Celebrate Darwin's birthday Thursday

[KittenKoder]

We're about half way to 300 years since the Origin of the Species, and about half of the population has accepted it, so I guess we're on track. I though science would be more accepted now than it was during the Middle Ages, though.

Well ... you thought wrong. Fact of the matter is that there are still a lot of religious nutjobs resisting scientific advancements of all sorts. A lesser known group is actually trying to end our space program .. and not because it's been wasting a lot of money lately (which would be a sound complaint) but because they think it goes against their gods wishes. Some even resisted the use of computers, many even still think medicine is evil. It's sad really, that there are still so many who resist change out of nothing but fear.

We do know a lot more now than we did during Copernicus' time, but Mark Twain summed it up best:

"It's not so much what we don't know, as it is what we do know t hat ain't so."

I hadn't heard of anyone resisting space travel because of their "god's wishes". That's a new one on me, but it does make sense. We are traveling in the "heavens", after all.

As I said, a lesser known group. I had heard of them in passing and never pay much mind to any idiot that resists scientific advancement or the advancement of knowledge.

 

[Sunni Man]

Darwin's theory is ,just that a theory.
God is Black.He created man in his own immage.The Black race, Africa is the original Garden of Eden.
White people came afterwards. The White race was created by a black mad scientist named Jacob, in
Africa, about 200,000.00 years ago.They would not Obey, his rules, thus they were driven out of Africa, to Europe, which also had a climate more suitable for White skin.

52ndStreet are you a member of NOI

 

[YWN666]

Darwin's theory is ,just that a theory.

Only uneducated people make this comment. What is says is "Darwin's theory is just an explanation"

 

[Sunni Man]

Darwin's theory is ,just that a theory.

Only uneducated people make this comment. What is says is "Darwin's theory is just an explanation"

The so called Theory of Evolution is just really a pseudo scientific way of explaining the world to gulible people.

 

[YWN666]

Darwin's theory is ,just that a theory.

Only uneducated people make this comment. What is says is "Darwin's theory is just an explanation"

The so called Theory of Evolution is just really a pseudo scientific way of explaining the world to gulible people.

No, that's creationism you're referring to. Evolution is supported by science and you just have a hard time admitting it.

 

[YWN666]

"If you're looking for a little background reading on scientific creationism, it's best not to take the word scientific too seriously. A three-year database search of 4,000 scientific publications - focusing on the names of people associated with the Institute for Creation Research and on phrases and keywords such as 'creationism' - didn't turn up a single paper. A follow-up study of 68 journals found that only 18 of 135,000 total manuscript submissions concerned scientific creationism, and all 18 were rejected. Reasons cited included 'flawed arguments,' 'ramblings,' and 'a high-school theme quality.'
~Science, September 1985

 

[Sunni Man]

Only uneducated people make this comment. What is says is "Darwin's theory is just an explanation"

The so called Theory of Evolution is just really a pseudo scientific way of explaining the world to gulible people.

No, that's creationism you're referring to. Evolution is supported by science and you just have a hard time admitting it.

No. The pseudo science of Evolution was exactly what I was referring to.

 

[YWN666]

The so called Theory of Evolution is just really a pseudo scientific way of explaining the world to gulible people.

No, that's creationism you're referring to. Evolution is supported by science and you just have a hard time admitting it.

No. The pseudo science of Evolution was exactly what I was referring to.

Then you're either stupid or dishonest.

 

[52ndStreet]

Darwin's theory is ,just that a theory.
God is Black.He created man in his own immage.The Black race, Africa is the original Garden of Eden.
White people came afterwards. The White race was created by a black mad scientist named Jacob, in
Africa, about 200,000.00 years ago.They would not Obey, his rules, thus they were driven out of Africa, to Europe, which also had a climate more suitable for White skin.

52ndStreet are you a member of NOI

No, but I read a lot of their literature. And the Jacob theory of white peoples
creation sounds logical to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Failed science, did ya?

Nope, passed just fine with an A

But then again, Darwinism isn't really science. Just a quack theory that feeble minded people accept.

"In 1986, an amicus curiae brief in the case Edwards v. Aguillard was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies. The amicus curiae brief described why evolution was science and why creationism is not science."

"James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory."

"In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list. By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 868 Steves as of March 18, 2008. People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

"The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[131] The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[132

Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[133] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. "

It's amazing we're not still using leeches and casting out demons with all of these "feeble-minded" biologists wandering around this country.

We DO still use leeches "lol". Might want to bone up on your medical science before you take that condescending know-it-all tone, Dr. Schweitzer. As for "feeble-minded biologists", would that be like . . . oh, Gregor Mendel, the father of modern biological science, who was a contemporary of Darwin and thought he was a pretentious crackpot? Amazing how he accomplished so much in the field of biology without ever once believing that Darwin's little theory was the basis of his work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As the years go by, Darwin's theories grow weaker and less relevant

They become stronger and much more closer to the truth than the dogma of religion. I remember a guy on campus back in my college days was handing out fliers and I decided to read it. The flier stated that the earth wasn't old and the dinosaurs were a great conspiracy by non-believers in control of the government. There was no proof, rather the great religious argument of "Just trust me. I can't explain it, but trust me." Sorry bud I rather believe in rationale rather than folklore!

I would say that as time goes on religion esp Islam get exposed for what they are folklore, myth and well idiocy! Eventually the Abrahamic religions will go the way of Zeus, Apollo, Mercury, Hades etc. remembered in history as nonsense!

