Curiosity evolves into reunion
Darwins to flock to Charleston for annual family gathering
The Post and Courier
Francis Darwin sits with her husband, Charles Darwin, who holds a photograph from a family reunion from 1926, a year after the Scopes Trial that involved their famous relative Charles Robert Darwin. The Darwins are having a family reunion in Charleston this weekend, but evolution and creationism are not expected to be popular topics.
Years ago, Charles Darwin wanted to find out exactly where he came from. The idea of a family reunion just sort of ... evolved.
Yes, he is related to the father of evolution. And this weekend, hundreds of his distant relatives will descend on South Carolina — a hotbed of creationism — for their annual meeting.
But don't worry about culture clashes, there will be no survival-of-the-fittest battles in Charleston. Many Darwins, he says, have a very well-rounded perspective.
"Everything you see — somebody created it," Darwin said. "We believe in evolution and creation. We believe the Supreme Being created evolution."
Darwin, a native of Gaffney, has lived in Charleston for 50 years — he used to own Skateland on King Street, and the Le Chalet steak house. It was here that he first began digging into his family past.
He is descended from William Darwin, who left England more than a century before the younger Charles Darwin was born. Charleston's Darwin can trace countless lines of his namesake family, from soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and even a few Major League Baseball players.
When Darwin first got interested in genealogy, he started making contact with other Darwins from around the country. For a guy who only knew one Darwin when he was a child — his father — it was a great learning experience. He met folks from just about every state.
Today, the house he shares with his wife, Francis, is filled with family trees, copies of Darwin wills, maps to Darwin family cemeteries. A stray program for the annual Dayton, Tenn., play commemorating the Scopes Monkey Trial — the 1925 Tennessee trial where a teacher was put on trial for teaching Darwinism — lies on his coffee table.
He has Darwin's books "On the Origin of Species" and "The Voyage of the Beagle," and just passed a copy of "Origins" on to his grandson; his son, Tim, honeymooned in the Galapagos Islands, perhaps the most important stop on any tour of Darwin's theories.
But Darwin admits the ribbing he gets from his friends about his name is nothing compared with the hellfire and brimstone hurled at his distant relation.
"Poor old Charles, he's the one who really took a beating," Darwin said.
Rob Dillon, an associate professor of biology at the College of Charleston, president of South Carolinians for Science Education and the coordinator of Charleston's annual Darwin Week, concedes the point: Darwin still takes a beating.
Just months away from Darwin's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of the first edition of "On the Origin of Species," evolution remains controversial, a hot-button issue in some religious and political circles.
"It's as bad as it's ever been," Dillon said.
Chances are, the debate will not even arise at the Darwin Family Reunion. Darwin says most family members simply trade news of their surnames, update their family trees and just catch up with one another.
And, as for his name, Charles Darwin has no idea whether his parents named him after him.
But since he was born in the year following the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, Darwin has to wonder.
It would have been, he admits, a natural selection.
Reach Brian Hicks at bhicks@postandcourier.com or 937-5561.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
BobC (anonymous) says...
Interesting story. Darwin's relatives are probably very proud of their famous ancestor who changed the world with his brilliant explanation for the diversity of life. The article said evolution remains controversial, but that's only true for people who have religious problems with science. In the scientific community the acceptance of evolution is virtually 100%.
June 25, 2008 at 2:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MissVAbch (anonymous) says...
Interesting that he is a descendant of the 'father of evolution' and he is a man of faith and believes in a Supreme Being.
And I have read books BY scientists that make the case for Christ. So, no, not all scientist believe in evolution. I have also read that it takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.
June 25, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
With all the recent technological developments, the number of scientists abandoning Darwin is skyrocketting. The so-called "evidence" has been shredded by the scientific community. Politicians are the only ones still clinging to it. Lucy and Nebraska Man were both frauds. Evolution is really something were people WANT to believe in it for whatever reason and they see what they want to in the "evidence". Think about it. Is it reasonable to believe that this all happened by accident? Darwin himself said he expected the missing links to be discovered "any day now" and we are still waiting.
June 25, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
retirednavy (anonymous) says...
I saw something interesting on the way to work to day. It was a construction crew working on a house. They took everything to build the house and put it in a big pile. Then they blew it up and after the smoke cleared a perfect house stood. The big bang theory and evolution. It just does not wash with me.
June 25, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
Dear Mouth,
Morris was a hydraulic engineer, not a scientist, and he never worked at Univ. of MI (but I have). He did found the Institute for Creation Research.
It takes even greater knowledge to understand quantum mechanics than understand the arguments for evolutionary theory, yet it is just as valid in science. People choose to believe what they want; scientists investigate theories...
June 25, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Wow, the previous 4 comments were from people who deny the proven facts of evolution. What a hopelessly stupid country I live in.
I stand by my previous statement: In the scientific community the acceptance of evolution is virtually 100%.
It's virtually impossible to find a biologist who doesn't completely accept the fact that all life evolved and all life is related. The newer evidence from molecular biology is so powerful it is now impossible for an educated person to reject evolution.
The small number of wacko fake scientists who deny the facts of evolution work at Bible colleges and the Christian Discovery Institute, which has never discovered anything. Every single person who denies evolution is religious. They either know nothing about biology, or they make a living lying about biology. An example are the professional liars of the Christian creationist organization called the Discovery Institute. Every single one of them is a liar for Jesus.
It's amazing that 150 years after Darwin published the results of the evidence he found for natural selection, and after 150 years of tens of thousands of scientists finding more evidence that has made evolution the strongest fact of science, there are still millions of people who don't accept it. I noticed the more religious a country is, the more likely they reject evolution and prefer magical creation. That's why the religious United States and the religious Middle East have the most ignorant populations in the world.
June 25, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
BobC, it seems you are the one who believes in fairy tales like the magic big boom and merlin the warlock changing an ape into a man. As I stated, evolution is dead in the scientific world. It is now a political issue, nothing more.
June 25, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
5thGenerationLocal (anonymous) says...
Holy crap, we have someone arguing evolution! WTF is the world coming to? I believe that evolution has been proven.
Man is not a creation of God. God is a creation of Man.
June 25, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
Hey Greyrider,
Give one scientific article showing evolution to be "dead in the scientific world." That means a peer-reviewed, real journal and not someone's wacky webpage.
Evolution might be dead in many religious sectarian worlds, but not all (www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_p...). It is typical, uneducated rhetoric to say "everyone knows that", but dismissing a line of reasoning is not the same as discrediting it.
June 25, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
summerville_guy (anonymous) says...
If evolution is truth, then why are there still monkeys in the world? Hmmm...
June 25, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
BobC-- he was a graduate student at University of Minnesota, not on the faculty. He was chair of Civil Engineering at SLI in Louisiana (now U of L, Lafayette) and other places before ICR.
If I wanted to know about building bridges or tarring a road, I'd ask an engineer. If you want to understand evolution, ask a biologist.
June 25, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
to summerville_guy,
Did the rest of your family tree die when you had kids?
June 25, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I didn't, but what is your background to say that that you hold the truth and those that don't agree are not making valid arguments.
