classroom solely because it deals with a supernatural designer. That is outside the scope of the study of natural phenomena (science).

I disagree with the use of your term “supernatural.”

Again, it goes back to the Hollywood vision of Christianity that leads people to the conclusion that Christians believe God floats around on white clouds in a robe.

[avergbear]

the problem with the evolution-ID debate is that the ID debate depends on faith. not matter what evidence is presented the ID community will still say its not convincing enough because it goes against their faith.

logic cant win over faith because faith just dismisses eveidence that doesnt agree with them

Isn’t “faith” a lot like “Hope?”

[adroit]

I disagree with the use of your term “supernatural.”

Again, it goes back to the Hollywood vision of Christianity that leads people to the conclusion that Christians believe God floats around on white clouds in a robe.

My post has nothing to do with the Hollywood vision of Christianity. I don't believe God floats around on white clouds in a robe. This argument is a strawman.

God is a spiritual being. That means he is metaphysical. Could he have a physical form, yes (e.g. Jesus). ID relies on the idea that God intelligently designed life. The very creation of the ID theory was a result of creationists trying to circumvent court orders that creationism was not to be taught in the science classroom.

[Conan]

Well, I'd have to agree that any reasonably minded adult who has actually taken the time to read up on the current theory would not say there is nothing to the theory. Would you disagree?

*paging Greyclouds. Please come help out in this thread, you are 100000000x more knowledgeable than me in regards to this subject*

Yes I agree.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=62000561&postcount=192

Not only do I believe in evolution but I also believe there is enough evidence to suggest that our universe is also alive and evolving.

But my contention is that people are using evolution to beat up on Christians.

Which is wrong.

[adroit]

Yes I agree.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=62000561&postcount=192

Not only do I believe in evolution but I also believe there is enough evidence to suggest that our universe is also alive and evolving.

But my contention is that people are using evolution to beat up on Christians.

Which is wrong.

I agree that is wrong. But, I have not witnessed that in this thread, nor did I get that impression from the OP. That's just my opinion.

[Drawz]

So the genes that determine height are the same today as they were 1000 years ago?

He's right. Were not taller on average now as opposed to 1000 years ago because of selection.
On a side note I find it interesting that due to our civilization and technology certain traits are no longer being selected against. Poor eyesight for example. I'm pretty much helpless without my specs. In a primative hunter gatherer type enviornment I'd be useless and a likely candidate for an early death at the teeth of a predator. Now though, I'm able to live a productive life and pass on my faulty eyesight to future generations.

[avergbear]

My post has nothing to do with the Hollywood vision of Christianity. I don't believe God floats around on white clouds in a robe. This argument is a strawman.

God is a spiritual being. That means he is metaphysical. Could he have a physical form, yes (e.g. Jesus). ID relies on the idea that God intelligently designed life. The very creation of the ID theory was a result of creationists trying to circumvent court orders that creationism was not to be taught in the science classroom.

ID is a theory, as is evolution.

There is no absolute proof of either and until science can make an ameba crawl out of a test tube, there won’t be.

And, in my personal belief system, ID is not such much faith as it is logic. I don’t look at just life on earth but the vastness of the Universe(s) and can’t believe it was just some sort of cosmic accident.

In reality, man is like a grasshopper trying to understand the workings of TV set. We just aren’t capable of that level of comprehension.

[Conan]

I agree that is wrong. But, I have not witnessed that in this thread, nor did I get that impression from the OP. That's just my opinion.

I have to disagree.

He should of stay with facts instead of making it out to be evolutionist verse religion.

Its OP problem in his wording that this thread isn't following the direction that he wanted to go with.

And it isn't our fault that this thread evolved into completely different direct. ;)

[James Juno]

He's right. Were not taller on average now as opposed to 1000 years ago because of selection.
On a side note I find it interesting that due to our civilization and technology certain traits are no longer being selected against. Poor eyesight for example. I'm pretty much helpless without my specs. In a primative hunter gatherer type enviornment I'd be useless and a likely candidate for an early death at the teeth of a predator. Now though, I'm able to live a productive life and pass on my faulty eyesight to future generations.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about weak brains.

[Conan]

I'm not really doing that, and neither is any other evolutionist here.

The anti-evolutionists are kind of doing it to themselves, what with arguments like "evolution is a lie, and that's the truth because I say it is". You expect us not to point out the fallacies of arguments like that?

