Do You Believe In Evolution?

May 8, 2007 Full story: Daily Kos 2,655

“President Bush's compassionate conservatism”

Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:16:04 AM PDT There are few areas of the culture wars that get rational people more upset than the idea that Intelligent Design is legitimate science . via Daily Kos

Full Story

“Creation first, then evolution”

Since: Apr 07

San Francisco, CA

#2036 Jun 14, 2007
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>Baloney , you're just talking to hear yourself .

Wow. Based on your replies to others for the past three days, I think I'm pleased with your reply.
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>wants to preach his nonsensical right wing( discovery institute) diatribe
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>oh boy!!more booga wooga
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>pseudo-scientific bunkism
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>I think you're full of crap
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>WHOOOO, They are out to get ya !!! spoooooky.....
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>part of a pre-planned supernatural , ghostly existance . I feel sad for you:(
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>more pseudo-science similar to the imaginations of ghosts , gods and spirits whooooooo spooooky now you getting somewhere
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>You are trying to put words in our mouths so that you can speculate and amuse yourself.
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>you need to ask your imaginary god friend
Your reply is more baloney than my statements. I expressed my beliefs. I did not state them as fact. I implied fact only about the implied discussion about about the actual question of this thread.

Since baloney means nonsense, it appears that you are using this forum as a baloney vending machine. I don't like it, an I'm not buying it.

“Creation first, then evolution”

Since: Apr 07

San Francisco, CA

#2037 Jun 14, 2007
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>Baloney , you're just talking to hear yourself .


Was my "ulterior motive" to get the word out?
my left foot wrote:
Whenreligion begins to reject flexibility and stresses rigidity of all principles it is a sure sign of a cult . Fundamentalist evangelicals have exhibited that type of behavior the past 10 years or so . If you think it can't happen to christians here you are a fool. Don't be conned into thinking they don't have ulterior motives when they speak tongues , encourage snake rituals , worship angels ,, saints , holy spirits , holy ghosts ,none of these entities have been proven to exist beyond imagination so manipulation of principles is simple . There are many examples : Islam's Jihad being one of them . They view their god in a whole different light . Hindu's as well . There are many more and all seem to have ties with each other. Trinity's , ghosts , rituals declarations , they are all very much the same . Be aware and don't be a fool


I just didn't realize that anything beyond belief, proof or understanding is beyond the inclusion of evolution.

“Creation first, then evolution”

Since: Apr 07

San Francisco, CA

#2038 Jun 14, 2007
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>Baloney , you're just talking to hear yourself .
my left foot wrote:
Technology has offered improvement in a sense, but what's in store for us down the road is certainly something we can't answer now, It has provided a longer lifespan and a greater comfort level than we've ever experienced in the past . I suppose you could go off in a tandem and speculate all day, but that would be the opposite of what's occurring now. Filling in the gaps with anything other than testable evidence would be self defeating. We need to continue with the scientific path that we've outlined for ourselves where ever it may lead . At least we'll be dealing with verifiable proof and that's more fun than being deceived by medicine men ...


So do you have "testable evidence" with "verifiable proof" that what I stated is not what I believe? If not, then don't try "filling in the gaps."

I wasn't preaching or teaching.

I simply stated a belief which includes evolution. I didn't present it as fact.

I will say as a fact that answering the question "Do you believe in evolution?" does not require teaching or preaching or debating or arguing. Trying to prove your answer will probably require every effort, and get you no satisfaction.

“Peace ”

Since: Jun 07

Brooklyn

#2039 Jun 15, 2007
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
Ed,
I went to rawstory.com but saw nothing related to the human genome. Do you perhaps have a link that you could post?
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Landmark_study_p...
glad to help
Ed

Since: Apr 07

United States

#2040 Jun 15, 2007
Inside Scoop wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So do you have "testable evidence" with "verifiable proof" that what I stated is not what I believe? If not, then don't try "filling in the gaps."
I wasn't preaching or teaching.
I simply stated a belief which includes evolution. I didn't present it as fact.
I will say as a fact that answering the question "Do you believe in evolution?" does not require teaching or preaching or debating or arguing. Trying to prove your answer will probably require every effort, and get you no satisfaction.
First of all you've taken my comments out of context and without being able to reference them in context you somehow think that you gain some sort of advantage . That is very christian of you . Behe Christians are being trained to fill in the gaps with god and it's clear you are no exception . Your petty little nuances are picked up very readily here .
TheTruth