If you're speaking of the family tree argument, the origin of one species does not mean the extinction of another. The rest of the family tree didn't die out, it might have changed day to day life.
I made no personal attack by that statement, I was just extending his argument to modern day. The different offspring of his family didn't kill out or make the rest of his family go extinct...
June 25, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Some people here need to educate themselves. I suggest they could google "evidence evolution" and get to work. Unfortunately the flat-earthers who deny the facts of biological evolution are not interested in science, and they are not likely to be able to understand science.
I recently finished reading the book "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll. I highly recommend it.
Darwin didn't get everything right, but his Natural Selection idea is now stronger than ever. If Darwin was alive today he would be amazed at how much more scientists know about the history of life. He would also be amazed there's still people in the 21st century who prefer supernatural magic instead of the discoveries of science.
June 25, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I would add to that book suggestion the one by Neal Shubin-- "Your Inner Fish" about the developmental genetics of vertebrate development and the implications for evolution of anatomical form...
June 25, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
I've always believed in hearing both sides to any argument. When I was growing up, I believed in the existence of "a God" but wasn't sure whose version to believe. I never really believed the Bible was the Word of God, had kind of a Franklinesque view of the Bible, a lot of good, clever ideas. One of the things that changed that was when I began to read or hear lectures from scientists who read passages from the Bible and then began to show where scientific evidence said the same thing. I always regurgitated the old notion that the Christian faith and science were opposed to one another, but as Pope John Paul II said over and over, the Christian faith and science findings are in agreement, it is only scientific theory that is in conflict with the Christian faith.
June 25, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Posted by greyrider on June 25, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've always believed in hearing both sides to any argument.
Just to clarify, I've heard all the pro-evolution arguments and they are the greatest example of grasping at straws that the world has ever seen.
June 25, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
"I've heard all the pro-evolution arguments"
No, you haven't. The evidence for evolution is so massive that one person could not possibly study all of it in one lifetime. You need to get to work and educate yourself. Two books were recommended. Why don't you read them and get back to us.
June 25, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
BobC, you're a johnny-come-lately, I've read the so-called evidence for years. I always read them when I need a good laugh. Why don't you try this, take some flour, milk, eggs, sugar, and throw it really high in the air. Believe it or not, a cake will land in your hands.
June 25, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Early, thanks for supporting science. Maybe you can convince other Christians that they are making their religion look obsolete when they deny modern scientific discoveries.
June 25, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
To be a snob about it: "Damnant quodnon intelligunt."
I've got to get back to my work on "Evilution."
June 25, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Some people just WANT to believe in evolution because they find comfort in it. As was said earlier, it takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. If you can seriously look at the earth from a scientific standpoint and conclude that this all fell into place accidentally, (food chains, tides, climates, gravity, lunar phases) I can't help you.
June 25, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
"I've read the so-called evidence for years. I always read them when I need a good laugh."
I see what your problem is, greyrider. Millions of other everything-is-magic creationists have the same problem.
You read about scientific evidence, but you make no effort to understand it. Perhaps you are unable to understand it. Perhaps you don't want to understand it. Perhaps you are too lazy to do the hard work required to understand it.
Thousands of biologists agree evolution is one of the strongest facts of science. Doesn't that make you wonder what you are missing? Do you think the top scientists of the world are incompetent and/or liars? Do you bother to study the new scientific discoveries that are being made every day?
Do you know what Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) are? Do you know what it means when identical ERVs are found in identical locations in the genome of more than one species?
I don't think you have any idea how much evidence there is and how powerful it is. You really need to educate yourself, but you never will because like most creationists you are willfully ignorant. You are happy in your supernatural fantasy world, and you're not interested in understanding anything that conflicts with your fantasies.
I don't really care about the childish beliefs of religious extremists. Unfortunately they are constantly trying to dumb down science education. It would be better if they kept their idiotic ideas in church and let the science teachers do their jobs.
June 25, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I don't "believe" in evolution. I don't take comfort in the truth. And there is a huge difference between random chance and the step-wise stochastic process that is evolution.
And if you don't understand that, I can't save you from stupidity...
June 25, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
I looked it up.
"Damnant quodnon intelligunt" means they condemn what they do not understand.
June 25, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
BobC, I feel very confident in my own intelligence regardless of what anyone else thinks, you seem hellbent (no pun intended) on getting everyone else to affirm your intelligence. I will give you an "A" for effort.
June 25, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
common_sense (anonymous) says...
If we evolved from apes, why are there still gamecock fans?
I'm just sayin...
June 25, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I bet that BobC is not confident of "knowing" anything, so he has spent a long time and huge effort on trying to learn as much as he can.
That is a good definition of intelligence-- since you don't assume that you are the most intelligent, you work extra hard to find out what people who know more than you do think before you decide what you think is correct. That would probably include taking a basic course in Evolutionary Biology and reading materials suggested by the teacher, not a few selectively picked pieces that are set up as straw men by like-minded, intelligent scoffers of the idea.
June 25, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Posted by ColdBeer on June 25, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The God of Beer loves all of you.. one and alike.
Wait a minute, I thought Stone Cold Steve Austin basically hated everyone
June 25, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
scientist,
Your argument doesn't hold water, if summerville's kids had been born as a different species then your argument would hold water. apes still give birth to apes, humans still give birth to humans.
What about the cambrian era where all the species just showed up at once with no evolution to justify their existance? What about the fact that a change in a species results in a loss of information not a gaining of information? How does evolution over come the fact that life came from nothing, How long would you have to wait to get something from nothing? Evolution violates the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and the laws of physics. Science has stated that if there was an event that contradicted the laws of physics it would have to be supernatural, now by their own definition evolution would have to be a supernatural phenomenon. Darwin was a student at a seminary studying the scriptures when he decided to runaway from God and got a job as a researcher on board a ship, he was no more qualified to ascertain scientific facts than an athiest who went to fuller theological seminary and dropped out. Evolution violates the laws of physics and nature and even you must concede that point if you are to be credible in this discussion.
June 25, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
ColdBeer - He was a pro wrestler who used to slam two cans of beer together, hold them up in the air over his head and pour them over his open mouth, drinking some and letting the rest spill all over the ring. If he's not the God of Beer, I don't know who is.
June 25, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
bkeelin, which Bible website did you copy your misconceptions from?
This is a good one: "Darwin was a student at a seminary studying the scriptures when he decided to runaway from God and got a job as a researcher on board a ship"
Run away from God? Are you serious? Is every person who works hard to understand the natural world running away from God? You disgrace your religion.
June 25, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
Can someone please tell me which came first, the chicken or the egg? That one has been bothering me for as long as I can remember. I lose sleep at night over this.
June 25, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Bob C,
I suggest you look it up before you post your comments.
Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh University, then theology at Cambridge, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_...) and this is a liberal website not a conservative website.
Darwin himself initially planned to follow a medical career, and studied at Edinburgh University but later switched to divinity at Cambridge. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...)
I also noticed you did not counter my claims you only denied them, typical of people who don't have the information to refute the claims(because it can't be done), only the rhetoric to deny them. Typical of liberals.
