Damn Leauki, you sure can bolster an argument.   Nice to have you on board.

~Zoo

I flatly reject Evolution Theory which teaches that apes evolved to brute man who evolved to modern day man(here you call it progressed from "similiar people").

Actually, the Evolution Theory doesn't say that. It claims that humans and apes have the same ancestors. Kind of a big difference.

Very good. But evolution doesn't say anything about human beings coming by accident out of a little germ billions of years ago. I suggest you learn about evolution. You will find that it is not what you think it is. For example, it has nothing to do with "accident" (i.e. chance).

Big Bang Theory In a Nutshell: The universe exploded one fine afternoon, and the earth became a place of volcanoes and overwhelming heat. The only life was bacteria. When the earth found the time to cool down, water formed, and that little bacteria started to evolve and adapt. Now, I haven't studied evolution for a few years, but that's what I remember learning in a video entitled: Evolution is a Fact, Not a Theory.

At any rate, I'm not denying evolution. I'm just saying that I think someone had more control over the goings on than people give Him credit for.

I had to fill out a Venn Diagram in seventh grade science comparing evolution with the Bible. I hated it. Maybe teachers can MENTION that there is a theory about a creation, but parents and religious leaders should be the ones education children about creationism. I'll believe what I believe, and don't you dare bash it, but I wouldn't want someone cramming another religion down my kid's throat, so why do that to someone else's? That's all.

Boo yah! The main point of the court case.

~Zoo

Really? In the animal kingdom, I thought that this is very typical of animal instinct...take male lions for example...they fight for control of the pride and all the female lionesses..and then the winner kills the babies of all the other males..

We hear almost every day news stories report of people doing that as well....in divorce situations, where there are children involved...many a man who lives with the woman who has children by another man has severely abused and even killed the child that isn't his...



I don't make this mistake...I even go so far as to call the farce of macro-Evolution ---devolution!

Those who believe in macro-Evolution must accept this erroneous premise....after all--- when apes evolve to man isn't that better or superior!

Lula posts:

Cedarbird posts:

I flatly reject the premise too.

I flatly reject the premise too.

On what grounds? There's too much evidence for it. Besides, this is not the point of the article. All Zoo is saying is that he doesn't want religious doctrines taught to his kids.

Yes, but after all the studies of the little finches and their changes of beaks etc, in the end, Darwin still had a bird, and not an entirely new species with different DNA.



Same thing with fruit flies...no completely new species of fruit flies were produced.

Does it make you feel better to be so absolute, without any attempt at any sort of reconciliation?

Let's try:

I flatly reject that the Catholic Church has any authority whatsoever from God.













Did that make you feel better? It sure made me seem absolute, closed-minded and ridiculous - just like your blanket assertions do the same.

Really? In the animal kingdom, I thought that this is very typical of animal instinct...take male lions for example...they fight for control of the pride and all the female lionesses..and then the winner kills the babies of all the other males..

Another evolutionary trait, perhaps?

While he selectively eliminates other male's cubs, he only does this to mate.  He doesn't go out and wage war against other lion prides because he feels his particular pride is "superior."  Comparing that behavior to Nazi-esque behavior doesn't hold up in my book.  One is just an excuse to screw, the other is malice.

when apes evolve to man isn't that better or superior!

Not in my opinion.  It's just different.  We're able to use more of our brains to develop things.  Maybe that makes us superior in technology and innovation.  Take all those things away though and leave us naked in the wild and we're boned.  Our benefits are merely cognitive.  Take away our toys and we're lost.

Like I said, evolution is about adaptation.  We're supposed to be the smartest species on the planet, that happened because it had to.  If not, we'd all be dead.  Natural selection for adaptive abilities.  Much like the raccoon raiding garbage cans.  A species evolves do to pressure and nothing more.  No pressure, little change.  Take sharks and crocodilians for example.

Though I fear intelligence is falling out of favor these days.  Ever see the movie Idiocracy?  It shows my worst fear.

~Zoo

On the fact that apes and humans don't have the same ancestors...they can't for they are totally different "kinds".

Perhaps similiar yet totally different DNA...

There is no Macro-evolutionary cross-over folks from one species to a completely different one....you gotta have your own kind of faith to believe in this...

Is it impossible for a fox to breed with a dog, or just hard to get them together? 'cuz Brocolli can mate with Cauliflower, if you make it, but I don't think that happens naturally.

Oh, this is rich . . .



Wow. So, let's do some math. Now, I'm not Jythier, but I bet this math works okay:

700 U.S. earth or life scientists who accept creationism / 480,000 U.S. earth or life scientists X 100%
= 0.15% of U.S. earth or life scientists that accept creationism.

0.15% of the people who actually study these things believe in creationism. Now I'm fairly comfortable in the assumption that not all of these 480,000 people are atheists - but yet, the number remains.

THAT'S BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM, whereas the people who earn their bread'n'butter on the study of these things hold fast to their theories on evolution.

Chew on that for a minute. Just chew on it.

Woah, that's some serious math there. And correct as well!

There is no evidence of creationism, true, except creation itself. I think about Adam and Eve... and God telling them he created them... and them saying to God, "No way man, I evolved from an ape. Snake said so."

