Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?

...Oh yes & I forgot to say;

whilst there is actual physical & photographic evidence that UFO's exist etc (discounting all the fraudulent data & all the just 'what someone else said') ...then actually in my view - there is more evidence to show UFO's exist than there is that God exists, for which there is no evidence other than personal belief.

(The Bible = what someone else said (which is not evidence of anything))

...in my opinion...

Really?? It startles me that its that high..I think a lot more people than you think know whata "THEORY" is!!
Give the people some credit.
I do believe there is evolution but it cant explain things like instinct..or that we are the only sentient.
Could somebody explain that to me??

reply to post by Solomons

I *used* to think americans were that stupid.
Boy tell us how you really feel. Even if it were USED to thats still a very offensive and generalized thing to say.
Not very educated!

reply to post by moobaawoof


People whom believe in God don't need proof, that's why it's called faith. Faith is believing in something you know exists but for which you don't have evidence.

Faith is Trust Not belief!

You can believe BS or you can believe on the other hand, Truth.

You can Trust in BS or You can Trust, The Truth.

Human Primates do Not know Truth !

That is why Jesus said "Let All Men be called Liars."

The only One who knows The Truth is Life...

But what is Life ???

The definition given in the bible (the Roman collection of only a few Hebrew and Greek writings) gives the Definition in The Book of St. John...

Quote:-

The Life of God, is The Light of Man, that Lighteth Every Man that cometh into the world.

The Descendants of A'Dam are Not Man, but instead the Primate or Flesh!

On the Other hand Name "Man" is the Name, given to The Soul and Not the Flesh!

Jesus said "I am The Life The Truth and The Way"

He also said "This is a Wicked and Adulterous Generation!"

The Truth can Not be found, in the Descendants of A'Dam Nor in the Earth.

All have come short, of The Glory of God....

But I am Not a religious person, so I can only report as a witness, on what I have studied for many years.

In "The Gospel of Thomas" it is written:-

Quote:-

39.
Jesus said,
.
“The Pharisees and the Scribes
.
have taken The Keys of Knowledge
.
and Hidden Them.
.
.
They themselves have NOT entered,
.
nor have they allowed to enter
.
those who wish to."

As I have repeated many times but people claiming to be Christians often take No notice of this...

A Scribe is one who Writes..

Hmmmm who wrote the bible ???

They were "Scribes".....

There are thousands of Miss Translations all through the bible to merely suit the various denominations and sects that separated themselves from The Roman church which was a part of the Roman government of the day..

In fact Jesus makes No mention of the Roman church or denomination or sect on Earth!

Why Not ???

The Romans also change by translation, "The Assemblies of Lights" to reading as "the churches", this is nothing less than deception, and no less than the corruption and Bastardisation of the Christian Manuscripts of the day...


Shame on You Religious Teachers of the Earth....


[edit on 4-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by Totakeke


And it means:

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
— on faith : without question

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

Which fits into certain things you most likely believe faith doesn't apply.

Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by moobaawoof

 

People whom believe in God don't need proof, that's why it's called faith. Faith is believing in something you know exists but for which you don't have evidence.

That's correct but please don't think I don't already know that.
That's why - (as a person who personally does not believe in God) I ask for actual real evidence rather than just blindly believing what someone else says to me or never questioning the relevance of a story written 2000 years ago.

Which is why there are believers & non-believers.
Exactly as you say: believers need faith to believe in God - due to the lack of any real evidence, otherwise the whole thing will never work.
Exactly as I say: non-believers do not accept the existence or truth of God due to the complete lack of any real evidence.

Originally posted by moobaawoof

Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by moobaawoof

 

People whom believe in God don't need proof, that's why it's called faith. Faith is believing in something you know exists but for which you don't have evidence.

That's correct but please don't think I don't already know that.
That's why - (as a person who personally does not believe in God) I ask for actual real evidence rather than just blindly believing what someone else says to me or never questioning the relevance of a story written 2000 years ago.

Which is why there are believers & non-believers.
Exactly as you say: believers need faith to believe in God - due to the lack of any real evidence, otherwise the whole thing will never work.
Exactly as I say: non-believers do not accept the existence or truth of God due to the complete lack of any real evidence.

Believers don't need proof to know that God exists because they just trust that He does. Humans don't need proof that other humans love them, do they? There's no way of knowing whether someone loves you, you just trust that they do. It's the same with God.