June 25, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
Since some on here don't seem to know...
Evolution makes no attempt to explain how "something came from nothing." Evolution is a biological process that occurs only when there is already life in existance. Despite all the controversy, evolution and creation could very well coexist.
Abiogenesis is the area of study concerned with how life may have sprung from non-life.
The Big Bang Theory is concerned with how the universe began. And, really, it is also not necessarily at odds with a creator. As in, the bang could easily be a description of what happened after a creator said "Let there be..."
Knowledge is really easier to attain once you put aside your biases.
June 25, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Good post The Mouth,
Adaptation and variation within a species, not from one to another.
June 25, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
MindBath,
That's all well and fine, but that does not answer my chicken and egg question! :-)
June 25, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Almost correct Mindbath,
evolution describes the process of life evolving, when you say that one thing evolved from something else, you must wonder and substantiate where that something came from and if that something evolved from something else then from what, and what did that evolve from. You can take this thing all the way back to the very beginning and must conclude if logic and reason are to be followed that there must have been something to start this process, if in deed you believe in this process. What started the process? Did aliens come and deposit life on our planet. You cannot evolve into something from nothing and even Darwin himself understood this. I believe chapter six of "origin of species" deals with the myriad of questions that Darwin himself said must be answered for evolution to be true.
June 25, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yeah_I_said_it (anonymous) says...
bkeelin: "Did aliens come and deposit life on our planet."
Ah, but then one would have to know how did the aliens come to exist and then we'll be back at 1!
June 25, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
I said evolution is not at odds with a creator. It could very well be at odds with a specific creator or account of creation.
June 25, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MissVAbch (anonymous) says...
Bob, you don't like to be corrected do you? Calm down so that this can be a healthy debate. No name calling, your immaturity is showing.
June 25, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Yeah,
you got that right, so what's the answer.
God created all living creatures, he made them male and female, which is another interesting point.
If single celled life reproduced by itself how did it evolve into two seperate sexes becuase the first species that produced a male or a female that couldn't reproduce by herself or himself would have died without reproducing?
Here's another one.
Vision through the human eye takes some 17 different electro-chemical reactions between the light coming into the eye and the brain processing the light. If any one of these reactions fail to take place eyesight is distorted or lost. How then did this evolve? Was one species just birthed with eyes and all of the processes there for sight? I don't think you will find an evolution believing scientist who will atest to this, not a credible one anyway..
June 25, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
The Bible says God created every living thing, not He let every living thing evolve. The Bible contradicts evolution in several places, unless you subscribe to the liberal theology that says homosexuality is ok, murdering innocent babies is ok and that there are many ways to get to heaven.
June 25, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MissVAbch (anonymous) says...
I remember studying neurons and synapsis and thinking there HAD to be a creator! It was all so intricate and detailed. Crazy to think that it all spontaneously just *happened*. Sounds kinda magically- hocus-pocus-wave-my-wand kinda crazy.
June 25, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Where did all the evolution believers go?
June 25, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
bkeelin, I repeat, which Bible website did you copy your misconceptions from?
I'm talking about this nonsense: "apes still give birth to apes, humans still give birth to humans. What about the cambrian era where all the species just showed up at once with no evolution to justify their existance? What about the fact that a change in a species results in a loss of information not a gaining of information? How does evolution over come the fact that life came from nothing, How long would you have to wait to get something from nothing? Evolution violates the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and the laws of physics. Science has stated that if there was an event that contradicted the laws of physics it would have to be supernatural, now by their own definition evolution would have to be a supernatural phenomenon."
I've seen most of these misconceptions before, thousands of times. It's all been refuted. I learned a long time ago to not waste my time explaining science to the willfully ignorant. Go look at the talkorigins website. All those ideas you got from some liar for Jesus are listed there. They are all refuted by real scientists.
By the way, humans are an ape species. All modern apes species developed from the same ancestor species. Don't believe that? Then for God's sake educate yourself. You disgrace your religion when you come here and show off your ignorance.
Your problem, bkeelin, is your childhood religious indoctrination. You have been taught to believe that the human species was magically created and intended to be separate from the rest of nature. Everything you were taught is an ancient myth. If you want to live in the 21st century and not be laughed at, you have to educate yourself. Don't be afraid. Science won't bite you.
June 25, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
bkeelin,
Observing a biological process, such as evolution, does not require determining the origin of existance. It is quite possible to observe that we reproduce sexually, for instance, without determining when the very first reproduction took place.
My point was there are other areas of study concerned with origin of life and the universe. That they are not well-developed is not a hindrance to evolution itself. Evolution is burdened with this only in the sense that it has been politicized on both sides as arguments for and against creation.
June 25, 2008 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I'm wasting my time, but entropy does not increase except universally, otherwise your individual cells in your body would burn up and become disorganized. Also, there are some thoughts about entropy being an assumption used to justify energy's behavior in a closed system, and the universe is possibly not closed (but if you find fault with evolution, then proof of the universe expanding at an accelerated rate over time is beyond my hopes of a useful point of argument with people who are not scientists). The entropy argument is weak and rolled out by engineers and repeated by non-scientists as proof that evolution cannot work, when in fact it's proof that life cannot exist in the long term.
Darwin did observe adaptation, but of one ancestral type of finch giving rise to many forms which are considered species by scientists: one ancestor radiating into many descendant types (microevolution). In fact, we now know the genetic controls that produce developmental shifts to form their different bill structures.
He viewed macroevolution as an extension of this. We do have many of the intermediate forms of evolved life, like Tiktaalik, which is fish-like and amphibian-like at the same time. Look it up.
There were animals before the Cambrian explosion, but you are right-- the Cambrian Explosion is a head scratcher, but science is working on the roots of multicellularity and pattern formation through developmental biology and comparative genomics.
And by the way, if you think evolution has anything to say-- the egg came first, because what developed inside was a slightly different animal whose descendents eventually became chickens, guinea fowl, and other galliform species...
Lastly, I'm not against God, I'm against pinheads who think that people are sinners because they try to understand a complex world through science. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, should we throw out the Bible? That heresy landed Galileo in a tower prison.
I'll close with my favorite Darwin quote: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
June 25, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
bkeelin, I agree with you here: "The Bible says God created every living thing, not He let every living thing evolve. The Bible contradicts evolution in several places..."
The Bible teaches magical creation, not the science of biological evolution.
What's the solution? Should we replace 150 years of scientific discoveries with the Bible? Should we throw out all science textbooks and teach only the Bible?
I suggest, bkeelin, you go ahead and live in your childish fantasy world. I don't care about your fantasies. But if you or any other religious idiot tries to force their breathtaking stupidity into science education, you and the others will be ridiculed relentlessly. The never ending Christian attacks against science education is treason and it won't be tolerated.
June 25, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Bob,
from the website you suggested.
"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-m...)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, from the same website. These are really credible people writing this thing.
However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law (of Thermodynamics, which it isn't). Living organisms still must abide by the laws of physics.