United States

#2041 Jun 15, 2007
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we should never stop trying to teach and to dispel the inaccurate data, fallacies, and erroneous statements and out right lies that AiG spreads. We have quite a few lurkers in the evolution forum (some of them even famous, some of them just average Joes and Joanna’s trying to make sense of the whole evolution vs. Creationism vs. Intelligent Design controversy).
Never stop learning, never stop teaching, never stop reading, even things you disagree with. Knowledge is power.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said:
"If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions."
Well said!
TheTruth

United States

#2042 Jun 15, 2007
tomk52 wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth,
Your first sentence is incorrect.
The TWO basic tenets of evolution are "random variation" and "natural selection".
"Microevolution" is YOUR bit of misdirection.
"Speciation" is the CONSEQUENCE of the theory, NOT a basic tenet of the theory.
And now it is clear that you are being INTENTIONALLY misleading. Enough people have told you the above often enough that it can no longer be attributed to ignorance, error or stupidity. It is a calculated, underhanded and frankly deceitful maneuver on your part to construct vacuous arguments against YOUR meaningless, straw-man version of the theory of evolution.
Your second sentence is contextually empty.
Your third sentence is as completely wrong as the first.
Evolution was NOT derived from Molecular Biology. Molecular biology did NOT EVEN EXIST when Darwin first conceived of evolution in 1838.
Evolution was NOT derived from Anthropology. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anthropology. Anthropology studies human behavior. In 1838, it was MASSIVELY rudimentary, and said absolutely zero about anything that happened 100 years previously, much less the tens of thousands of years required to demonstrate evolution in humans.
Evolution was absolutely minimally informed by Paleontology, which in its infancy, simply showed ancient bones that would not be put into a taxonomic classification until decades had passed the origin of the theory.
Evolution was derived from the anatomical and physiological study of LIVE, EXISTENT animal species - NOT humans. And Darwin's knowledge that many species had shown adaptability to their surroundings over the course of the 100 years or so prior to 1838.
You get virtually EVERY sentence factually wrong, Truth.
You debase your own chosen name.
There is no reason, whatsoever, to waste the slightest amount of time pointing out error after error after error after error...
I've done this, others have done this. Zero impact, zero response, zero change in your bizarre theories to account for factual contradictions. You are immune from considering anything that falsifies your pet theory. You are immune from input.
You are, in short, just another in a long, LONG line of crackpots.
tk
PS.
<quoted text>
PUH-LEEZE... You wouldn't know "logic" or "reasoning" if it walked up and bitch-slapped you AND your stupid arguments.
You are kidding righ?.....You have got to be....Please reread your post.

Since: Apr 07

Evergreen, CO

#2043 Jun 15, 2007
TheTruth wrote:
You are kidding righ?.....You have got to be....Please reread your post.
Stop playing the fool, Truth. I read it. I re-read it. I meant every single word.

Again, Truth, you make zero meaningful response.

As a simple courtesy, why don't YOU address, DIRECTLY for a change, the statements that I made.

Point by point. I only made about 6 of them.

The way that several others have addressed YOUR contentions. Point by point.

tk

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#2044 Jun 15, 2007
TheTruth wrote:
<quoted text>
You are kidding righ?.....You have got to be....Please reread your post.
Didn't look like kidding to me. More like a well constructed refutation of your nonsense.
Gillette

Ottumwa, IA

#2045 Jun 15, 2007
C'mon, The Truth.

Do him the courtesy of a point-by-point answer to his point-by-point refutation of your first post.

It's called "debate." :)

“Creation first, then evolution”

Since: Apr 07

San Francisco, CA

#2046 Jun 15, 2007
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>First of all you've taken my comments out of context and without being able to reference them in context you somehow think that you gain some sort of advantage . That is very christian of you . Behe Christians are being trained to fill in the gaps with god and it's clear you are no exception . Your petty little nuances are picked up very readily here .


Out of context? My opinion, that I did not express as fact is baloney?
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>Baloney , you're just talking to hear yourself .
I must have been talking to you. See?

The context here is your replies presented as fact, when it's really just your opinion:
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>wants to preach his nonsensical right wing( discovery institute) diatribe
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>oh boy!!more booga wooga
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>pseudo-scientific bunkism
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>I think you're full of crap
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>WHOOOO, They are out to get ya !!! spoooooky.....
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>part of a pre-planned supernatural , ghostly existance . I feel sad for you:(
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>more pseudo-science similar to the imaginations of ghosts , gods and spirits whooooooo spooooky now you getting somewhere
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>You are trying to put words in our mouths so that you can speculate and amuse yourself.
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>you need to ask your imaginary god friend
You did mention the word "think" however, saying to someone "you're full of crap"

Context or not, I see what comes out of you.