People whom try to prove God never will. It's impossible because salvation can only be reached through faith; through the trust in Christ.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Totakeke]

Originally posted by DASFEX


... all they have to be is faster than the slowest one. This does NOT demonstrate survival of the fittest but eliminates the slowest and or weakest.

You make my point for me. That is the elimination of the "slowest or weakest" at that point in time and may in fact be culling an old, injured, or sick individual who has already reproduced, and may at one time have been the strongest or smartest. In fact, who's to say? It might even be a survival technique that evolved to protect the heard - the scapegoat kind of thing.


Like the deer I first used as an example, it may pass on a great many traits but in the end, what we still have and by the way what we SHOULD have seen if what you are saying is true, the fact is, they are still DEER.


You are completely off the track with this argument. There is no-one anywhere at anytime that says evolution will turn a DEER into, say, an MOOSE. Or as the example was put in an earlier post, a DOG into a CAT. Its a ludicrous, meaningless, criticism.

What is claimed that some ancient proto-deer has evolved into modern deer (actually many different Deer), Caribou, and Moose.

Evolution doesn't transform one species into another, it weeds out unsuccessful mutations and rewards successful mutations. Some mutations fail in some environments and are rewarded in other environments. When this happens there is a split in the characteristics of a population. When the split is severe enough, science recognizes different species.

I repeat, it is not a case of cats becoming dogs. Its a case of some "before there were cats or dogs"-animal evolving into cats in one instance and into dogs in another completely different instance. A fork in a tree, not a bridge between two branches.

That believe it or not was an answer to a statement made that didn't require a lesson... do you know what you get when weeding a Garden of Carrots year after year? You get some mighty fine Carrots

Since you didn't understand it, it did need to be made even if it was forlorn. I repeat, my statement from above, evolution is like a fork in a tree branch, not a bridge between two branches. There is no leap from one species to the next. Dogs don't become cats - proto-Dogs become Dogs.

Weeding can produce a fine Carrot crop. But it can't turn "proto-root vegetables" into carrots, potatos, and turnips; evolution can and has.

No he isn't and you have already displayed the very tactics of equivocation which is one of the great aggregation of the many methods, evolutionists use to defend the theory. The theory of evolution may have its supporters but lets understand something here, it is their is an agenda at stake here and it is one that is not only undeniable, it has been identified and brought to the unites states congress and they found Science to be guilty of it.
...

Even Freud said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Sometimes a fact is just a fact and evolution is a fact. Evolution is the most studied, has the most data and the most support of any theory in history.

There have been mistakes (Brontosaurus) that have been corrected as new data was found and frauds (Piltdown Man) that have been exposed as the evidence has been exposed to scientific review. This is a strength of the theory, not a weakness. Neither of these two examples could have ever been exposed by any rival to evolution.

Of course Scientists have an interest in making a living in modern society. That doesn't mean they have an agenda to be wrong in the face of contrary data. For example, it may be that there are instances of accelerated evolution especially on island environments. Science is working out how to accommodate that in "traditional" evolution. The theory isn't wrong, it just found more data it needs to explain. That is the only agenda science has: explain the data as best it can.

Unlike you apparently.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by rnaa]

I have a genuine question. What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics? So we're supposed to believe that everywhere in the universe entropy is increasing except on Earth, where things are actually becoming more complex?

Don't freak out, I'd just like to know.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by Totakeke


yes - exactly what I'm saying, each from the other side of the point of view we are in agreement.

Originally posted by Totakeke
I have a genuine question. What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics? So we're supposed to believe that everywhere in the universe entropy is increasing except on Earth, where things are actually becoming more complex?

Don't freak out, I'd just like to know.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Totakeke]

...Actually if you read up about it this argument has been countered flat many, many, many, countless times...

...here's one straight off the top of the pile from a google search;
www.talkorigins.org...

Creationists assume that a change characterized by a decrease in entropy can not occur under any circumstances. In fact, spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time, providing sufficient energy is available. The fact that the water wheel and pump are man-built contraptions has no bearing on the case: thermodynamics does not concern itself with the detailed description of a system; it deals only with the relationship between initial and final states of a given system (in this case, the water wheel and pump).

A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without "intelligent design" which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn't permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn't have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other. To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The same relations hold for this activity as for any other activity involving thermodynamical energy changes. It is true that the blocks will not stack themselves, but as far as thermodynamics is concerned, all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other. Thermodynamics merely correlates the energy relationships in going from state A to state B. If the energy relationships permit, the change may occur. If they don't permit it, the change can not occur. A ball will not spontaneously leap up from the floor, but if it is dropped, it will spontaneously bounce up from the floor. Whether the ball is lifted by intelligent design or just happens to fall makes no difference.