Bob, your website offers no scientific proof, only denials and absurd statements that life doesn't have to abide by the laws of physics. If it doesn't abide by the laws of physics then scientifically it is not natural it is supernatural because it defies the physical laws. That is God's territory.
You got the buzzer Bob, please try again.
June 25, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
"Then explain me. I was raised to believe in evolution, and after extensive study came to the conclusion that evolution is a myth of (pardon the pun) biblical proportions!"
If you want me to be honest, I'm afraid the only possible conclusion is you are bloody stupid. Sorry. Nothing personal. Millions of Americans are just as dumb as you are.
Perhaps this is your problem: "I was raised to believe in evolution."
That's as dumb as saying "I was raised to believe in gravity."
People don't "believe" in proven scientific facts. They accept those facts because they studied and understood the evidence.
Only religious ideas like magical creation require "belief" or "faith" because all religious ideas have exactly zero evidence. Religious ideas like magical creation are nothing more than the wishful thinking of people who are too lazy to study science.
Other religious ideas like heaven don't necessarily conflict with any scientific facts. They do conflict with reality and that's why they require faith. Personally I think faith is a form of mental illness, but that's off topic.
June 25, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
"I was not raised in a Christian home (I was raised Catholic..."
I'm sure you meant to say that it was not a very religious upbringing, but my Southern Baptist Mother would agree with your statement wholeheartedly.
June 25, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
bkeelin, your quote mining of talkorigins does not impress me. Quote mining, also known as taking quotes out of context to distort their meaning, is extremely dishonest.
Perhaps you would like to read this definition of a scientific theory a few times until you understand it.
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
A theory is the highest level of understanding in science. Evolution has been repeatedly tested for 150 years and it has passed every test. Evolution is used to make predictions. So far evolution has been batting 100%. It's for a good reason evolution is called one of the strongest facts of science. Perhaps that's why virtually every biologist in the world accepts the basic facts of evolution. Too bad about those willfully ignorant creationists who are wasting their lives believing in supernatural magic. They have no idea what they're missing.
June 25, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Is it possible that Darwin MISAPPLIED, micro evolution to macro-evolution? I know researchers never make false assumptions but is it possible that he made a leap that wasn't there. Still no reply on the vision thing or the sexual reproduction thing.
Also the Bible doesn't teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Men taught that, not the Bible. That is where many people get confused when they fail to read the Bible and search out the things of God for themselves.
I was taught evolution as fact growing up, but when I started studying nuclear physics and quantum physics, evolution just didn't make sense anymore. The world is far too complex for cosmic happenstance and evolution offers no help in answering the basic question of where did life come from.
If the universe were an open system there would have to have been somebody or something injecting things into this system to get it started. No matter how macroscopically you go either there is something else out there that started all of this or it is the black box theory that you aren't allowed to look in and you only have to believe that it happened, now that sounds like faith to me, which makes evolution a religion and not science.
June 25, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
"which makes evolution a religion and not science."
Pathetic.
Hopeless.
You're a total waste of time.
Just keep your ignorance out of our schools.
June 25, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Bob,
The quotes are in the context, "life is irrelevent to the 2nd law" how is that out of context? I think it is pretty self explanatory.
If a theory is the highest level of understanding then what is a fact or a law?
Is repeatedly tested OR widely accepted, not that it's true. What tests have been done to prove evolution. Only predictions within the same species have been proven, adaptation and variation, not evolution. What test proves that man evolved from apes. In order for it to be scientific proof it must be duplicatable and I don't see anyone watching snakes grow legs or lizards dropping their legs. Only with genetic manipulation (ie outside interferrence from an intelligent source) can we cross species.
Buzzer again Bob, please try again.
June 25, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Bob,
Don't hate the player Bob, just the game.
June 25, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoelaces (anonymous) says...
Cold Beer....what beer do you think God would drink? Would he be a Chardonnay man, a hard liquor drinker? I am sure if He really did create all of THIS then he HAS to be a drinker :O
June 25, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I have to go now, but no one from the non-evolution side has done anything but slap each other on the back. I've read the Bible, it makes statements that are not true about the nature of the world, and it's self-contradictory, if taken at its strict word. Love your brother, but stone the adulterer, but judge not lest ye be judged. Yet, I'm not suggesting we throw it out or burn it. I do question the motivations for using it to water down scientific inquiry.
You guys ignored most of our points by regurgitating stuff said by other non-scientists and saying that the bible and evolution are mutually exclusive. Pope John Paul said, "Truth cannot contradict truth" about science and religion. It applied in Galileo's day and John Paul applied it to evolution, as well. But again, Catholics may not be Christians (according to some of us, ;-)).
How about we keep the religion in the home. When you take a religion class at college, you don't have to become a Buddhist to study Buddhism, or for that matter you don't have to be a communist to study communism. I agree, lets teach the facts and let the kids decide. I bet the fear is that most kids might agree that science is different and evolution is not against religion, if not presented with the caricature of evolution that the opponents here seem to think it is. It is not a belief system but a way of doing science to use a paradigm. All fields have this, from physics to anthropology. Propose a real testable and falsifiable alternative to evolution. If evolution is not it, what is the alternative you are proposing? If it's just God, that's fine, but are we really trying to falsify God here-- because that's what science does.
So forget conspiracies and Dawkins (he aggravates evolutionary types, too). Forget Roswell and the Warren Commission. If real evidence vetted by scientists proved evolution was not viable, we'd drop it. Science is about eliminating possibilities, not belief or faith. I think that we all agree that religion is different and faith is about believing in something when evidence to the contrary seems to exist. I will not convince anyone here of this subtlety, but you guys are preaching to your choir and not convincing anyone who wasn't in favor of your point.
So what happens when religion rules science? Who wins? Is God just the mystery or something more, because a "God-of-the-gaps" is a shallow religious view, maybe even less mature than the caricature of Evolution presented by my detractors here...
June 25, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Mouth of the South, the website you recommended is from the Institute of Creation Research. They claim that the entire universe is 6,000 years old. That's not just stupid, it's insane. They should be locked up and forced to wear straitjackets. That's how insane they are.
You disgrace your religion and you disgrace the South.
June 25, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
walleyedwoman1215 (anonymous) says...
This is the most fascinating thread in a long time...
I ponder this often. Usually I come down on the side of Creationism but honestly, I like ColdBeer's bumper sticker a LOT.
As for Lucy and Nebraska Man being hoaxes, what about Piltdown Man? Heck, what about the Lizard Man?
Finally, if you met my ex-husband, you'd believe in the missing link!!!! (Just kidding--and he could say much worse about me!)
June 25, 2008 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
A minority of people have above average intelligence.
Below them are people with average intelligence.
Below people with average intelligence are the retards.
Below the retards are the creationists.
Below the creationists are people who believe the entire universe is 6,000 years old, a belief that requires the complete rejection of every branch of science.
June 25, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
Mouth,
You are a moron and a tool. You would repeat anything off the web just to be a jerk.