You are telling me that I "somehow think" and I "think" I can "gain some sort of advantage."
You know what I am thinking, but you don't understand it?

I posted those previous replies to "prove" that you make as much noise as you do sense. I like the sense. I don't like the noise. Simple as that.

"Nuances" by definition are "petty" or "little." More noise.

Do you have a second "of all"?

“Creation first, then evolution”

Since: Apr 07

San Francisco, CA

#2047 Jun 15, 2007
Just for the record

Posts I like Posts I don't like
are by: are by:

Ridge Les
Dennis2 popred
tomk52 Ajaxspank
Darwins Stepchild John
FossilBob KenHunt
BloodyViking swang
Bob of Quantum-Faith TheTruth
Katydid Manny
Edape my left foot

“Creation first, then evolution”

Since: Apr 07

San Francisco, CA

#2048 Jun 15, 2007
That didn't work good. Another try...

Just for the record

Posts I like
are by:

Ridge
Dennis2
tomk52
Darwins Stepchild
FossilBob
BloodyViking
Bob of Quantum-Faith
Katydid
Edape
----------
Posts I don't like
are by:

Les
popred
Ajaxspank
John
KenHunt
swang
TheTruth
Manny
my left foot
TheTruth

United States

#2049 Jun 15, 2007
tomk52 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop playing the fool, Truth. I read it. I re-read it. I meant every single word.
Again, Truth, you make zero meaningful response.
As a simple courtesy, why don't YOU address, DIRECTLY for a change, the statements that I made.
Point by point. I only made about 6 of them.
The way that several others have addressed YOUR contentions. Point by point.
tk
Ok so let's begin with #1:
Are you really saying that those fields of study have nothing to do with the development of the belief of evolution? You have got to be kidding? Which science class did you take? Because even with the cliff notes version of science you would know that those fields have ABOSLUTELY much to do with evovlutions propagation. If you really beleive that, then you are not credible. See my next post.....because apparently I will need to explain my position in even more simplfied english.
TheTruth

United States

#2050 Jun 15, 2007
Let me simplify:
My belief: Creationism and evolution are related. End.
Fact for Evolution: evolution exists and creationists should suck it up and learn to deal with it. Creatures adapt to their environment and we see clear evidence of that in our time. Period.
Fact for Creationism: You CANNOT generate living matter from non living matter. This is not debatable and evolution ought to respect this aspect of the scientific field. Period.
Fact regarding human uniqueness: There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of man as we know him today evolving out of apes. None whatsoever….total speculation and conjecture.
So if you ask me…Do You believe in evolution? That is too vague, generic….My question to you would be “Evolution of WHAT?” Birds, plants, dogs, whales, human?
Since we already know there are species mutation….The next step would be to analyze the one that is most personal to us…man. What is the existing evidence of man’s evolution? No serious evolutionist will tell you they have all the evidence and stages to demonstrate man’s evolution. Intellectual honesty will dictate their admission of the ‘missing links’. If the facts were there, we would have no debate, period. But the evidence does not exist, hence the endless discussions of what this means.
Evolution has its place, but it is not independent of a designer….and that is simply my point. We can look at the various discoveries and end up with different conclusions….much of that conclusion will depend on what bias foundation we began with. Kathydid and I will look at the same information, I have no problems accepting the evidences of mutations….Katydid will conclude(not to put words in her mouth) this is evidence of the independent state(nothing to do with God) of evolution…..while I will conclude ‘there must be a designer to have initiated this process, because you cannot get life from inanimate matter.
Which one of us is right?......and so the eternal debate continues because none of us have the absolute answers…….we are interpreting to the best of our limited knowledge what things may mean. While we all may be highly intelligent…no one has absolute knowledge, hence our knowledge must catch up to ‘The TRUTH’ which already exists. Until the theory of human evolution finds its missing links(which they will not) it remains at best a subject for intellectual stimulation.
Just remember evolutionists admit the following odds...10^113....that is the chance of even a single protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup. From a mathematical point of view....any situation that has a chance > or = 10^50 is dismissed as never happening. Conclusion…..evolution independent of the hand of a creator does NOT exist.
TheTruth

United States

#2051 Jun 15, 2007
If we stick with what we know to be ACTUAL facts....and leave out the assumptions, and speculations based upon subjective evidence that that is best left up interpretations....this discussion would be a very short one.

