who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[SmarterThanHick]

2. Nothings labeled.

Actually, everything's labeled. That's why it's called radiolabeling, and radiometric decay.

5. Not my kind of belief system, I like solid facts to work with, like, God created evrything in 7 days.
6. I can wrap my head around it, not because I want something simplistic, its because it really happened, and the signs of it are everywhere, if you know where to look.

Yes, if you know where to look for "evidence", and how to overlook contradictory information, things are simple! But yes, you believe it because it is simple, as proven by the fact that it hasn't changed in thousands of years. All this progress to man, and yet you have ZERO further understanding of your simplistic folklore. You say you like solid facts. I have asked time and time again what your reproducible evidence is. You have yet to provide it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Which in no way invalidates any of my points. Mitochondrial DNA would conclusively prove that I gave birth to my children, and certain DNA markers would prove that some male in my husband's family fathered them, but since you sure as hell don't have every single generation and intermediate, let alone actual parent-child strings of fossils, DNA isn't going to tell you much more than "similar genetic structure". And that, again, only proves Darwinism if you're already a disciple of it and determined to see everything as proof thereof.

Why is it you think that you can prove maternal lineage through mitochondria and paternal lineage through the Y chromosome in direct offspring, but not jumps in generations? The idea is just short-sighted. You just identified that mitochondrial DNA is generally preserved between generations, and yet you completely fail to see how skipping generations would similarly conserve DNA. You furthermore seem incapable of understanding that small changes over time still occur, which allow us understand the branch points of genetics. That would be the topic of phylogenetics you claimed I used to intimidate you.

First question - because that's a disingenuous dodge to try to pretend that we're talking about something different than we are. It's one of the hallmark reasons that I view evolution with such suspicion: because its adherents can't argue honestly and straightforwardly.

Darwinian evolution, aka Darwinism - which is what the controversy is about - is defined thusly: 1) all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanism of modification has been natural selection acting on undirected variations that originate in DNA mutations; and 3) unguided processes are sufficient to explain all features of living things - so whatever may appear to be design is just an illusion.

All of this was posited in Darwin's theories, and all of this is still a part of evolutionary theory and belief today, so this sad attempt to hide behind "no one believes in Darwin anymore" is exactly that: a sad attempt to hide.

Once again you return to Darwin's theories from 200 years ago as your basis for understanding evolution today. Why do you focus so much on Darwin? Why can't you converse in this topic without continually fleeing back to his limited ideas? You do realize the entire field of genetics has been established, 100 years after his time, right?

Second question - If evolutionary theory was correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with major differences arising only after a long accumulation of minor differences. But the fossil record shows exactly the opposite.

The Cambrian Explosion is called that because the Cambrian fossil record doesn't start with one or a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera, then families, then orders, then classes, then phyla. Instead, most of the major animal phyla - and many of the major classes within them - appear together abruptly during the Cambrian period.

It's odd because you acknowledge that different species arise at different times..... and yet you have trouble that it's because of change in time. You do realize the Cambrian Explosion took place over many millions of years, right?

When I want empty, childish insults, I'll go visit the local middle school and save you the trouble of cluttering the message board with posts like these. Therefore, please don't feel the need to waste my time if you're not planning to actually address any points with more than "this just proves how stupid you are".

And by the way, cramming two people's (cherrypicked) posts into one response is incredibly rude. It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument, but you should know that I won't respond to this sort of thing again.

Why is using the built in multi-quote function rude? You really just need to complain about anything you can instead of addressing the points at hand. In my previous post, I made the following claims: you continue to resort to 200 year old ideas instead of modern understanding of evolution to twist the topic, you continue to use quotes that aren't even from this century to support your outdated understanding, and you continue to make vague claims about a missing link without actually pointing out what link you're referring to.

Now you can continue to focus on how hurt you were because you interpreted my text as calling you stupid, despite me never actually using that word once in the post, but it's clear to everyone else reading this thread that you're using this overblown victimization to avoid actually discussing the topics and points I just restated.

Let me know if you'd actually like to talk about up to date understanding of evolution, for once.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I am grounded in the belief that I was created in the image of God, by God, and nobody else created me except for him. However, I am pretty sure my wife evolved from monkeys.

Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the other,
"Now listen you two,
There's a certain rumor
That can't be true ...
That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is sure to disgrace."
"No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you've never known another monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another."
"And another thing you will never see ...
Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree;
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all the other monks to taste."
"Why, if I put a fence around this tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me."
"And here's something else a monk won't do ...
Go out at night and get on a stew;
Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey's life."
"Yes, man descended ... ornery cuss,
But, brother, ... he didn't descend from us!

~ Author Unknown ~

Wow. That was an academic heavy hitter argument in line with this little ditty.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W_4ct10dS4&feature=related"]YouTube - "I'm No Kin to a Monkey" (10-04-2005)[/ame]

Once again, you are trying to walk with a pair of deuces on this argument.