Proof in point, Newton (whom you cite as against the notion of Darwinian selection or a creation scientist) was dead before Darwin was born. How would he have disagreed with Darwin? Everyone before the theory of natural selection could be called a creation scientist, by that measure. Be creative. Think for yourself. I could out cut and paste you with a simple program that might overload the capacity of the newspaper, but I read the stuff that I forward before commenting, not just a dump of unchecked facts. I could go on, but an idiot like you would just ignore my arguments in favor of their clap trap. How about them apples? Go any cogent response to that, or are you just going to look something up on the web and repeat it. I'va got a search engine too, moron,
You check all of your facts that well? This is why you are a moron and people of your ilk are not to be trusted with the education of the nation. Crawl back into your moronic hole and shut yer yap.
Or just go back to bitching about taxes and the government and leave the science to scientists. You cut-and-paste web surfing moron. Look at a science website and tell us why that's incorrect rather than letting other half-baked idiots perpetrate lies by people like you uncritically repeat their tripe.
June 25, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
My last word.
Mouth, any day, any time. For you to use the phrase "fatally flawed" is laughable, since you wouldn't know an accurate fact (like the fact that Newton died before Darwin was born) from the shlock and drivel you use to support all of your arguments. Give Creationists a break by not trying to be their spokesperson, they have enough credibility issues without a moron trying to defend them. Try thinking for yourself rather than parroting a bunch of half-baked drivel from some non-science websites you found with your little search engine...
You really are too thick and not up to the task to argue against evolution, bless your little heart...
June 26, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Mouth, your idea that the entire universe is 6,000 years old could only be believed by somebody who is brain-dead. The correct age is at least 14,000,000,000 years old. Somebody did the math and determined that a 6,000 year old universe is equal to saying the East and West coasts of the United States are 24 feet apart.
Believing in a young universe is worse than being stupid. It's insane and people who believe it should be locked up and forced to wear straitjackets.
The existence of airhead creationists like you is an insult to the hard work and integrity of hundreds of thousands of scientists. You creationists are a disgrace to the human race and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
June 26, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
BobC and scientist, it looks like the two of you need to educate yourselves. "Darwinian" theory did exist prior to Darwin. He was the one who popularized it and first wrote extensively on it. But in the early 1800's there was a "science" book published in Philadelphia and circulated in schools throughout the country that taught that white people were the descendants of other humans but that black people evolved from apes. This was seen as legitimizing slavery (notice by a Northern publishing company, no less). Darwin was the first to claim that white people came from apes. Go back to your tree and study some more.
June 26, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Greyrider, Darwin was the first to explain the mechanism of evolution called natural selection. He was the first to provide evidence for it.
150 years later you, greyrider, still believe in magical creation. Did I mention you're a disgrace to the human race?
Greyrider, why don't you provide some evidence for your sky fairy's magic. Let's have it. I want to see some proof for your idiotic childish idea that creatures were magically created. Remember that your total ignorance of science is not evidence for anything. Your ancient Bible of made up stories is not evidence for anything.
Of course you have no evidence for your childish fantasy world. You people are disgusting. You need to grow up and join the 21st century but you never will. Some people are just too stupid to recover from their mental illness called creationism.
June 26, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
By the way greyrider Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. Another interesting fact is Darwin spoke out strongly against slavery.
Another thing you need to understand Mr. uneducated creationist, is humans are an ape species. We didn't just evolve from ape-like creatures, we are still apes.
Human apes share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee apes, and we share more distant ancestors with the other ape species. These are facts. There is absolutely no doubt about these evolutionary relationships.
The creationists, including you greyrider, believe humans are the special creations of a magical sky fairy. Did I mention the creationists are the most stupid people in human history?
June 26, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Considering the source, thank you very much. I feel better about myself now. BobC, I think you need counseling.
June 26, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Greyrider, I'm still waiting for your evidence for magical creation.
Produce evidence for your childish magic, mister. Let's have it.
June 26, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
By the way greyrider, how old do you think the universe and earth is. I ask because I'm interested in knowing how uneducated and insane you are.
There is strong evidence for an earth that's about 4.5 billion years old and a universe that's at least 14 billion years old.
Do you agree with that, or are you stupid enough to believe the universe and/or earth is a few thousand years old?
Also, I'm still waiting for evidence for your idea that humans and other creatures were magically created by your Magic Man.
Also, did your fairy use a magic wand or what?
Bloody moron.
June 26, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
BobC, let's put it this way. We are in complete agreement that you and I are on two totally different levels of intelligence. And you may be suprised to learn that I do like bananas. Maybe I am missing something. I say the world is about 10,000 to 15,000 years old. I don't base that on the Bible, because Genesis does not clarify how long a "day" is. I agree that Christians should not try to use Genesis to determine the age of the earth for that reason. But you should go back and review Mouth of the South's list of scientists and their credentials. It was some of the scientists on that list that convinced me from scientific evidence that the earth is less than 20,000 years old.
June 26, 2008 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."
Do these titles sound like a Bible Study?
Continuing Research on Isochron Dating Methods Applied to Grand Canyon Rocks by Dr Steven Austin
Solving the Long-Age Isotope Dating Problem: Geology and Geochemistry by Dr Andrew Snelling
The Distribution of Radioactive Elements in the Earth and Implications Relative to the History of Nuclear Decay by Dr. John Baumgardner
A Study of the Variation in the Neutron Resonance and Effective Capture Cross Section of Samarium for the Oklo Natural Reactor by Dr. Eugene Chaffin
Try reading some of these articles - no "Bible as science book" thinking here. More of an attitude of "hey, scientific findings don't actually contradict the Bible, what a suprise" big difference
http://www.nwcreation.net/agedatingli...
June 26, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
BTW, "Magic Man" is not a Christian term, it's a song by Heart, not bad, but I prefer the live version of "Barracuda" or some of their 80's songs.
June 26, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
retirednavy (anonymous) says...
Bob, Why are you resorting to name calling. You seem like an intelligent guy, but you are coming off as a rambling, psycho, idiot.
June 26, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
The scientific arguments for and against are pointless. There is zero evidence for creation, and the evidence for evolution (which clearly does exist) can be endlessly parried since there can never be definite proof for people that believe in the supernatural and it's easy to pick holes in any grand theory.
Let's look at it from a logical and philosophical point of view:
Not believing in superstitions is an intuitive and common thing. You don't believe that Zeus is on Mount Olympus ruling over the lives of mortals, maybe throwing around some lightning here and there? You don't believe that Allah is the one true god that dictated laws for man to his prophet, Mohammed, who recorded them verbatim into the Holy Koran? You think Scientology is a cult and a bunch of BS? Me too. Oh, so we're all non-believers, I just reject one more set of superstitions than you do. That being, whichever superstition it is that you DO choose to believe in.
The fact that man has so many different and generally contradictory religions tells me that all religions are creations of many different men throughout history. They served societal purposes in their time and, as societies changed, some became obsolete.
Think of the generations of people over many many centuries that worshipped the ancient Egyptian pantheon. That was THE TRUTH for them, they lived and died in that set of beliefs. Now it's mostly forgotten, taught in schools as some quaint myths with cool gold stuff to remember it by. Generations hence, what will they teach about THE TRUTH as you now know it? Your guess is as good as mine. Religions change with man, as they are creations of man.