Well, I'm so glad you found some lunatic to set up as a straw man representing all those who don't accept macroevolution as a scientific law, because I'm sure it saves you whole worlds of time you might otherwise spend listening to opposing viewpoints and, God forbid, thinking about them. It's always easier to just demonize and ridicule, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As the years go by, Darwin's theories grow weaker and less relevant

Failed science, did ya?

Fundies of all stripes hate science.

Liberals of all stripes cling to the notion of science while simultaneously not being able to recognize it if it crawls up their pant legs.

 

[Skeptik]

Failed science, did ya?

Fundies of all stripes hate science.

Liberals of all stripes cling to the notion of science while simultaneously not being able to recognize it if it crawls up their pant legs.

Is that why liberals tend to try to refute the science of climate change?

Or is it why so many liberals are still, after all this time, trying to say that evolution is not proven, or that creationism is science?

Darned liberals, anyway.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fundies of all stripes hate science.

Liberals of all stripes cling to the notion of science while simultaneously not being able to recognize it if it crawls up their pant legs.

Is that why liberals tend to try to refute the science of climate change?

Or is it why so many liberals are still, after all this time, trying to say that evolution is not proven, or that creationism is science?

Darned liberals, anyway.

Your sarcasm woud be more effective if it didn't reinforce MY point. Global warming and macroevolution are the two premier examples of how liberals attempt to wear the mantle of "Science" without having clue one what they're talking about. If I had a nickel for every leftist drooler who has tried to tout one of these two at me while making it painfully obvious that all they know about the subject is that someone once told them that it was a settled scientific fact, I'd be living in a mansion. But hell, it SOUNDS technical, and the media swears that lots of people with fancy-sounding abbreviations after their names support it, so it MUST be science. And that's not counting other science-based debates like abortion, where it becomes plain that every liberal in America was the subject of social promotion in high school biology class.

 

[Agnapostate]

Very well. What accounts for the existence of vestigial organs among we, the blessed offspring of Adam and Eve?

 

[Old Rocks]

Liberals of all stripes cling to the notion of science while simultaneously not being able to recognize it if it crawls up their pant legs.

Is that why liberals tend to try to refute the science of climate change?

Or is it why so many liberals are still, after all this time, trying to say that evolution is not proven, or that creationism is science?

Darned liberals, anyway.

Your sarcasm woud be more effective if it didn't reinforce MY point. Global warming and macroevolution are the two premier examples of how liberals attempt to wear the mantle of "Science" without having clue one what they're talking about. If I had a nickel for every leftist drooler who has tried to tout one of these two at me while making it painfully obvious that all they know about the subject is that someone once told them that it was a settled scientific fact, I'd be living in a mansion. But hell, it SOUNDS technical, and the media swears that lots of people with fancy-sounding abbreviations after their names support it, so it MUST be science. And that's not counting other science-based debates like abortion, where it becomes plain that every liberal in America was the subject of social promotion in high school biology class.

LOL!!!!! Another total fruitcake! OK, where are your scientists that are proving Darwin wrong? Same for Global Warming.

Look, when virtually all the scientists in the world are in general agreement on a subject, then that is far more likely to be reality than the meanderings of religious leaders, or drugged out radio jocks.

You don't like what real scientists are saying. Fine, disagree with it on the grounds of your ideology or religion, but do not pretend to have science on your side. And labeling all science that you disagree with as "liberal" just indicates the level of brain death that you have achieved.

 

[KittenKoder]

Very well. What accounts for the existence of vestigial organs among we, the blessed offspring of Adam and Eve?

Because ... it wasn't really Adam and Eve, it was Amy and Eve.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Very well. What accounts for the existence of vestigial organs among we, the blessed offspring of Adam and Eve?

Because ... it wasn't really Adam and Eve, it was Amy and Eve.

Vince the Vesicle, if you feel like naming a hollow ball of lipids, that is. If you want to know what I mean go to youtube and search for "abiogenesis explained" If you have any background in biochemistry it will seem very plausible.

Of course it should be emphasized that the validity of evolution does not hinge on the validity of non-theistic abiogenesis. Some people, including Darwin for part of his life, believe god could have set evolution in motion and genesis was just a dumbed down version. That's not what I believe, but abiogenesis =/= evolution.

Failed science, did ya?

Fundies of all stripes hate science.

I'm surprised they don't deny gravity ... oh wait.

Maybe they think god is holding them to the ground and astrophysical phenomena that appear to be gravity is really Satan putting on a light show to try to steal souls?

 

[KittenKoder]

LU, quit being so inhibited and learn what jokes are. As for your "it may just be gods technique" we already posed that possibility to these people, since you are new you get a break from mer, they denied even that possibility. As I say, mixing in religious belief isn't the bad part, it's denying fact in place of myth (as you pointed out, not even a complete one) that makes them morons.

Oh, and thanks for at least getting my other joke.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

LU, quit being so inhibited and learn what jokes are.

LOL, I wasn't arguing with your joke, I was supplementing it with comments about abiogenesis. I think you took it as a repudiation of what you said. It wasn't. No need to be defensive.

As for your "it may just be gods technique" we already posed that possibility to these people, since you are new you get a break from mer, they denied even that possibility. As I say, mixing in religious belief isn't the bad part, it's denying fact in place of myth (as you pointed out, not even a complete one) that makes them morons.

Oh, and thanks for at least getting my other joke.

It's difficult to overemphasize the fact that abiogenesis is not the same as evolution because people who disbelieve in evolution very often point to the idea that it does not explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis is not explicitly mentioned in this thread prior to my post so I don't think I have anything to apologize for there. The "gods technique" issue is simply a way of clarifying that they don't have to give up their faith or believe in abiogenesis to accept evolution. Gotta wear them down little by little... er... I mean let them believe.