Them leave them along.

If they don't want to evolve than that's their problem.....not yours. ;)

[Drawz]

Unfortunately, the same can be said about weak brains.

I'll go ahead and assume you're not referring to me.

[WorldWatcher]

Force? First of all I would get rid of the government in our schools and return it to the states.


The States are part of government, you did know that right?


>>>>

[James Juno]

I'll go ahead and assume you're not referring to me.

I think you know I wouldn't be.

[adroit]

ID is a theory, as is evolution.


ID is a hypothesis. It has not been recognized in any notable peer-reviewed journals. It is simply not a scientific theory.


There is no absolute proof of either and until science can make an ameba crawl out of a test tube, there won’t be.

There will never be absolute proof. The same goes with any scientific theory. There is no possible way we can evaluation every possible piece of empirical evidence. Every single theory will ALWAYS be a theory until they are disproven. They can never be proven.


And, in my personal belief system, ID is not such much faith as it is logic. I don’t look at just life on earth but the vastness of the Universe(s) and can’t believe it was just some sort of cosmic accident.

In reality, man is like a grasshopper trying to understand the workings of TV set. We just aren’t capable of that level of comprehension.

Not yet, but perhaps one day. I refuse to take a God of the Gaps mentality. Just because we don't know how something happened doesn't mean we should simply say "God did it" and leave it at that.

P.S. I appreciate your--as well as everyone else's--contributions to this thread.

[James Juno]

This debate is so easy.

Thanks to 150+ years of dedicated research by millions of scientists throughout the world.

[WorldWatcher]

It seems you have a very negative view of Catholicism or at least traditional Catholicism. You should see some of the real liberal schools out there who suspend students for praying.


Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. In addition, Section 9524 requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, a local educational agency ("LEA") must certify in writing to its State educational agency ("SEA") that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as set forth in this guidance. http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html


You should report any case of a school violating a students right to Constitutionally protected prayer. (However, School mandated prayer is not Constitutionally protected.)


>>>>

[adroit]

He's right. Were not taller on average now as opposed to 1000 years ago because of selection.
On a side note I find it interesting that due to our civilization and technology certain traits are no longer being selected against. Poor eyesight for example. I'm pretty much helpless without my specs. In a primative hunter gatherer type enviornment I'd be useless and a likely candidate for an early death at the teeth of a predator. Now though, I'm able to live a productive life and pass on my faulty eyesight to future generations.

Are you saying the increase in height over the past 1000 years has nothing to do with genetics?

[adroit]

I gotta go run a few errands, I'll be back later.

Good discussion everyone.

[ddye]

So the genes that determine height are the same today as they were 1000 years ago?
Yeah, pretty much. Evolution would take hundreds of thousands of years to increase the average human's height to a measruable level.

Doug

[Drawz]

Are you saying the increase in height over the past 1000 years has nothing to do with genetics?

No, my knowledge of genetics is far to rudimentary to say that. What I am saying is that a ubiquitous increase in average height over such a short period of time, with no enviornmental pressure to select for taller people is more than likely due to improved diet and nutrition rather than to natural selection.

[Trip]

I don't have any problem with Christians, I have problems with people who believe in fairy-tales and superstitions over science.
I also have problems with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, ghost-whisperers, and psychics.

Like Global Warming, now climate change and the catastrophism supposed to come from this?

Like the falsehood of a centralized government creating a real economy and jobs?


Btw, where is the "Rouge" in your nick from?

[Trip]

Are you saying the increase in height over the past 1000 years has nothing to do with genetics?

What about selective breeding?

[Conservatizzle]

I keep reading that evolution is a theory and can't be proven, only disproven.

Then I look at the thread title and chuckle:

Newly found fossils provide more proof of evolution? (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=62002751#post62002751)

[adroit]

What about selective breeding?

Selective breeding, or artificial selection, still influences the evolution of a particular population.

[Bluesgtr44]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8286160.stm

Pretty fascinating stuff!

In my own opinion, the only reason that there is still debate about whether or not evolution is a fact, is because of the age old friction between science and religion.

There just seems that there is too much proof for any reasonably minded adult to say that there is nothing to the theory of evolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/06/04/040608_peppered_moth_feature.shtml

“The peppered moth story is easy to understand," he explained, "because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death. That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand.”
Adding: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. After all, it provides the proof of evolution."