Believe what you want, this is America. Just keep it in your homes and heads and churches / temples / mosques / synagogues / whatever. When it starts to manifest itself into the real world and impose on other people, like what you can and can't teach in school, then it's a problem.
June 26, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
greyrider: "I say the world is about 10,000 to 15,000 years old."
retirednavy, You complained about my calling creationists morons.
Well, you see, they are morons. Look at the quote from greyrider. He thinks the planet we live on was magically created by a sky fairy 15,000 years ago. Compare that to the strong scientific evidence for an earth that's about 4,500,000,000 years old. And no, it wasn't magically created.
Actually to call a creationist a moron is an insult to morons. It's impossible to be more stupid than a creationist.
Greyrider, I'm not impressed with your cutting and pasting nonsense from quacks.
The reason I stopped by to visit this idiot-infested blog again, is because I forgot to mention creationists believe dinosaurs lived with people.
There is strong evidence the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago when a very large asteroid crashed into earth, making it possible for our small mammal ancestors to develop into primates, including humans. Our ancestors didn't start looking like modern humans until between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
The creationist idiots believe T-Rex used to live with humans. T-Rex had teeth that could crush solid bone. The idea that humans could survive in a world of dinosaurs is way beyond idiotic.
The creationists are so proud of their breathtaking stupidity they built a museum in Kentucky that shows people living peaceably together with dinosaurs.
Calling a creationist a moron is a compliment. They are much worse than morons. They are way beyond insane. They have made America the laughing-stock of the world. Europeans laugh at the incredible stupidity of Americans.
Tell you what creationists. You learn how to keep your insanity in your churches and out of our schools, and I will be happy to ignore you.
June 26, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
greyrider, you have already proved beyond any doubt you're a typical gullible brainwashed Christian who couldn't understand a scientific fact if your life depended on it.
You said the earth is 15,000 years old, which is only incorrect by about 4,500,000,000 years. How about telling us how old you think the universe is. Hint - it's at least 14,000,000,000 years old.
I predict more cutting and pasting from idiot pseudoscientists.
Cid95, good comments. The religious nuts of America reject thousands of gods. They just need to get rid of one more magical sky fairy before they can be called normal. Unfortunately it won't happen in my lifetime. But in my opinion the sky fairy believers and the everything-is-magic creationists will some day be as rare as flat-earthers.
As science education improves, despite constant religious attacks against science, people will gradually, over many centuries, figure out the god-of-the-gaps doesn't have any more gaps left, and the insanity of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism will become virtually obsolete. There's no hope for the brainwashed Christian morons living today, but maybe in a few hundred years, after a few thousand more scientific discoveries, the world will finally be rid of ancient idiotic superstitions.
June 26, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
Secular humanism would be ideal in my opinion, but many people on Earth today need an imaginary friend. Whether it's Jesus or Ganesh or their therapist they need something more than themselves and their family and friends and education and job and hobbies and travel and all the other things real life offers.
But, as long as they're not hurting anyone, no worries. Most religious people on the planet are in that category, luckily. It's the nutjobs that cause the problems.
BobC - while we agree on the big picture, calling people who disagre with you morons and idiots just isn't very nice, you know?
June 26, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
What about Bob?
June 26, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Agreed, it's not nice. It's also not nice to insult thousands of scientists. That's what creationists do when they make idiotic claims about age of the earth and the magical creation of creatures.
It's also not very nice when creationists try to stick their insanity into science education. There is a Christian war going on right now against science. They are relentlessly attacking everyone else's education. I choose to not ignore this war. I fight back. It's impossible to reason with an idiot. It is possible to ridicule an idiot, and that's what I do whenever I see the Christian morons attacking education.
If Christians kept to themselves, and just brainwashed their own children instead of trying to brainwash everyone else's children in our schools, I would be happy to ignore them. Instead the Christians want to throw out the constitution so they can make America a theocracy. They are traitors and they deserve to be treated like traitors.
June 26, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Cid95: "It's the nutjobs that cause the problems."
Yes, they are nutjobs, aren't they? Apparently even you agree that sometimes ridicule is appropriate.
Greyrider, how old is the universe? Make me laugh at you again. Tell us how old the universe is.
June 26, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
P&C, could you please send EMS to BobC's location before it's too late?
June 26, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Cid95: "But, as long as they're not hurting anyone, no worries."
You're forgetting they are hurting people, their own children. The parents and preachers destroy the minds of gullible children long before they take their first science class. It's legal what they do, but it's still child abuse. It's immoral and it's disgusting. There is no such thing as a moderate Christian. They all lie to their children.
June 26, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Answer my question greyrider. How old is the universe? Are you ashamed of your answer? You should be ashamed of it.
June 26, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Bob, may the Force be with you
June 26, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Psalm 19 (NKJV)
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
June 26, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Alex, I'll take earth science for $600
Ding! Ding! Ding! The Daily Double!
I'll risk it all, Alex!!
The answer is 15,000 years
What is the age of the earth?
Suddenly, a man in the front charges the stage. Security tackles him. Bob, please relax, it's going to be okay.
June 26, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
OK, greyrider, since you at least answered my question, I will attempt to be nice, not an easy thing to do because I despise Christians.
Well, maybe you didn't answer my question, but I will assume you believe the entire universe, including billions of Galaxies, each Galaxy containing up to 400 million stars or more, zillions of comets, asteroids, moons, and living creatures, were all magically poofed into existence by a sky fairy 15,000 years ago.
And to back up this wild claim you have a list of wacko fake scientists who make a living lying to gullible Christians.
I would just like to point out that any child with average intelligence who has seen the Grand Canyon or the Rocky Mountains would be able to figure out the earth is at least millions of years old. The evidence for a billions of years old earth and a much older universe is overwhelming, so of course you are wrong about everything.
Do you ever worry about the disgrace you bring to your religion? People like you scare away intelligent young people. What educated person would want to have anything to do with a religion that rejects virtually every branch of science?
June 26, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
First, name one person smarter than Thomas Aquinas, whose writngs have continued to convert thousands of atheists, especially evolutionary scientists to Christianity hundreds of years after his death. Pretty impressive.
Secondly, there must be two Grand Canyons because the Grand Canyon in Arizona is one of the greatest pieces of evidence for a young earth that exist.
Lastly, how do you know your scientists aren't the wacko pseudoscientists? Who decides?
June 26, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
There are two types of men, those who are afraid to lose God, and those who are afraid that they might find Him:
--Blaise Pascal, philosopher and scientist
Bob, have you ever read Aquinas' Five Proofs for God's Existence?
June 26, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Interesting note: As a child, I believed a billions of years old earth. I came to believe in a 15,000 year old earth in my thirties, long AFTER coming to faith in Jesus. It was based on scientists, not preachers.
June 26, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
What ravenous wolves, I mean scientists, are you reading to base this on?
I would say that most people do not have the sophistication to spot crackpot science, as many seem fall to crackpot religions (present company excepted). I have not viewed one credible rebuke of a scientific fact in this discussion. You want to challenge a field, you'd have to do a better job than this on the open forums thought, greyrider.