Glad you liked it.

 

[HUGGY]

Cecile1200:
"And by the way, cramming two people's (cherrypicked) posts into one response is incredibly rude. It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument, but you should know that I won't respond to this sort of thing again."

Maybe you don't spend enough time with smart people. I do. Let me share a few tips on what I know of "smart people".

Smart people do not "believe" the same way others do. They try to keep their minds open because in their lives they have seen advances they didn't predict but upon examination must accept to remain intellectually honest.

Smart people are eager to have their knowledge challenged because they want to know the best information. They know they have to be proactive in that task and risk suffering idiots sifting for gold nuggets.

Smart people watch very little if any commercial television. It pollutes their hard won base of knowledge. Smart people are quick to see most commercial television is an intentional deversion from important information.

Yes, most smart people believe in evolution and the studies that came from it because that is the "best knowledge". There is no such thing as "final" knowledge because even the most perfect appearing "law" can be polished to more clearity.

I guess I must cover what truly smart people do not "believe" also. They do not believe fantasy in place of fact. Fact being for the purposes of this description the best information available.

 

[Bill Angel]

Sorry bout that,

... it is possible to believe in both [god and evolution], in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).

It's really the conflict between proponents of science and creationism that is irresolvable.
Last night I asked a believer in creationism how old he thought the universe was. His assertion was that the universe was 10,000 years old! And that the earth was also of the same age. Now anyone with a scientific interest in the subject is aware that the elements of which life is constructed (carbon, nitrogen, etc) were formed via nuclear fusion in stars over a period of billions of years. And that the earth is composed of these elements that were created in stars that had exploded eons ago. While the details of "Darwinism" might be for some debatable, the details of nuclear fusion (as determined by astrophysics) are not.

I know this is a tactless way of putting it, but one dramatic demonstration that scientists have understood the physics correctly is their success in developing the Hydrogen Bomb!

1. Bill, Bill, you need a bigger cup of coffee my man!
2. I don't buy into your statements.
3. What makes you think this universe is that old?
4. I just can't take your word for it.
5. Prove it!
6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.
7. In roughly 7000 years ago, all this that wasn't was, and appeared in a flash.
8. Big Bang never happened, the universe rolled out like a scroll.
9. More or less unfolded.
10. Huggy you drink first my man,...


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You assert that everthing in the Universe appeared in a flash 7000 years ago.
The most straightforward evidence against that assertion would be the radiometric dating of the age of the earth.

"The age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."

See Age of the Earth

 

[HUGGY]

The indisputable evidense that creationists refuse to acknowledge is how elements change. With sufficient preasure and heat elements can gain electrons and neutrons adding to their molecular weight. These "new" elements have different properties than those of which the previous elements had beeen assembled. The unused particles left over are not gone but transform into an infinitely wide range of byproducts from lighter elements all the way to waves of pure energy including visible and invisible light. That is not "theory" but fact.

Elements can and all do change towards lighter elements just by being around for a very long period of time. The electrons fly off slowly one at a time at a very predictable rate and as they do the elements eventually transform into lighter ones untill they are captured by a stars gravity and are reabsorbed into heavier ones again in the nuclear furnaces of those stars. None of this proccess is conjecture. It is all fact.

No amount of "faith" or "belief" can alter the proccess. Those that choose to ignore these facts willfully or replace them in favor of a dogma of religion have no business getting involed in the discussion. I have no problem if someone wants to be ignorant. Just keep that stupid shit to yourself and your ignorant peers. Attempting to poison hard earned human knowledge with this ignorance is not tolorable.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,

It's really the conflict between proponents of science and creationism that is irresolvable.
Last night I asked a believer in creationism how old he thought the universe was. His assertion was that the universe was 10,000 years old! And that the earth was also of the same age. Now anyone with a scientific interest in the subject is aware that the elements of which life is constructed (carbon, nitrogen, etc) were formed via nuclear fusion in stars over a period of billions of years. And that the earth is composed of these elements that were created in stars that had exploded eons ago. While the details of "Darwinism" might be for some debatable, the details of nuclear fusion (as determined by astrophysics) are not.

I know this is a tactless way of putting it, but one dramatic demonstration that scientists have understood the physics correctly is their success in developing the Hydrogen Bomb!

1. Bill, Bill, you need a bigger cup of coffee my man!
2. I don't buy into your statements.
3. What makes you think this universe is that old?
4. I just can't take your word for it.
5. Prove it!
6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.
7. In roughly 7000 years ago, all this that wasn't was, and appeared in a flash.
8. Big Bang never happened, the universe rolled out like a scroll.
9. More or less unfolded.
10. Huggy you drink first my man,...