On the other hand, thermodynamics does not rule out the possibility of intelligent design; it is just simply not a factor with respect to the calculation of thermodynamic probability.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by moobaawoof]

reply to post by Totakeke


...Another good source where this plus many other typical Creationist arguments are countered is in the series of 30 videos on YouTube "Why people laugh at Creationists" whilst clearly from the title there is a sense of mocking of the Creationist viewpoint, there is however many well presented & intelligent counters to the majority of the Creationist arguments, which generally tend to stem from the Creationists lack or complete twisting of a true scientific understanding of the concepts they attempt to talk about.

'Kent Hovind' was a famous Creationist who either out of his own scientific ignorance or through a will to manipulate the scientific ignorance of the population, put forward many bogus scientific arguments against Evolution & for Creationism. However, once scrutinised by people who actually do have a sound grasp of scientific knowledge, the arguments he put forward were laughable at the least if not downright crazy.

So I think that sense of mocking of Creationism stems from people like Kent Hovind giving Creationists a bad name because of his idiotic suggestions & arguments.

I'm quite certain that the ATS brand of Creationist are far more intelligent & a far better breed above Kent Hovind & his ilk.

Jesus said "Let Not you put your Faith (Faith in some Versions of the bible but in others the word Trust is used instead) in any Man (Person) but in The Father only !

He in No way said to put your faith in the Roman bible !

He made No mention at all about the bible or Roman church !

Nor did Jesus tell you to put your Trust or Faith in Roman Doctrine !

He did Not say to put your Trust in priests or any authority of any church or denomination of humankind !

So why do Humankind insist on propagating False Teachings against what Jesus the carpenter Taught ???

Jesus Never mentioned that such a teaching such as in the Roman church or for that matter a new doctrine called Christianity would spread across the world but He did say when he would depart from the world The Wicked One would come and Deceive The Whole World and that Has happened and started with the establishment of the Roman church !

This is now History an can't be changed !

But there is a New age approaching.....

But what you Expect will happen Won't Happen, and what You Don't Expect to Happen Shall Happen !

Jesus told you to give up everything and follow Him.

But can you who claim to be Christians, give up everything including cars, house and anything else you think you own and follow Him or do you wait until All is taken at death.

How many of you will give up everything??? as he commanded you to.

If you can't give up everything and Follow after Him, you are Not a Christian, Nor do you have Faith or believe Him!

From an early Christian manuscript of the sayings of Jesus the Carpenter....

"The Thunder Perfect Mind"

Jesus asked, why do you say you Love Me but Hate Me?

Why do people put their Trust in humans and Human teachers, Ministers and priests, when Jesus said to Trust the Father Only ???

So this is why I say Faith is used in the context of Trust !

The First Resurrection happened at the time of the crucifixion of the Carpenter Jesus as claimed in the Scriptures....

Why is Humankind still waiting for that first Resurrection to happen ???

This period is the Time of the Gentiles and is shortly to End ands then the next 1,000 years of the Program shall begin....

The End of the World is Not Now, Be patient and experience the next 1,000 years on Earth. While others Experience the Teachings of The Christ in the Soul which is called Man and Not A'Dam who is of the Flesh and is Not the Soul called Man.

The Flesh or Human Primate Fornicates with the knowledge of God in that the Human Primate claims to be Man but in Fact is Not Man but is of the Descendants of A'Dam formed from the dust of the ground having Breath.

But The Soul called Man has The Life of God and is Eternal and Not like the Descendants of A'Dam that Return to the Dust of The Ground...

The Soul (called Man) first wakes again, or is Resurrected, then returns a new garment that Replaces the offspring of A'Dam and is Returned to the Program of Paradise or as some would call it The New Earth and a New Heaven....

But then again, what can I possibly Know, for I am Not a Religious Person, and am only the least of all, I am Nothing....



[edit on 4-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by rnaa
You are completely off the track with this argument. There is no-one anywhere at anytime that says evolution will turn a DEER into, say, an MOOSE. Or as the example was put in an earlier post, a DOG into a CAT. Its a ludicrous, meaningless, criticism.

What is claimed that some ancient proto-deer has evolved into modern deer (actually many different Deer), Caribou, and Moose. .

I am not off track at all and if you weren't so presumptuous you would take note that your answer is exactly the same as mine.

I never said they would become anything other than deer or given the fact that they are a class of deer because I don't expect them to because evolution as you have already said and agreed with me, DOESN'T work like that. I said they would all remain deer and so did you "(actually many different Deer), Caribou, and Moose etc.