Just checking in...
June 26, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
The denial of scientific facts is not the only problem Christians have. Every single one of their beliefs is a denial of reality.
My favorite example of how incredibly gullible the Christians are is the Resurrection story. They believe a person named Mr. Jesus was a god. For some strange reason this god let himself get executed, and it was a very nasty execution. The god-man did this so that the god-father would forgive human apes for their sins, as if a population just trying to survive in the ancient world did something wrong that displeased the sky fairy. The story then gets really weird. After 3 days of decomposing, the stinking corpse of the dead Jesus turns into a zombie, later flying up to the clouds. Christians really believe this insane nonsense. They really are that stupid.
Another insane belief is heaven. According to the Christian idiots, after death a magical invisible soul leaves the corpse and magically flies up to the clouds to live in a magical heaven after magically transforming itself to what the stinking corpse looks like. I know how insane that sounds, but Christians believe it anyway. Why do they believe it? Because they are cowards and they refuse to grow up and accept reality. Of course their breathtaking stupidity is also required to believe in their magical heaven.
Their worst belief is hell. Only the most disgusting sick-in-the-head person could believe in eternal torture in a magical hell, but the Christians, being the most immoral and stupid people in human history, believe it.
So it's not just their total ignorance of science that makes Christians a laughing stock. They also completely reject all of reality. The Christians really are way beyond crazy.
I can forgive a child who has been brainwashed by moron parents and worthless preachers to believe in the Christian fantasy world, but if a person still believes the Christian crap after growing up, it's fair to say that person has a severe incurable mental disease. There's nothing that can be done for these idiots. Their lives are totally wasted. The only thing normal people can do is use the courts to keep them under control when they try to force their insanity into public schools.
June 26, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
I think Bobby is mad at the Christians.
June 26, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
It's been real and it's been fun, but it wasn't real fun.
I hope all of you that distrust evolution don't overuse antibiotics, as natural selection leads to antibiotic resistance (proven), and that your loved ones don't need a flu shot, the design of which is based on molecular evolutionary models of clonal selection to meet unseen demands before they happen (proven). Or to benefit from new drugs based in comparative genomics, since why would you want to compare genomes if organisms don't share a common ancestry-- no predictive value in that. I guess all the true believers will die in the next plague, if they stick to their guns and don't trust in "evilutionary" biology. Maybe that's how the rapture works? It sure would be hell to be stuck on a world saved by evolutionary theory.
Be a shame to have to depend on science that is based on a process that you don't "believe" in...
June 26, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sc4peace (anonymous) says...
I don't agree with the name calling, but Bob has great points- there is a lot of negativity in Christianity (not everyone). To spark fear in a child as soon as they are able to comprehend is cruel. Besides, half of these "Conservative christians" are caught screwing a call girl the next week- oh wait, they can ask for forgiveness and they are saved, I forgot.
June 26, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
retirednavy (anonymous) says...
I think bob is a mental case. I would actually enjoy his ramblings if he wasn't such a "richard cranium".
June 26, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
retirednavy. I think you are god-soaked moron.
June 26, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
retirednavy, if you have anything important to say, then say it. If all you can do is make worthless comments about other people, then you can go to your mythical hell.
June 26, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
"To spark fear in a child as soon as they are able to comprehend is cruel."
Right, sc4peace. This is the worst kind of child abuse and Christians do this to their own children every day. There is nobody more immoral than Christians who lie to their children about science and threaten their children with torture from the Christian sky fairy. It's disgusting and Christians should be ashamed of themselves.
June 26, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
walleyedwoman1215 (anonymous) says...
Bob! BobC! Bobby! I am sad that you despise Christians. In my experience, we hate what we fear.
I teach vacation Bible school and I assure you we don't inculcate tiny minds with fire and brimstone. We teach that God is love made manifest, that God loves us even when we are cruel or careless. Ever heard of unconditional love?
Bless you, and please don't flame me. I cry easily.
June 26, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
Sorry that I missed these:
I did explain how the 2nd law is misused and you ignored it. I won't try again.
In fact, there are legless lizards, called glass snakes, right here in SC (God's country!). They are lizards that autotomize their tails (that science speak for they break off, I'm typing slowly because you might get lost...), which snakes do not, and they have external ear openings-- snakes do not.
Also, Boa constrictors have a pelvic girdle (you'd call it a hip bone) with vestigial leg bones (that means tiny, nearly useless leg bones, again typing s-l-o-w-l-y). Why would a legless snake have those, except the, oh yeah, snakes had an ancestor with legs! And that ancestor was around much earlier than its descendant in the Garden of Eden...
Were you there at creation to bear witness?
Lastly-- fact: A piece of data that supports a more complex argument, trivial by itself, important in context.
Theory: A well-tested hypothesis supported by many scientific facts (not just webpage links from crackpots), vetted data by someone in the field with actual training (science-speak for "facts"). Nothing secret, we share it with you the public, but you rarely ask...
Law: Naming a theory of some importance, often to its dead discoverer. An honorific that most scientists relatives care about, I suppose.
Posted by bkeelin on June 25, 2008 at 5:39 p.m.
The quotes are in the context, "life is irrelevent to the 2nd law" how is that out of context? I think it is pretty self explanatory.
If a theory is the highest level of understanding then what is a fact or a law?
Is repeatedly tested OR widely accepted, not that it's true. What tests have been done to prove evolution. Only predictions within the same species have been proven, adaptation and variation, not evolution. What test proves that man evolved from apes. In order for it to be scientific proof it must be duplicatable and I don't see anyone watching snakes grow legs or lizards dropping their legs.
June 26, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
scientist, Thanks for the information. Of course your intended audience, the creationists, won't understand a thing you said, but you already knew that.
June 26, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MindBath (anonymous) says...
This discussion has been pretty mean-spirited on both sides. On the one hand, you have the evolutionists puffed up with pride because the vast majority of modern scientific thought is on their side. On the other hand, you have so-called Christians puffed up with pride trying, not to lead anyone to Truth, but hatefully trying to "win" an intellectual argument.
Whatever.
So I will limit my comments to a basic few. 1) Evolution does not prove that there is not a creator, though it is a problem for Biblical literalists. In fact, the creatures on this planet today live in a vastly different world than those hundreds of years ago, thus evolution would be a brilliant design feature. And, 2) Disproving evolution in no way proves there is a creator. Again, for Biblical literalists, disproving evolution simply allows your doctrine to continue to be possible, it makes no progress toward validating it.
I must say I find it interesting that God does not just reveal Himself and abide with us in this life. I am aware of the ideas of Free Will and Faith. But the arguments from the Christian side in this war made it abundantly clear that God is revealed to us clearly though nature, etc. and that it is obvious he exists. If you see that, and I don't, I say you were given quite the upper hand in the Heaven sweepstakes. No real need for faith at all.
June 26, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Mr. Mouth, my already low opinion of you just got much lower. You really aren't interested in learning anything, are you? You have made no attempt to understand anything. You haven't even tried to understand the garbage you've been cutting and pasting.