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You assert that everthing in the Universe appeared in a flash 7000 years ago.
The most straightforward evidence against that assertion would be the radiometric dating of the age of the earth.

"The age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."

See Age of the Earth

1. So you believe that stuff?
2. Tell me how long does it take for rock to form?
3. Does anybody really know?
4. An educated guess is all anyone can come up with.
5. Maybe rock doesn't form but needs a creator?
6. Can rocks be humanly made?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Flopper]

So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many people with strong religious beliefs can not accept evolution because they feel it conflicts with the scriptures. If somehow man was excluded from evolution, which of course it can not be, then it would be far more acceptable. I think very few religious people really care if the earthworm evolved from something else, but once you say man evolved, you are stepping on Superman's cape.

More important, to accept that man evolved from any other species. implies that man does not have that unique special place in the world of the scriptures.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
James D. Watson

 

[Cecilie1200]

So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many people with strong religious beliefs can not accept evolution because they feel it conflicts with the scriptures. If somehow man was excluded from evolution, which of course it can not be, then it would be far more acceptable. I think very few religious people really care if the earthworm evolved from something else, but once you say man evolved, you are stepping on Superman's cape.

More important, to accept that man evolved from any other species. implies that man does not have that unique special place in the world of the scriptures.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
James D. Watson

It's interesting how the people talking the most about religion on this subject are the evolution supporters, telling everyone else how their only objections are religious. Can we say, "talking point"?

 

[HUGGY]

So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many people with strong religious beliefs can not accept evolution because they feel it conflicts with the scriptures. If somehow man was excluded from evolution, which of course it can not be, then it would be far more acceptable. I think very few religious people really care if the earthworm evolved from something else, but once you say man evolved, you are stepping on Superman's cape.

More important, to accept that man evolved from any other species. implies that man does not have that unique special place in the world of the scriptures.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
James D. Watson

It's interesting how the people talking the most about religion on this subject are the evolution supporters, telling everyone else how their only objections are religious. Can we say, "talking point"?

Interesting? How so? I just spelled out how matter gets created and goes through it's changes so even a child could absorb it. I didn't pick on any religion. I stated clearly my objection was with willfull ignorance and interference with the procces of adding to human knowledge. No one is going into your stupid churches and making you accept anything at gunpoint. Kindly return the courtesy and restrain from engaging in discussions about how matter came to be with useless dogma that cannot be supported with any proof. How you WANT things to be is not proof. If your fantasy falls apart under the weight of the truth it is not my problem. What is noteable but hardly "interesting" is how long it takes some eyes to see, ears to hear and minds to proccess that information. What it is..is an anchor on human progress.

 

[Flopper]

So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many people with strong religious beliefs can not accept evolution because they feel it conflicts with the scriptures. If somehow man was excluded from evolution, which of course it can not be, then it would be far more acceptable. I think very few religious people really care if the earthworm evolved from something else, but once you say man evolved, you are stepping on Superman's cape.

More important, to accept that man evolved from any other species. implies that man does not have that unique special place in the world of the scriptures.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
James D. Watson

It's interesting how the people talking the most about religion on this subject are the evolution supporters, telling everyone else how their only objections are religious. Can we say, "talking point"?

Many who accept evolution are also religious which results in a conflict of beliefs. So no it's not surprising. They are simply looking to resolve a conflict that can never be resolved. The only way a Christian can accept evolution is too reject a literal interpretation of the Bible and instead accept an interpretation that matches scientific fact.

 

[HUGGY]

Many people with strong religious beliefs can not accept evolution because they feel it conflicts with the scriptures. If somehow man was excluded from evolution, which of course it can not be, then it would be far more acceptable. I think very few religious people really care if the earthworm evolved from something else, but once you say man evolved, you are stepping on Superman's cape.

More important, to accept that man evolved from any other species. implies that man does not have that unique special place in the world of the scriptures.

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles”
James D. Watson

It's interesting how the people talking the most about religion on this subject are the evolution supporters, telling everyone else how their only objections are religious. Can we say, "talking point"?

Many who accept evolution are also religious which results in a conflict of beliefs. So no it's not surprising. They are simply looking to resolve a conflict that can never be resolved. The only way a Christian can accept evolution is too reject a literal interpretation of the Bible and instead accept an interpretation that matches scientific fact.

I get it perfectly about the personal inner conflict. It's like meeting a gal and you become a couple and she wants you to honor her feelings about her old boyfiends. Sure HUGGY I love ya madly but I used to believe I loved so and so too. I just want you to share me with the old flame from time to time and see how it goes. Fuck their inner conflict! Not my problem. I'm okay with someone walking away admitting like those cowboy fags that they can't quit each other but I have no obligation to cheer em on and wish them a happy life together.