This again is adaptation and variation among Kinds and follows the biblical creationist model which is also why Noah didn't have to bring near as many animals to the ark

Evolution doesn't transform one species into another, it weeds out unsuccessful mutations and rewards successful mutations. Some mutations fail in some environments and are rewarded in other environments. When this happens there is a split in the characteristics of a population. When the split is severe enough, science recognizes different species.

I repeat, it is not a case of cats becoming dogs. Its a case of some "before there were cats or dogs"-animal evolving into cats in one instance and into dogs in another completely different instance. A fork in a tree, not a bridge between two branches.

Again, your inability to follow instructions and READ MY POST! I never said I believed evolution is like dogs turning into cats so withdraw the allegation.

Even when someone DOES say it, you realize of course they already believe what you are suggesting doesn't happen so what the hell is your point

Since you didn't understand it, it did need to be made even if it was forlorn. I repeat, my statement from above, evolution is like a fork in a tree branch, not a bridge between two branches. There is no leap from one species to the next. Dogs don't become cats - proto-Dogs become Dogs.

I really wish you would quit responding to statments I never made then criticize me for making them.

Weeding can produce a fine Carrot crop. But it can't turn "proto-root vegetables" into carrots, potatos, and turnips; evolution can and has.
...

I have listed over a hundred a fifty items of fraud in science, I have shown that this is not just some isolated incident and these are not just some obscure fossil findings, they are the bedrock keystone icons of evolution some being their most proud and famous discoveries only to have them be found fake, fraud or mistaken for a cavemans skeleton but it was an honest mistake they say. IT WAS A TOOTH! that was all, a tooth, not of a man but an extinct pig! These people are supposed to be professionals for petes sake.

They are supposed to be intelligent and we expect them to be honest as many in this country see Science as an authority greater than religion.

Problem is , unlike the religious havng that Christian reputation to live up to, evolutionists never admit the many findings that corroborate the creationist model and have long been known to suppress that kind of find apparently as easy as it is for them to lie about another faux fossil find.

Your calls to all that weaseling have been noted but they don't impress me
You know what weasels are do you not?

Here are many often used and ignore all of them.

Weasel Examples
"Some people say..."
"Some argue..."
"Contrary to many..."
"As opposed to most..."
"Research has shown..."
"...is widely regarded as..."
"...is widely considered to be..."
"...is claimed to be..."
"...is thought to be..."
"It is believed that..."
"It is rumored that..."
"It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..."
"There are rumors that..."
"Some people believe..."
"Some feel that..."
"They say that..."
"Many people say..."
"It may be that..."
"Could it be that..."
"It could be argued that..."
"Critics/experts say that..."
"Some historians argue..."
"Considered by many..."
"Critics contend..."
"Observers say..."
"Fans say..."
"Accusations..."
"Apparently..."
"Supposedly..."
"Presumably..."
"Allegedly..."
"Arguably..."
"Actually..."
"(x) out of (y) [vague group of professionals]...."
"Obviously..."
"Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..."
"Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..."
"The (mainstream) scientific community"
"It is claimed..."
"It has been revealed that..."
"Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..."
Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."
"...is only one side of the story"
"Experts suggest..."
"Modern studies have claimed..."
"Studies show..."
"It is generally considered that..."
"It is notable"
"In some people's thoughts/opinions/minds..."
"It turns out that..."

There have been mistakes (Brontosaurus) that have been corrected as new data was found and frauds (Piltdown Man) that have been exposed as the evidence has been exposed to scientific review. This is a strength of the theory, not a weakness. Neither of these two examples could have ever been exposed by any rival to evolution.

Of course Scientists have an interest in making a living in modern society. That doesn't mean they have an agenda to be wrong in the face of contrary data. For example, it may be that there are instances of accelerated evolution especially on island environments. Science is working out how to accommodate that in "traditional" evolution. The theory isn't wrong, it just found more data it needs to explain. That is the only agenda science has: explain the data as best it can.

Unlike you apparently.

Evolution is the most studied, has the most data and the most support of any theory in history.

That dubious distinction you have so graciously lavished on evolutionary science may impress you but it doesn't me and almost ALL the discoveries they make are proven to be untrue within 6 weeks to sometimes as long as 50 years but regardless of that. I have seen every argument given by them over the past 40 years and have seen it change to cover up the stupid ideas they have had every time.