June 26, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
retirednavy (anonymous) says...
bob, I don't think my comment was worthless. You make some interesting points and I have enjoyed reading your post, if only for the entertainment value. The point I was making is that it is fine to get in a heated debate on here, it happens on a daily basis and it is what makes this site so great. But, when your posts constantly demean and put down other people you just come across as a babbling idiot and you lose all credibility.
June 27, 2008 at 6:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
retirednavy, you said "The big bang theory and evolution. It just does not wash with me."
Guess what? That makes you an uneducated religious hick.
Why don't you grow up, educate yourself, and face facts. Your magical sky fairy didn't create the human species. Humans, including you mister, evolved from an ancient ape species. You don't believe that because you're too lazy to study science and you're too brainwashed with religious crap.
By the way, you might want to try staying on topic. I am not the topic of this thread. Like many other religious morons, you would rather talk about other people, because you don't have anything intelligent to say.
June 27, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
"you lose all credibility."
And what credibility do you have, retirednavy? What do you know about biological evolution? It doesn't wash with you, right? So what should we do, Mr. Hick, throw out all of science because you don't understand it?
I don't respect creationists like you, because let's face it, this is the 21st century and anyone who still denies evolution is dumber than a dog.
If you don't like being ridiculed, then for God's sake educate yourself. It's not just me that laughs at people like you. Visit any biology blog. The biologists think people like you are worthless scum.
June 27, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
retirednavy, after looking at all of your comments, I noticed you have contributed absolutely nothing to this topic of this thread. Nothing. Then you have the nerve to say I have no credibility. Shove it mister.
June 27, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
As far as this comment:
"1) Evolution does not prove that there is not a creator,..."
I never said it did, and neither do most evolutionary biologists. I am not trying to influence your religious life. I take great exception that most religious objectors assume so and try to negatively influence science.
Most of us are trying to use evolution as a tool to understand the day-to-day, century to century and Era to Era.
I am not bipolar, but I have offered many points of evidence here to try to let people know why I study what I do. Most detractors have ignored every single point to continue to babble the same non-starter arguments while saying that no one had offered anything to address the evolution side. So, yeah, I think that such behavior is worthy of some ridicule, not for its religious basis but that its anti-intellectual and dishonest.
I will be teaching an entire course of this in the fall, and I will be using this discussion thread to address with the students even single misconception and dishonest rhetorical technique that both side use to misrepresent evolutionary theory (including BobC).
I cannot address all of the misconceptions and "spins" of theory here, as the arguments involved in the details are subtle-- and unfortunately for most non-scientists that gets translated into "weak." Unfortunately for them, the same can be said for religious interpretations, which is why we have so many sects of Christianity alone. Bitter disputes leading to fractionation of "the one true religion", and also why guys like BobC have chosen that Christianity offers nothing of importance to them. Most weren't lured away from religion by evolution, merely it is convenient support of why they choose not to be religious.
If people choose to use Evolution as support that they are atheist, so be it, but that is not a central tenet or thesis of evolution, ask anyone in the Clergy Letter Project (whose website I put out and I am a member of). Any bipolarness attributed to me is due to a complete misreading of what I have said, throughout.
I have NOT told you what to believe spiritually, and I wouldn't. I'm not a priest, imam, or rabbi. I'm a different type of teacher-- a biologist.
June 27, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
OK, I did say that religious nutjobs are the problem. And, of course, they certainly are.
But "worthless scum", "moron", "hick", etc directed at individuals? It's perfectly possible to firmly and vehemently disagree with someone, as I do with religious nutjobs, for instance, and yet still be polite in your discourse with them. This will aid you in your efforts to get your point across.
See, no one is arguing with me, and "silence means consent" - so I'll chalk that up as a win.
June 27, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I stand by my criticism of the one individual who peppered this with large, cut-and-pasted tracts from other websites without citing their origin as a moron. In college, such plagiarism would get you a failing class grade as being lazy, deceitful and dishonest. The worst part is that much of it is incorrect, and presented as thorough even thought other "scholars" have previously disproven its veracity.
So I stand by my use of "moron" for that individual...
June 27, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
retirednavy (anonymous) says...
My point exactly Cid. You can get your point across without belittling others that disagree with your point of view. I don't mind my belief being ridiculed, but when you start attacking me personally because of what I believe in then I think you are crossing a line. I enjoy reading these threads and seeing everyones point of view(even yours Bob)
June 27, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
"Scientific education and religious education are incompatible. The clergy have ceased to interfere with education at the advanced state, with which I am directly concerned, but they have still got control of that of children. This means that the children have to learn about Adam and Noah instead of about Evolution; about David who killed Goliath, instead of Koch who killed cholera; about Christ's ascent into heaven instead of Montgolfier's and Wright's. Worse than that, they are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them a prey to quacks of every kind in later life, and makes it very difficult for them to accept the methods of thought which are successful in science."
-- J.B.S. Haldane
June 27, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BobC (anonymous) says...
Cid95: "This will aid you in your efforts to get your point across."
Are you serious? Do you really think it's possible to get a point across to a creationist idiot? Just look at the creationists on this blog. Not one of them made any effort to understand anything.
I have watched long discussions between scientists and creationist morons. I have watched scientists spend a large amount of their valuable time patiently and politely explaining the massive evidence for evolution to creationist hicks. At the end of these very long patient efforts to educate creationists, the creationists ALWAYS said at the end: "There is NO evidence for evolution".
This thread was no different. Creationists are not interested in science and they refuse to understand it. Evidence is totally meaningless to creationists because they are god-soaked beyond any hope.
Let's be completely honest here. Creationism is an incurable disease. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say creationism is a symptom of a disease. The disease is Christianity. The Christian religion makes people permanently stupid, and permanently unable to understand anything.
I think I said this earlier, but it's worth repeating. It's impossible to reason with an idiot, but it is possible to ridicule an idiot. It's like dealing with terrorists. It's impossible to reason with a terrorist, but it is possible to kill a terrorist. I'm not suggesting creationists should be murdered, even though the world becomes a better place every time one of them drops dead.
The solution is better science education for young people. There's no hope for the older creationists. No amount of education can help them. So when they try to attack science education, which they do all the time, it's very appropriate to ridicule them. These people are traitors who belong in prison. I refuse to be nice to traitors for the same reason I refuse to be nice to terrorists.
June 27, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scientist (anonymous) says...
I was just checking in. Wow, Bob, have a glass of scotch before you bust an artery!
You make excellent points about extremist behaviors of some creationists, but I would part ways with you to say that many do not view Evolution as a threat or a negative thing. Watch an excellent documentary by a friend of mine called "Flock of Dodos". Randy Olson does a nice job of presenting an interesting insight into both sides (but don't worry, he was a student of SJ Gould's, he comes down on the side of evolution).
The guy who wrote the science standards for Kansas that the extremists keep trying to throw out is a Christian. And he's fighting like hell to keep the high standards of Kansas intact. That should show the other side that we're not just a bunch of subversive atheists who investigate the theory of natural selection and evolution, in general.
June 27, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.