It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109849 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing.
Paul is a rare specimen. So is the midget. In any sample of 1000 people you would be lucky to find one of each. Unless you think that fossilisation especially picks out the freaks, its exceedingly unlikely that the fossils we have are Paul Wright equivalents. They are far more likely ordinary individuals of the time.

We have many specimens of species like Neanderthal, H erectus, and Heidlburgensis. Your argument simply does not wash when we have multiple specimens of a species. To imagine that only the "Paul Wright" equivalents were fossilised and found multiple time is not credible.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109850 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Economically, I am a conservative and socially a libertarian (nothing like a liberal).
But the Party that would champion these things has got itself so entrenched in the religious fundamentalist whacko core, that its created a false split. Now its supposedly liberal-socialist-pro-science versus conservative-free market-anti-science, and its BS.
I don't think you have it right at all. I think it's more like liberal, socialist,secularists...vs.... .Conservative,capitalist, anti-psuedoscience, theists.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founding Fathers were very smart in separating Church from State, and this is just the sort of stupidity they had in mind. They knew religious beliefs were faith based, not rational, whereas issues of public policy and business should be kept on a rational basis.
You are way off the mark here and your biases are showing. Who says religious beliefs aren't rational? Idiots like Richard Dawkins? He's not the authority of truth. Christianity is very rational to those that study it and take it seriously. Just because you reject it doesn't mean it isn't rational. In fact, it could mean that you are not rational. Until scientists can replicate the origin of life, creationism will be rational.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is not a conservative cause. For much of history and in much of the world, religion has been connected to socialist causes. The big champion of free market capitalism, Ayn Rand, is trumpeted by the Tea Party and guys like Paul Ryan, ignoring the fact that ATHEISM was right at the core of her philosophy. You wont find many more anti-religious writings that hers; she leaves Dawkins in the dust.
So? She is like you. Not the norm. She was right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD. You are right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD.(IMHO).
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been sold a false bill of goods. Evolution is not a liberal cause. Its a scientific theory.
Well, it's definately not a scientific theory. It's more of an atheistic philosophy, and yes there are christians that buy into it. That just tells me that they have a surface faith, and a personality that follows rather than researches. I'm not judging their salvation, only GOD can do that. They can be right about Jesus and go to heaven, and still have been completely wrong about human from non-human evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109851 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature."
http://antidarwinism.com/evolutionisahoax.htm...
<quoted text>"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts....[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolut...
Sorry, Marksman, but the majority of the above is just creationist propaganda. Nebraska Man was not taken seriously for long if at all and after 35 years extensive evolution reading, I had never even heard of it until Topix. As it is, evolutionary predictions are now backed by scores of hominid fossil finds, and there is a lot more than a tooth or two in most cases.

As for Haeckel, again, claiming he was ever more influential than Darwin or the fossil record is just building a very fake straw man. At best Heackel was only ever supplementary evidence for evolution. Anyway, he was not totally wrong. Embryology still sees the obvious evolutionary parallels in embryonic development that is best explained by the adaptation of an original "fish base" with elaborations occurring later. As Darwin, by the way, predicted, before Haeckel ever did a thing.

Frauds and errors get outed by the process. The fact that your system has no method of fraud detection accounts for millions of Muslims and Mormons running around, for starters.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109852 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul is a rare specimen. So is the midget. In any sample of 1000 people you would be lucky to find one of each. Unless you think that fossilisation especially picks out the freaks, its exceedingly unlikely that the fossils we have are Paul Wright equivalents. They are far more likely ordinary individuals of the time.
We have many specimens of species like Neanderthal, H erectus, and Heidlburgensis. Your argument simply does not wash when we have multiple specimens of a species. To imagine that only the "Paul Wright" equivalents were fossilised and found multiple time is not credible.
I'm just saying, there are exceptions to the norm, and when you have evolutionists finding a pigs tooth and from that tooth drawing the entire family of the non-existant human, then they zeal and exageration must be greeted with extreme skeptisim. And because Evolutionists have had Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Haeckles....etc...This extreme skeptisim is warrented.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109853 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We also know that when the climate changes, or vulcanism or asteroids hit, what was "fit" can be abruptly different after such events. Fitness is a moving target because the environment changes. What is an anteater when the ants are there? Dead.
Do you mean when the ants "aren't" there? I Agree, they are dead, but they have not evolved into something that was not an anteater.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109854 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
I don't think you have it right at all. I think it's more like liberal, socialist,secularists...vs.... .Conservative,capitalist, anti-psuedoscience, theists.
Try this:

Religious / non religious
Science / anti science
Socially conservative / socially liberal
Economically free market / economically socialist

All these things are independent and can occur in any combination in different people. Not only that, but most of these are sliding scales not A or B.