Like I said, it it isn't mistakes of science, it is out and out FRAUD and sure scientists should make a living, BUT AS SCIENTIST'S! Not Con artist's trying to get rich and famous or peer reviewed with the latest "missing link". I have heard one out of five Scientists does science using the scientific method and almost all of them find ways to buy their peer reviews and that has already been investigated and founf to be true. As long as evolution is the only philosophy allowed to masquerade as science, then science will continue to get it wrong, create more fantastic theory and just so story like punctuated equilibrium. and common descent with modification and and it is RAMPANT in evolutonary science and the MOUNTAIN of this concensus based philosophy YOU call science has become a religion that can not be challenged without some dogmatic atheist zealot repeating the same thing I have already proven doesn't happen and like you presenting these as mistakes?

MISTAKES?

45 years it took to expose piltdown man.

FORTY FIVE YEARS!

We have scientist's and paleontologists gluing feathers to reptiles, finding a tooth of an extinct pig and creating an entire skeleton of a caveman and like Java man AND COLORADO MAN, LUCY AND ALL THE REST OF THE fakes frauds and manufactured icons of evolution, Darwin himself has been re-written into our science books as the HMS Beagles Naturalist a Scientist when he was merely a paid guest and a hobbyist, hell he wasn't even a scientist at all and the only degree he ever got was in theology. His book origin of species, he writes about the concerns he has with not finding any transitional forms and that evidence was also a major concern of the late Stephen J Gould so what did we see the Science of evolution do? Well when Darwins theory ws up for review and about to be kicked to the curb, Al Haekel comes to the rescue when Darwinsism was on the brink of becoming just another dead theory. Haekel an athiest with an axe to grind used fabricated drawings to Prove Darwins theory saving it from the trash bin of broken dreams.

Now Darwin knew this but never said anything and perpetuated this with Darwins theory already based on a premise of fraud and it didn't stop there,. Goulds idea was to "invent" a plausible theory (excuse) for why their was so much stasis in the geological record and transitional fossils were not to be found.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0671ed7ac22.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2a52a43b152.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ca85c9c0a748.jpg[/atsimg]

ny, times[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3d8bd8d62b1.jpg[/atsimg]

viral impossibilities Prove once again mutation rates and variation in populations is not enough to substantiate evolution transpeciation dogma

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/539de5f132b2.jpg[/atsimg]

populations and beneficial mutations are not enough, as i had already shown in pages prior, DNA doesn't work that way, you can't just start calling Mutations Mutataions! They are invariably deleterious to the organism and of those that get fixed into the DNA, the likely hood of any further mutations getting past DNA's coding corrections is for all intents and purposes, impossible. DNA doesn't need evolution to bring about all the species on earth it is quite capable of making any creature it is instructed to make.

You see how evolutionists who have been saying "Natural Selection" doesn't need God so why do you say "god did it". Well that kind of hubris comes back to bite the evolutionist in the ass because DNA doesn't need Darwin to explain the variety of species nor does it need evolution. The FACT is, I have been arguing this debate for many years have read hundreds of books on it and many colleagues of mine have been scientists and ALL of them say that behind closed doors and off the record, evolution is a crock

If single celled organisms are all exactly the same, have no different qualities, do not need to compete for food, sex or otherwise, then why did they evolve? There was no competetion, and no need to evolve, there were no 'favourable qualities' in a single celled organism, so why did they evolve?

The evolution theory claims that the first simplest form of life evolved to greater and ever greater more complex forms of life.

But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene.

"What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene.

In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count.

In order for Darwinian Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene. There is no evidence that it ever happens.

There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a gene.

I have explained that if Darwinian Evolution works, organisms have to have a way to add a gene, because an organism has to increase the number of genes in its genome in order to advance to a more complex organism. Mutating is not a way for any organism to add a gene. A single gene could mutate forever but it would never change the gene count.

Supporters of the Theory of Evolution never talk about the Gene Count because there is no genetic mechanism for adding a gene.

More than that however and the area of science evolutionists invariably argue they do NOT go is "A-Biogenesis" and the reason when you think about it, is quite obvious to the astute obeserver of science. How could anything copy genes and replicate itself when it lacks the very DNA components required to do just that.

Darwinian Evolution is fatally flawed and it's time to get back to teaching the truth.

God really DID

do it

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c26bcf1a8b63.jpg[/atsimg]

Evolution is just that, a THEORY. why does it bother you that 6 out of 10 Americans don't believe in it? so 6 out of 10 Americans think for themselves or do not understand it. This does not make them less likely to make an informed decision. Depending on what the person is making a decision on matters whether it is informed or not.