No evidence to study, therefore the people who STUDY things for a living can't really study it. They can only study evolution, and either add evidence to the for or against pile. You can't really study creationism, except to study the religious texts for accuracy of the other points.

Also, if I remember correctly, the number of scientists who believe in something should not add any weight to the arguments they present, as we see on the Global Warming threads. So, there you have it.

There's a first for everything . . . I'm evolving into a arithmetician!

Catholics agree that evolution (small "e", what I call micro-evolution) occurs as change over time WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES. The proponents of macro-Evolution have not offered anything but fanciful speculation that one species evolved into a completely different one...as apes to humans.

I got this far and had to comment.  Catholics do not believe in the innerancy of the Bible, nor that Creationism is the last word.  Indeed, the Church teaches us to examine all possibilities.  One is yet that God did it like the bible says, but it is not the only one.  Catholic teaching is that the Bible is a book to teach us the way, not tell us our history.

I flatly reject that the Catholic Church has any authority whatsoever from God.

If you did not, you would be Catholic.

Perhaps similiar yet totally different DNA...

Say what?  I'm sorry, but a 98-99% similarity does not translate into totally different in my book.

 

Is it impossible for a fox to breed with a dog, or just hard to get them together?

Not sure how far removed they are, but I don't think they can breed.  Lions and tigers can.  Dogs and wolves can.  Horses and donkeys can.  I view hybridity as proof of evolution as well.  Two species can mate, but they're just different enough not to produce viable offspring.

Also, if I remember correctly, the number of scientists who believe in something should not add any weight to the arguments they present, as we see on the Global Warming threads. So, there you have it.

Oh, I see.  Well fuck this gravity bullshit.  I'm going to go jump off a roof and fly to South America.  Most people would agree that I'd die...but numbers don't matter.

Global warming hasn't been tested as extensively as evolution.  Besides global warming is climatology and evolution is biology.  Don't compare apples to oranges.

~Zoo

THAT'S BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM, whereas the people who earn their bread'n'butter on the study of these things hold fast to their theories on evolution.

By the way, great point. The thing about creationism it that it's always a negative argument. It never brings any evidence to the table, just holds fast to a crazy idea and tries to discredit other theories by propaganda and quoting the Bible. I have yet to see the Bible ever quoted in any scientific paper.

~Zoo

The one thing I find most amazing about this whole debate is the fact that the man who coined the term 'Intelligent Design' was a lawyer turned born-again Christian who, through his own 'research' decided Darwin was wrong. According to Wikipedia Link, the scientific community dismissed this as pseudoscience.

Yes, and as we all know, lawyers are honest people who are experts at biological science.

~Zoo

lawyers are honest people who are experts at biological science

I'm really not trying to run down lawyers. They have their place in society, just not as biologists, anthropologists, paleontolgists or even theologists. Better they stick at what they know.

Zoo, first you may have already noticed but you can’t argue with lula. She’s a young earth fundamentalist and there is no logical or scientific argument that she will acknowledge that doesn’t support the biblical version of creation. She also won’t read anything you link so don’t bother.

The thing that I noticed after reading the nova interviews is that none of the major proponents of ID seem to have any problem with evolution other than it starting from naturalistic processes and not a designer. Here’s the last paragraph in that interview from the “father of ID” Phillip Johnson,

Johnson: My view of the truth is that there is a creator. I don't know how long the creator took, but I think there was a process of creation, and the evolution that has occurred has occurred within the boundaries originally set. That would be my belief as of now. I tend to think that that will prevail, because I think it's the truth. But if it's not the truth, it won't prevail, and it shouldn't.

This quote from Ken Miller pretty much sums up why science and religion must always remain separate and the real purpose of the ID movement.

Miller: I think with all due respect that people like Phillip Johnson have it wrong, that they have taken the position that we can't find meaning and value and purpose to our lives except in those areas of scientific ignorance, that we have to find significance in the sort of dark recesses of what science cannot explain.

I take an entirely opposite view, that we should find our being, our value, and our meaning as human beings not in the darkness but in the bright areas of knowledge that science illuminates. I think understanding evolution gives us a fundamentally more optimistic and open view of the world than can those who have placed their faith in the claim that science isn't going to figure out these key questions.

The ultimate project of the intelligent-design movement is much grander than simply trying to displace evolution. It's a project that is basically designed to bring the supernatural into science. And that kind of introduction would destroy both science and religion.

Good one, Jytheir. I'm rolling with laughter..

And that's one of the reason why one species cannot evolve into a completely different one----why macro-Evolution doesn't/can't work.

It has something to do with the way each species DNA works.

If everyone was jumping off a roof, Zoo would do it.

And, I'd only agree that you'd die after numerous experiments and evidence was gathered. Also, it would depend on many variables, such as wind speed, height of the roof, and distance from South America.

Seriously though, the number of people who agree on something doesn't make something true. It just makes it popular. Also, that statistic didn't address how many were unsure - just how many believed in creationism. So it could be that 479,000 are unsure - I doubt that, but it could be based on that stat.

If I was earning my bread and butter by supporting evolution I'd be against creationism too.