 

[geauxtohell]

the theory of Evolution in now way precludes the possibility of a god existing.

science has yet to prove what existed before the big bang, and they have yet to trace Evolution all the way back to the start. I do not see how Evolution can not co exist with Religion. It blows Creationism out of the water but it does not preclude the existence of a god at all.

Nor does it claim too.

The problem comes from people who want to use evolution to prove God does exists.

Science is mute on the issue of God.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sorry bout that,

Why do you apologize in front of every post?

And anyway it is possible to believe in both, in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).

I think this would hinge on whether he thinks Catholics are really Christians.

1. I think Catholics are just playing along with the scientific community.
2. Wanting to draw in some of the lost.
3. I don't think they swallow evolution down hook line and sinker, like the masses do.
4. They just wink the eye at it, and know, they can win more with honey than vinager.
5. But they have way more proof as to why God is the *Real Deal* than any other Christian Church.
6. Another topic though.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So the Catholic Church is lying about what it really believes?

Laughable.

Of course, you are used to that.

 

[geauxtohell]

When I want empty, childish insults, I'll go visit the local middle school and save you the trouble of cluttering the message board with posts like these.

Oh my God.

Pot meet fucking kettle.

If you don't want to be insulted, don't insult.

Since your entire M.O. is to insult without offering any substance, your protestations are just too fucking hilarious.

 

[Sunni Man]

It takes way, way more "Faith" to believe in evolution.

Then to believe in any religion.

 

[HUGGY]

It takes way, way more "Faith" to believe in evolution.

Then to believe in any religion.

Poppycock! Fiddlesticks!

 

[Flopper]

It's interesting how the people talking the most about religion on this subject are the evolution supporters, telling everyone else how their only objections are religious. Can we say, "talking point"?

Many who accept evolution are also religious which results in a conflict of beliefs. So no it's not surprising. They are simply looking to resolve a conflict that can never be resolved. The only way a Christian can accept evolution is too reject a literal interpretation of the Bible and instead accept an interpretation that matches scientific fact.

I get it perfectly about the personal inner conflict. It's like meeting a gal and you become a couple and she wants you to honor her feelings about her old boyfiends. Sure HUGGY I love ya madly but I used to believe I loved so and so too. I just want you to share me with the old flame from time to time and see how it goes. Fuck their inner conflict! Not my problem. I'm okay with someone walking away admitting like those cowboy fags that they can't quit each other but I have no obligation to cheer em on and wish them a happy life together.

I personally do not see a conflict between evolution and religion. If one accepts the Bible as a guide to living your life and how to treat others, there is no conflict. But once one accepts only a literal interpretation of the Bible and treats it as a book of history, science, geography, and anthropology then there are huge conflicts not just with evolution, but a number branches of science, and other disciplines.

 

[Charles_Main]

the theory of Evolution in now way precludes the possibility of a god existing.

science has yet to prove what existed before the big bang, and they have yet to trace Evolution all the way back to the start. I do not see how Evolution can not co exist with Religion. It blows Creationism out of the water but it does not preclude the existence of a god at all.

Nor does it claim too.

The problem comes from people who want to use evolution to prove God does exists.

Science is mute on the issue of God.

Agreed, However not only do people on the right try to use it to prove GOD exists. The left also regularly tries to say it killed god.

 

[Flopper]

Sorry bout that,

... it is possible to believe in both [god and evolution], in fact IIRC the Vatican even said the two don't contradict each other (evolution says nothing about the existence of a god).

It's really the conflict between proponents of science and creationism that is irresolvable.
Last night I asked a believer in creationism how old he thought the universe was. His assertion was that the universe was 10,000 years old! And that the earth was also of the same age. Now anyone with a scientific interest in the subject is aware that the elements of which life is constructed (carbon, nitrogen, etc) were formed via nuclear fusion in stars over a period of billions of years. And that the earth is composed of these elements that were created in stars that had exploded eons ago. While the details of "Darwinism" might be for some debatable, the details of nuclear fusion (as determined by astrophysics) are not.

I know this is a tactless way of putting it, but one dramatic demonstration that scientists have understood the physics correctly is their success in developing the Hydrogen Bomb!

1. Bill, Bill, you need a bigger cup of coffee my man!
2. I don't buy into your statements.
3. What makes you think this universe is that old?
4. I just can't take your word for it.
5. Prove it!
6. I happen to believe God created the earth and everything in it.
7. In roughly 7000 years ago, all this that wasn't was, and appeared in a flash.
8. Big Bang never happened, the universe rolled out like a scroll.
9. More or less unfolded.
10. Huggy you drink first my man,...


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Everything got created in 7,000 years? If you look at the creation in Genesis, the time for creation is not really defined. When the heavens and earth were created there was no day and night therefore there was no definition of time. A day could have been 24 hours or 24 million years.