People believed that the world was flat for a long time, that knew this as Fact, that fact was disproved and a new fact was put in place, The World is round.

My point being, Human beings know a lot about nothing and base their lives on theories.

When you bring me 100% proof that evolution is the absolute fact, I will then believe.

When you bring me 100% proof that creationism is the absolute fact, I will believe.

Until then I will keep an open mind on both and any other views presented.

reply to post by DASFEX


While I disagree with your conclusion you do state a good case. Though were I you I'd not expect to sway your evolutionist counterpart as he seems to use little more than the classic canned responses and accusations to anyone who waxes skeptical of E.T.. Science has been given a illusion of inerrability by some or at the very least some super self correcting occult mechanism that is infalible. But it jsut goes to show you that anything can be religion and mankind himself is dogmatic, not just his religions.

reply to post by I think Im normal


I think some people care too damn much what others think even those that they view as stupid/ignorant/inferior to themselves which is largely one of the problems with the world today.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by I think Im normal

 

I think some people care too damn much what others think even those that they view as stupid/ignorant/inferior to themselves which is largely one of the problems with the world today.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Hey Watcher! Big fan of yours especially your guts to withstand the risks and loss of points in standing your ground in some of the most heated topic titles. I especially liked what you wrote in the thread about abortion you and Jnelson. I read what you said there in the above post and went off on a pretty long rant about that very issue and how it is dividing us

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by DASFEX
I said they would all remain deer and so did you "(actually many different Deer), Caribou, and Moose etc.

I did not say deer would remain deer. I said proto-deer became deer. And I will further my statement that todays deer will eventually become something else - a post-deer, if you like, unless we kill them all off first.

This again is adaptation and variation among Kinds and follows the biblical creationist model which is also why Noah didn't have to bring near as many animals to the ark

The "biblical creationist model" may be good at explaining breeding, because guess what? The Bible was written by a people who had only recently (at most a thousand years, possibly as little as a few hundred) learned about animal husbandry. This was the high point of their technology and just as some modern writers use relativity or quantum mechanics as metaphors to explain unrelated things, so did the authors of the Bible.

It does not explain the fossil record except to say God put it there.

I never said I believed evolution is like dogs turning into cats so withdraw the allegation.

I did not attribute it to you, though I can see how it could be misunderstood. I clearly said in that comment that the example was from an earlier post, and in fact it is from a post by Darth Logan, who also did not claim that evolution turned dogs into cats, but implied that he thought evolutionists did think that, or at the least that evolution predicted that possibility.

Even when someone DOES say it, you realize of course they already believe what you are suggesting doesn't happen so what the hell is your point

The point is that when they say it, they are implying that Evolution does predict it. They are using it as "a gotcha".

I have listed over a hundred a fifty items of fraud in science, I have shown that this is not just some isolated incident and these are not just some obscure fossil findings, they are the bedrock keystone icons of evolution some being their most proud and famous discoveries only to have them be found fake, fraud or mistaken for a cavemans skeleton but it was an honest mistake they say. IT WAS A TOOTH! that was all, a tooth, not of a man but an extinct pig! These people are supposed to be professionals for petes sake.

They are supposed to be intelligent and we expect them to be honest as many in this country see Science as an authority greater than religion.

Problem is , unlike the religious havng that Christian reputation to live up to, evolutionists never admit the many findings that corroborate the creationist model and have long been known to suppress that kind of find apparently as easy as it is for them to lie about another faux fossil find.

OK, I get it. You are unhappy that people are people and make mistakes, or misinterpret the data, get jealous of colleagues success, or are out and out attention junkies. And what really gets your goat is that you don't like it that it might take 45 years to correct a really good fraud or a plausible error. Fine.

But you want to replace a model that works for the entire observed world, (albeit slowly in your opinion), with a model that works for a tiny fraction of the observed world (that of selective breeding) and whose only recourse to anomalous data is to say "God works in mysterious ways". In this system, fraud and error can never be corrected, not in 45 years, not in 2 millennia.

Do you really want to invoke "Christian Reputation" as a vaccine against human error, hubris, or fraud?. Does the name Jimmy Swaggert ring a bell? Jim Bakker? Ted Haggard? Larry Craig? Arnaud Amalric?

How many years did it take to expose the "Turin Shroud" hoax?.

And you like weasel words? How about the 3 Monasteries (at least) that claim to have the "real skull of John the Baptist". But one of them has his skull "as a teenager" - so its OK