There are many people in the real world who are economic and social conservatives but not religious. This is more evident in democracies that have proportional representation and so several smaller parties with different combinations of the above have to form a coalition to govern.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109855 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Marksman, but the majority of the above is just creationist propaganda.
Refute the statements, not the source. I think that many of the links you guys post are ridiculous and biased, but I address their statements, not give them a handwave because of the name of the site.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> Nebraska Man was not taken seriously for long if at all and after 35 years extensive evolution reading, I had never even heard of it until Topix.
It was taught to us in high school as a part of evolution in 1976.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As for Haeckel, again, claiming he was ever more influential than Darwin or the fossil record is just building a very fake straw man. At best Heackel was only ever supplementary evidence for evolution. Anyway, he was not totally wrong. Embryology still sees the obvious evolutionary parallels in embryonic development that is best explained by the adaptation of an original "fish base" with elaborations occurring later. As Darwin, by the way, predicted, before Haeckel ever did a thing.
Then why did Stephen Gould say....

"Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).

Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:

…[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks!(p. 45, emphasis added)

He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated,

"I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45).
These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question."

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm

Don't hand wave the source. THese are the words of a pramanant evolutionist who is quoted from a scientific journal you can research. Also, please give a link to a genetists that can show me why an embryo would in anyway follow an historical past of distant evolution as it developes? Who came up with that BS? What were claimed as gill slits never were gill slits but pouches that developed into the shoulder and ear mechanics.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Frauds and errors get outed by the process. The fact that your system has no method of fraud detection accounts for millions of Muslims and Mormons running around, for starters.
Changing the subject does not validate or support your views.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109856 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you mean when the ants "aren't" there? I Agree, they are dead, but they have not evolved into something that was not an anteater.
Probably not. Anteaters are extremely fit for anteating but their specialisation makes them vulnerable. Remember I said "superiority" comes down to fitness and adaptability? Anteaters are fit but not adaptable. Reliance on a food source others have difficulty exploiting is a great short term strategy - so long as the food source exists. Which species has more survival potential - the Brown bear who eats almost everything or the Panda who lives on just bamboo?

We have, in spite of your beliefs, many examples of adaptive radiation especially following major catastrophes. It was generally less specialised, adaptable species that formed the base of those radiations.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109857 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

There are many people in the real world who are economic and social conservatives but not religious.
I agree. I had a friend who was a statistics professor at the University of Houston name John Nechworth. He was that way, but he wasn't the norm. I met him in a forum and we were bitter enemies for years until one day the topic shifted from religion to politics, and we became great friend until his death. Still, again, you can be correct about politics, and wrong about GOD.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109858 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
(Dawkins)I think to him his atheism is more important for him to protect than his biology.
I disagree. He would be first to say that even if there turns out to be a God, He used evolution, meaning he puts the biology before the atheism. He has said it, but I do not remember where. In any case, these are individual opinions. You said Dawkins was not "the Authority".

Don't you get it? Of course he is not! He is a human putting forth his views with his reasons, which you can agree with or not.

NOBODY is an unquestioned authority. Ever, in anything. And sorry mate, but I include Jesus in that category.
<quoted text>There are those who claim Hitler was a Darwinist, and the Great Solution was merely his way of speeding up evolution to it's ultimate conclusion. Did evolution kill 6 million Jews, or a hand full of missguided and derranged Germans? Right, it was the Germans. Same with 911, it wasn't religion that caused 911, it was like the Germans, some misguided and derranged people. If Dawkins can't figure that one out, people need to hand wave him away in the first place.
I have a different take. It was acceptance of dogmatic authority that enabled both. Same thing with Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, and they were not religious. For me its this dogmatic aspect that enables men to do evil things that is the core issue, and religion is one form of dogmatism but not the only one.

The cure is rational empirical skepticism. That is, nobody and no doctrine is the automatic authority. All claims must be open to critical examination and backed by evidence.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109859 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature."
http://antidarwinism.com/evolutionisahoax.htm...
<quoted text>"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts....[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolut...
You shouldn't need to consult demonstrably dishonest sources to make your case. That you do says everything.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109860 Feb 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Superior" is one of those relative words that really does not fit here.
Because of our brain size we are a very adaptable species. But not superior.
It is like your misuse of the word "complexity". It is also a word that only works in context and only in a relative sense.
Yes, the word superior is too value laden, but I used it with caution. One can make the case that adaptability and fitness are each elements that can constitute superiority in the evolutionary sense, meaning, "more likely to continue to leave viable offspring and viable daughter species in the long run".

You could also ask, "what range of environments and different conditions can a Chimp survive in, given that Earth is environmentally unstable in the long run?". By this measure, I would wager that the superior species are rats, bats, pigeons, sparrows, brown bears, pigs, ants, and humans, when compared with say chimps, koalas, anteaters, and pandas.