Since: Apr 07

Auburn Hills, MI

#2052 Jun 15, 2007
Inside Scoop wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of context? My opinion, that I did not express as fact is baloney?
<quoted text>
I must have been talking to you. See?
The context here is your replies presented as fact, when it's really just your opinion:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You did mention the word "think" however, saying to someone "you're full of crap"
Context or not, I see what comes out of you.
You are telling me that I "somehow think" and I "think" I can "gain some sort of advantage."
You know what I am thinking, but you don't understand it?
I posted those previous replies to "prove" that you make as much noise as you do sense. I like the sense. I don't like the noise. Simple as that.
"Nuances" by definition are "petty" or "little." More noise.
Do you have a second "of all"?
My response to your opinion was that your opinion was baloney

Since: Apr 07

Auburn Hills, MI

#2053 Jun 15, 2007
Inside Scoop wrote:
That didn't work good. Another try...
Just for the record
Posts I like
are by:
Ridge
Dennis2
tomk52
Darwins Stepchild
FossilBob
BloodyViking
Bob of Quantum-Faith
Katydid
Edape
----------
Posts I don't like
are by:
Les
popred
Ajaxspank
John
KenHunt
swang
TheTruth
Manny
my left foot
We all understand that . You don't understand The theory of evolution so your preacher and the discovery institute makes your mind up for you . You are under their control and you wish to remain ignorant . That's fine ....It's better than having to read and learn the process

Since: Apr 07

Auburn Hills, MI

#2054 Jun 15, 2007
TheTruth wrote:
Let me simplify:
My belief: Creationism and evolution are related. End.
Fact for Evolution: evolution exists and creationists should suck it up and learn to deal with it. Creatures adapt to their environment and we see clear evidence of that in our time. Period.
Fact for Creationism: You CANNOT generate living matter from non living matter. This is not debatable and evolution ought to respect this aspect of the scientific field. Period.
Fact regarding human uniqueness: There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of man as we know him today evolving out of apes. None whatsoever….total speculation and conjecture.
So if you ask me…Do You believe in evolution? That is too vague, generic….My question to you would be “Evolution of WHAT?” Birds, plants, dogs, whales, human?
Since we already know there are species mutation….The next step would be to analyze the one that is most personal to us…man. What is the existing evidence of man’s evolution? No serious evolutionist will tell you they have all the evidence and stages to demonstrate man’s evolution. Intellectual honesty will dictate their admission of the ‘missing links’. If the facts were there, we would have no debate, period. But the evidence does not exist, hence the endless discussions of what this means.
Evolution has its place, but it is not independent of a designer….and that is simply my point. We can look at the various discoveries and end up with different conclusions….much of that conclusion will depend on what bias foundation we began with. Kathydid and I will look at the same information, I have no problems accepting the evidences of mutations….Katydid will conclude(not to put words in her mouth) this is evidence of the independent state(nothing to do with God) of evolution…..while I will conclude ‘there must be a designer to have initiated this process, because you cannot get life from inanimate matter.
Which one of us is right?......and so the eternal debate continues because none of us have the absolute answers…….we are interpreting to the best of our limited knowledge what things may mean. While we all may be highly intelligent…no one has absolute knowledge, hence our knowledge must catch up to ‘The TRUTH’ which already exists. Until the theory of human evolution finds its missing links(which they will not) it remains at best a subject for intellectual stimulation.
Just remember evolutionists admit the following odds...10^113....that is the chance of even a single protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup. From a mathematical point of view....any situation that has a chance > or = 10^50 is dismissed as never happening. Conclusion…..evolution independent of the hand of a creator does NOT exist.
what are you 10???? Are you just being arrogant or are you really that ignorant . You are totally incorrigible . People have bent over backwards to teach you and out of hand you reject them and talk this nonsensical gibberish . Nothing that you've said has any thing whatsoever to do with the processes of the theory of evolution . You are unbelievable

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#2055 Jun 15, 2007
TheTruth wrote:
There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of man as we know him today evolving out of apes. None whatsoever….total speculation and conjecture.

No serious evolutionist will tell you they have all the evidence and stages to demonstrate man’s evolution.
You seem to be saying that the second supports the first. It doesn't.

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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min mdbuilder 1,154,376
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Guru 181,888
Cheney again defends interrogation techniques 8 min mjjcpa 322
Studies Show Voters Can Be Swayed on Gay Marria... 13 min Abraham 13
US to start talks with Cuba to normalize full d... 13 min John 98
Body cameras for cops could be the biggest chan... 18 min xxxrayted 1,526
Why Democrats Are So Confident 31 min Dee Dee Dee 5
More from around the web