Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....

Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.

To bad liberals never evolved .

Good god... you cultists have lost all capacity for anything but culting.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.

To bad liberals never evolved .

Good god... you cultists have lost all capacity for anything but culting.

^^ case in point

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?

There are many species that became extinct. Neanderthals are just one.

 

[ding]

Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....

Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.

Really? It's pretty fascinating. Are you against science or something?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....

Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.

Really? It's pretty fascinating. Are you against science or something?

Haha, you didn't even watch the video. Damn, everyone on this message board is exactly the same. The next time one of you read your own links or watches one of your own videos might be the first.

 

[ding]

Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....

Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.

Really? It's pretty fascinating. Are you against science or something?

Haha, you didn't even watch the video. Damn, everyone on this message board is exactly the same. The next time one of you read your own links or watches one of your own videos might be the first.

Of course I did, dummy. I've seen it several times which is several times more than you have seen it.

 

[ding]

You just got to love a moron - who didn't watch a 2 minute video - accuse others of what he didn't do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've seen it several times which is several times more than you have seen it

But didn't understand any of it, and so can't explain it to anyone, apparently. So i guess you're looking for someone else to explain it to you.

 

[Ringtone]

Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.

Excerpt from my article "Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism":

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that. But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us? Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.​

​

The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life. And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​

​

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.​

​

If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel. If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?​

​

We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall. And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.​

​

Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go… . While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials. And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years. (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)​

​

Atheism is poisoning science. Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.​

 

[ding]

I've seen it several times which is several times more than you have seen it

But didn't understand any of it, and so can't explain it to anyone, apparently. So i guess you're looking for someone else to explain it to you.

What's to explain, dummy? Please feel free to explain how natural selection and successive iterations led to the evolution of the many different micromachines in your body.

 

[ding]

And the moron still has not watched the 2 minute video.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please feel free to explain how natural selection and successive iterations led to the evolution of the many different micromachines in your body.

Simple: small changes over time in all the parts. Well that was a softball question. 7th grade science class fare.

 

[ding]

Please feel free to explain how natural selection and successive iterations led to the evolution of the many different micromachines in your body.

Simple: small changes over time in all the parts. Well that was a softball question. 7th grade science class fare.

Not possible for micro machines, dummy. You think you can make a change and it will still work? You really are stupid.

 

[Astrostar]

Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.

HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018

""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist. That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.

Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
[....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
[.....]
If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.

What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?
[.....]
[.....]

How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution

For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins

www.smithsonianmag.com

No brainer. Just ignore their ignorant asses!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not possible for micro machines

False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.

 

[Hollie]

Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.

Excerpt from my article "Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism":

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that. But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us? Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.​

​

The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life. And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​

​

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.​

​

If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel. If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?​

​

We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall. And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.​

​

Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go… . While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials. And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years. (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)​

​

Atheism is poisoning science. Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.​

Ultimately, the ID'iot creationer retreat to ''it's complicated, therefore the gawds did it'', is hopeless and simply an appeal to their fears and ignorance.

There’s nothing to suggest that the universe was created by supernatural gods . As the measurements of science become more precise and as more is learned, we may eventually discover the cause. That’s exciting and gives hope for exploration.

To abandon the search for discovery and rely on books of fables we know are flawed, which use the distillation of gods derived from earlier gods, written by unknown authors who relay tales of magic and superstition projects a measure of hopelessness. The gods dead end at a book written by men and never subject to final editing by the gods,

It's as though I can only shrug my shoulders and despair at the hopelessness of the ID'iot creationer mindset. Its really comically tragic to read the nonsense from the YEC'ers about ''Atheists poisoning science'' when those YEC'ers are the same people who benefit from the work of those same evilutionist, Atheist scientists. While great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry, every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical thinker has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.

 

[abu afak]

abu afak is STILL stuck on Darwin's primitive idea that a cell is sausage packing encasing an amorphous blob of protoplasm. Nothing could be further from the Truth! Each of the hundreds and thousands of organelles that make up a single cell are themselves complicated and intricate.

The idea that inorganic molecules and atoms collided and made perfectly functioning organelles which in turn randomly assembled into a working cell is laughable

Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.

Excerpt from my article "
A biogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism":

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that. But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us? Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.​

​

The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life. And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​

​

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.​

​

If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel. If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?​

​

We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall. And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.​

​

Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go… . While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials. And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years. (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)​

​

Atheism is poisoning science. Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.​

You're done/Lost here.
Just like all the other boards you've Failed on.
You have nothing but repeats/re-posts (Your 10th of the above on this board alone?)

All you do beside SPAM your fallacious blog speech is one line idiot trolling with poems.
Do yourself a favor, try and find any remaining message boards that might have escaped so far.
`

 

[ding]

Not possible for micro machines

False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.

Are you even listening to what you are saying? Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not possible for micro machines

False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.

Are you even listening to what you are saying? Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?

Not just me. The entire global scientific community. Yes, you are wrong and nuts.