Never forget our old friend Lystrosaurus. Nobody is sure why, but this little genus survived the Permian extinction well 250 million years ago and form 95% of fossils in some strata immediately after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lystrosaurus

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109861 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree. I had a friend who was a statistics professor at the University of Houston name John Nechworth. He was that way, but he wasn't the norm. I met him in a forum and we were bitter enemies for years until one day the topic shifted from religion to politics, and we became great friend until his death. Still, again, you can be correct about politics, and wrong about GOD.
Sounds like a good guy. Don't be so sure about norms. The Democrats have been hijacked by their more extreme elements, just as the Republicans have.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109862 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing. When will you learn that fossils can't support evolution because they can't give you their heritage. All you have is interpretation of a lot of different images and bones, and just like Nebraska man, evolutionists from one tooth can draw a picture of the whole family even though it is the tooth of a pig!!
1: Paul Wight
2: Acromegaly has distinctive symptoms.
3: Various types of dwarfism have distinctive symptoms.
4: Such conditions are ruled in or out with measurements of various bones, but you seem to think that such conditions would be ignored. Why? Why assume that there is global institutional scientific incompetence?
5: You are not the world's greatest scientist.
6: 1.10 > 1.9, right?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109863 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you have it right at all. I think it's more like liberal, socialist,secularists...vs.... .Conservative,capitalist, anti-psuedoscience, theists.<quoted text>You are way off the mark here and your biases are showing. Who says religious beliefs aren't rational? Idiots like Richard Dawkins? He's not the authority of truth. Christianity is very rational to those that study it and take it seriously. Just because you reject it doesn't mean it isn't rational. In fact, it could mean that you are not rational. Until scientists can replicate the origin of life, creationism will be rational.<quoted text>So? She is like you. Not the norm. She was right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD. You are right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD.(IMHO).<quoted text>Well, it's definately not a scientific theory. It's more of an atheistic philosophy, and yes there are christians that buy into it. That just tells me that they have a surface faith, and a personality that follows rather than researches. I'm not judging their salvation, only GOD can do that. They can be right about Jesus and go to heaven, and still have been completely wrong about human from non-human evolution.
You don't know what "rational" means.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109864 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm just saying, there are exceptions to the norm, and when you have evolutionists finding a pigs tooth and from that tooth drawing the entire family of the non-existant human, then they zeal and exageration must be greeted with extreme skeptisim. And because Evolutionists have had Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Haeckles....etc...This extreme skeptisim is warrented.
But extreme skepticism is not regarding talking snakes and donkeys, giants, angels, global year-long miles-deep flooding, resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the blind with dust and spit...that you just accept, but science, which ferrets out the false continuously, deserves extreme skepticism. What's the latest discovery with real world applications that was made using creationism? Nothing? Hm...how can that be?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109865 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So when I make the statement that a human can climb as good as a chimp if they want to, and supplied a video of those who have chosen to become excellent climbers proving my point, then you somehow falsely accuse me of saying a humans can climb better than chimps, and you know the point I was making, and you were wrong. You were one of two things. Either you were dishonest, or incorrect, and sadly you don't have the character to admit one or the other.
You said that you disagreed that chimps were better climbers than humans. Show me humans swinging from tree to tree faster than a chimp.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109866 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Refute the statements, not the source.
Normally I would agree. But when I read the statements and they are one part fact to nine parts opinion (much like most news services today), I look at the source.
Then why did Stephen Gould say....

"Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).

Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:
…[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks!(p. 45, emphasis added)

He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated,
"I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45).
Sounds to me like he is discussing the abominable state of text books, not evolution. BTW, this criticism was extended by notables like Feynmann (about physics textbooks) etc...a special problem in the USA where school boards and not experts often choose the material.
These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question."

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm
And there we have the propaganda piece. Look at all the b*llsh*t they are talking in that paragraph!

Shall I lay it out for you.

Emotion then emotion followed by accusation of dishonesty and its widespread! but heartening that one of the "enemy" "admits" it! Followed by more accusations of fraud and shameful propagation, wake-up call for those deceived, etc!!!

What a load of overblown, propagandist, childish rubbish. How would Gould fix it? By modernising the textbooks and eliminating these phony references....leaving 99% of the evidence for evolution intact, of course!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109867 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing. When will you learn that fossils can't support evolution because they can't give you their heritage. All you have is interpretation of a lot of different images and bones, and just like Nebraska man, evolutionists from one tooth can draw a picture of the whole family even though it is the tooth of a pig!!
You've been told this before, Marky.*I* told you this before. Poor memory or outright dishonesty? The picture was done by a *artist*. Even Osborn said the picture was bullshit.

'It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth that rancher and geologist Harold Cook found in Nebraska in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109868 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
And because Evolutionists have had Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Haeckles....etc...This extreme skeptisim is warrented.
Exactly my position on organized religion and for the same reasons.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Chilli J 116,575
New review critical of "Origins" 13 min Kong_ 3
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 18 min Dogen 173,637
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 25 min Dogen 59
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 1 hr Cujo 10
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... 4 hr MikeF 161
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 496
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••