Questions for evolutionists and secular folks...?
824956
Wow, I am amazed at the responses you've gotten so far.\nWe keep hearing about how people who don't believe in God are supposed to be so much more intelligent than those of us who do, and yet, all we here from these educated people is that you should go to school, or read a book...in other words, they can't answer your questions.\nGee, and even when they admit that they can't answer your questions, they throw in an insult, just for good measure....\n\nLooks as if you've hit a nerve, my friend!!
351353
Let me begin by saying that I always enjoy reading your answers and very often you beat me to the punch with an explanation that is more coherent than I could likely come up with. Excellent work.\n\nI think that much of the issue here comes back to the basic divisiveness of faith. It makes sense for each religion to clearly define lines between "us" and "them." Jesus might have believed in peace and love, much like a modern day hippie, but the only real way to gather people around a common idea is to give them a common enemy. These days it's considered relatively poor taste to engage in crusades against Muslims, or chase Jews out of town for drinking the blood of the Christian born, so modern-day Christians have needed to unite against a new common enemy, evolutionists. Strangely, the only group of Christians now required to agree with us are the Catholics, based on JPII's statments that evolution is the most likely explanation for the current state of the world. Then again, many Protestants have issues with Catholics (and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons), but I think their favorite target du jour is the atheistic evolutionists.\n\nOne of the nice things about scapegoating is that you don't really have to define what is so terrible about the goats. Most of the time you can just point a finger and shriek. Pretty soon the rest of the mob will join in. As far as I know there has been no theory put forth by the creationist camp as to the "true" motives of evolutionists. Clearly most middle-of-the-road Christians (well, the ones who don't agree with us) feel that we've just studied the world and come to the wrong conclusions. However, many others likely feel that there is a nefarious agenda behind evolutionist ideas. Fortunately, they have a catch-all go-to-guy when it comes to nefarious agendas. Anything that isn't "godlike" is always attributed to this character. What's his name? Could it be...Satan?\n\nI'm sure that there are creationists out there who think that most evolutionists are on Satan's payroll and will be driving big gold Cadillacs around shortly after the Rapture. Sadly, no amount of reasoning on our part will get them to think any differently. In the meantime they will continue to see all of us as part of some cabal in Satan's service. It's strange to think that there was a time when only heavy-metal bands and role-playing-gamers were part of The Devil's army, now it seems that a degree in biochemistry is a standard recruitment tactic. \n\nWell, keep up the good work, and I'll see you at the meetings.
1103745
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
172804
The main objections to the theory of evolution come from various religious fundamentalists that often do not understand the theory, or science, or what is meant by the word "theory" in science. \n\n\nA theory in science is just an attempt to explain the observations we have. If it explains them well, and has predictive power, it might become an accepted theory. \n\nHere are some objections by religious fundamentalists:\n\n1. Evolution takes a long time, and they believe that the earth is only 6000 years old because of what an Anglican Bishop said (Bishop Usher). \n\n2. They do not like the idea of humans being related to the other animals, or somehow being produced from them as the result of an evolutionary chain. This conflicts with various religious texts. \n\n3. They reject the sequence of events for appearance of species from each other that evolution postulates. \n\n4. Since evoluion appears to not need divine intervention, they think it does away with God and does not give God credit for creation.\n\n5. A God that just sets up rules for the universe and lets it evolve is not directly involved in day to day activities, and is not a personal God, which conflicts with the vision of God in many religions. \n\n6. Fundamentalists claim that teaching students that they are related to animals causes them to behave like animals, having premarital sex, homosexual sex, committing crimes, etc. \n\nThere are probably a lot more objections too, but those are the ones that come first to mind.
331313
It is thought that man came from ape like ancestors, not quite monkey's.  \n\nIt could take hundreds of thousands of years for macro evolution to occur.  Wait around that long, and i guarantee there will be NEW species.  So it is still happening.\n\nThe fossil record is not complete because fossils are hard to come by, not everything fossilises despite contrary belief.  In fact it's amazing we have as much info as we do.\n\nHow on earth does it take less belief to believe in a god, there is no evidence whatsoever for this!  At least evolution has enough evidence to fill several hundred warehouses, what do you have, testimony.. Yeah right, thanks, i'll keep to evidence, not faith to inform my decisions about the world around me.