Evolution in action...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225834.000-review-2006-evolution-in-action.html


24 myths about evolution...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html


What are your thoughts?

It's past the "point of proof" now....why don't they just admit that they can't find it. If this was true evolution, they would have found thousands of these links by now so the whole flow of this would have any merit......but, NO! They are looking for this one....one.....link. Now, please stop......start looking for the evidence of some type of intervention.

[adroit]

I keep saying that evolution is a theory and can't be proven, only disproven.


Very true. The theory of evolution can never be proven. However, evolution is both fact and theory, much like gravity. We observe that bodies of mass attract each other and the General Theory of Relativity tries to explain how they attract each other. The fact of evolution is the change of genetic material from one population of biological organisms to another. The theory tries to explain how those changes occur.


Then I look at the thread title and chuckle:

Newly found fossils provide more proof of evolution? (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=62002751#post62002751)

I agree. I'd prefer throwing the word "proof" around in mathematics and logic classes. Regardless, evolution does occur, just as masses attracting each other occurs.

[Trip]

I keep reading that evolution is a theory and can't be proven, only disproven.

Then I look at the thread title and chuckle:

Newly found fossils provide more proof of evolution? (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=62002751#post62002751)

Scientific Theories, by the non-layman definition, are complex compilations of facts, laws, evidence, and hypotheses. Many believe that a theory is the same as an untested hypothesis; it's not. Evolution can adapt to the evidence, and has, but it is founded in fact and is truth. We know for a fact that Evolution has occurred; we just don't understand all of its processes.

[old guy]

ID is a theory, as is evolution.

There is no absolute proof of either and until science can make an ameba crawl out of a test tube, there won’t be.

And, in my personal belief system, ID is not such much faith as it is logic. I don’t look at just life on earth but the vastness of the Universe(s) and can’t believe it was just some sort of cosmic accident.

In reality, man is like a grasshopper trying to understand the workings of TV set. We just aren’t capable of that level of comprehension.


ID isnt a theory without some kind of evidence to back it up. like ive asked before show me one piece of scientific evidence tat backs up ID. just one piece that isnt faith based

[Clintville]

The reason we still debate it is because it's a theory. I personally believe in the theory, but that doesn't change what it is.
A scientific theory is way different from a regular theory. I don't know how many time that needs to be said.

[Clintville]

The problem I have with Liberals is that they use the latest scientific evidence to present a case for evolution, yet they use 1950’s Hollywood Movies to represent the beliefs of Christianity.
I use what people say on this website to represent the the people on this website. I am perfectly aware that there are many Christians (hopefully the majority of them) in this country that don't take the Bible entirely literally and believe in evolution.

[Conservatizzle]

I find it a bit funny that the very people who are often criticizing Christians about evangelizing are so outrageously evangelical about their own beliefs.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Clintville]

It was a "religion" of its own created by Darwin for atheists.
No, it was a theory based on observation and fact. You do not need to be an atheist (I don't think Darwin ever claimed to be one, though I am not sure). You just think that because it contradicts your creation story.

[Clintville]

Of course there are fossils but are they however million years old and did we evolve from chimps? Humans evolving from apes is about as laughable as dinosaurs evolving from rats.
You are aware that humans are technically apes?

[DoLoop]

One of the attributes of scientific theory is its ability to make measurable and verifiable predictions. Evolution, gravity, quantum theories, all have repeatable abilities of prediction. What predictive power does ID have?

[Clintville]

So we evolved from chimps and gorillas right?:rolleyes:We came from Tanzania or wherever they say we come from?
No, we share common ancestors. Before trying to make fun of the theory, you should at least know basic information of it. That is something that is a problem for many creationists.

[Clintville]

Oh so they finally changed it now where we didn't evolve from chimps.;)Funny since didn't the first civilizations come out of the M.E.?
No, that isn't funny. You apparently have never heard of migration.

[agent_86]

That is wonderfully insightful.

Its actually ... Evolution = pack of lies

[Clintville]

Yes like the Sumerians and some of the towns of 14,000 years ago in the Jordan River area so maybe humanity came from the M.E.?
No, because the oldest fossils of man's predecessors have come from Africa.

[Clintville]

meanwhile liberal views hadn't changed regarding Christians in the last 50 years.
How? No where did anyone say that all Christians believe in literal creationism. There is only an argument between individuals on this thread. So you are still committing a fallacy.