656548
First of all, I don't think you would appreciate me insulting whatever beliefs you hold dear, but you commit sacrilege  out of total ignorance, so you are excused. \n\nSecond of all, it would help you a great deal if you understood the Catholic position on evolution, which I doubt you have a clue. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp\n\nIt seems evolutionists banter on about how religion is opposed to science, and faith and reason are incompatable, blah, blah, blah. Nothing could be further from the truth. \n\n"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.  Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.... We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)
1065700
I would be surprised to find an atheist who did not accept evolution. So as an atheist yes I do accept evolution. I also deny  the existence or supernatural forces.
136482
good to hear that you are interesting about evolution. we are studying evolution in our class right now. here's book.\nBiology\nISBN: 080537146X   Author: Campbell    Publisher: Pearson \nEdition: 7    Cover: C \nDepartment: Biology \n\nthis is university level text book. it explains everything you need to know. if you are to buy brand new book, this book will include a CD that has videos too. it costs $122.60 CD. i would try to find it in public library or ebay first.\n\nalso try to serach "evolution" in Google or Google Scholar.\n\nhope it helps!\n\nGood Luck.
118943
>>>>Is God real or did evolution acualy happen?\n\nWe can’t know whether God is real or not. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God, the only evidence exists inside the minds of people. Since gods (and there are more than one) are supernatural and lack any objective evidence they fall outside the scope of science.\n\nDid evolution actually happen? Yes, that’s one thing that all the evidence agrees on.\n>>>>>I seen a story on the news and it was staying how religion in school was not taught because of the evolution therory.\n\nNo, you didn’t. You misunderstood the story on the news.  \n\nReligion is not taught in public schools because the US Constitution says that it can not be taught there. It violates the separation clause. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has everything to do with that the law quite clearly states.\n\nWhat the story would have actually said was that some attempts to teach religious beliefs as an alternative to evolution are still illegal and unconstitutional because it is still the teaching of religious beliefs.
1081959
whats sad to me is the standard sheeple line of there is no proof of evolution,\n\ni could accept there is not enough evidence to support this in my mind,\n\nthe sheeple mentality is most apparent in the discussion regarding evolution, it shakes out the sheeple,\n\nit clearly separates the men from the sheeple
967456
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
417092
People did not evolve from apes at all.  My beliefs tell me that God created all things and nothing evolved from anything.  If you want to know where you came from and what your here for I URGE you to go to fathersloveletter.com and watch.  TRUST ME!!!!  You will never have any questions about creation, apes, or what u are here for at all.  Good Luck and God Bless
186023
Good luck...\n\nCan a Christian believe in evolution?  I do.  I know that this world hasn't always been as we know it now.  I know that I as a homo sapien, evolved from something else.  God can create and destroy as he so chooses.\n\nWhy then are dinosaurs not in the Bible?\nWhy does the Bible not reference such catastrophic events that wiped them out?\n\nIn my opinion, because it isn't something we necessarily need concern ourselves with.  The fact that GIANT lizards once walked this earth is pretty darned fascinating.  Can we learn anything from them?  Unless we want to turn ourselves into giant lizards I think not.\n\nWhat we need to concern ourselves with is the history as it is written in the Bible.  The Bible is not only a religious tool, but also one that can be studied for it's historical content and story.  \n\nDo I believe the stories? YES!  Do I believe that everything happened exactly as it is written? YES!  \n\nI believe the world was created in seven days.  But what is our definition of days compared to Godly days.  \n\nThat we will not know until we can ask our creator.  (But frankly, by the time I die and go to heaven, Days will hardly matter to me anymore.)
1034859
Ok, how can you believe in evolution? I mean really, the complexity of animals, and well every living thing, came about by accident!! At least we have the bible that was inspired by God! And was correct about allot of scientific things way before man figured it out!\n\n 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.\n\nAll you have is a theory that we came from nothing!\n\n\nNo, I am not mad, just stating the obvious.\n\n\nloj
366809
Another question is: How many creationists have NEVER read anything about evolution except negative propaganda? \n\nThis creationist VS evolutionist debate reminds me of gallelio and medievals when men were prosecuted for heresy for saying such things as how the world wasn't the center of the universe and earth orbited the sun!  I tend to belive most creationists don`t know about that too !!\n\nP.S. isn't it funny that one of the things both christian and muslim fantaics totaly agree with each other about, and use the exactly the same arguments to prove is the falasy of the concept of evolution and the obvious correctness of creationism? :)
628501
Do you understand that over two thirds of the world's Christians accept evolution as a matter of fact?\n\nAnd do you understand that over 85% of people belonging to other religions accept evolution a a matter of fact?\n\nYou seem to believe that religion and acceptance of the fact of evolution are somehow incompatible. Only for a small group of American fundamentalist 'Christians' is that the case. Most people see no dilemma.
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.