votegreen: Because if you Concur with Evolutoin you will stop BELIEVING in %THEISM.

False. As seen in the survey referenced, more than 80% of Danes find Evolution to be "true". Even so, more than 80% are members of the main Danish Christian denomination (though many of those are probably non-practiotioners, or atheists too lazy to get delisted). And even more are members of other churches.

Theism and evolution has no problem with eachother. Creationism and evolution has, though.

Last sentence of the first paragraph of the first page. All that needs to be said: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0802151825/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-1640067-0882326#r eader-link

Bevets Christians know THAT God create life. We seek to understand HOW God created life. Atheists know THAT God did not create life. They seek to understand how life was created without God.

Not really. Scientists seek to understand life, any rely on observation to do so. If observation leads to supportable, testable, verifiable evidence that life was created by an other-worldly being, then anyone who actually calls themselves a scientists would acknowledge the possibility.

However, the Bible is not supportable, testable, verifiable evidence. There has not yet been any supportable, testable, verifiable evidence that suggests an other-worldly being is responsible for the creation of life. In fact, the alleged nature of the proposed other-worldly being explicitly denies the ability or opportunity to be tested or verified.

Therefore, science is not interested in exploring something that, by definition, can't be scientifically proven.

In contrast, you (and anyone else who takes a stance such as yours) has yet to do any better than scarecrow and ad-hominem attacks on scientific theories. If you have testable, verifiable facts, then you should present them and allow others to challenge them.
=Smidge=

friendly_neighborhood_misanthrope "And I'll point you to answersingenesis.com, where all your anti-creationist claims, and many, many more have been effectively refuted."

I have been to the AiG website and am a stupider person for having done so.

What struck me most about the website was the absolute lack of peer-reviewed references. Without empirical evidence, AiG refutes nothing.

This gives you a chance to play your "it is a conspiracy among the scientists" card.

Perhaps, if you cretinists would do some ORIGINAL RESEARCH, scientists would take you seriously. Cretinists don't do that, however. They just say "that research is wrong" without doing any research of their own to back their position up.

What makes the christian creation myth any more valid than the various Amerindian creation myths or the Greek creation myth or the Hindu story of creation?

Answer: nothing!

I'm an American, and I believe in evolution.

Executive Monkey
Did the Jews kill the dinosaurs?


If they managed to kill the Son of God, the dinosaurs have no shot.

culturemock: Unfortunately, the Christian fundamentalists are just the most vocal group.

And a group of around 40%, it would seem.

That's a pretty f*cking general statement to make for a country with hundreds of millions of people. Idiots.

Because Christianists believe Canada is overseas just like Tittney's Spheres once said.

Just because Creationists don't have the "facts" to absolutley, without question, prove that God did, in fact, create this world as described in the Bible doesn't give the Evolutionists the right to destroy the belief system of millions, perhaps billions. Because of human failings, Creationists need their Faith, the thought that things will be better in Heaven than they are Earth. Evolutionists want to smugly destroy this for many people and I just find it very rude.

Ah... why do I bother.
friendly_neighborhood_misanthrope:
Did you know the geologic strata doesn't actually exist ANYWHERE on the planet?
LIE #1 Bonaparte Basin and Williston Basin contain most of what scientists refer to as the column. The entire column can also be assembled from overlapping segments across the globe. Tectonic activity (another theory I'm sure you're well up on) precludes a complete column everywhere, since the Earth is essentially reconstructing its outer shell constantly.
That dinosaurs and man existed at the same time (human footprints even found INSIDE dinosaur footprints)?
LIE #2 The Paluxy footprints have been debunked so thoroughly that creationist mainstays like AiG have abandoned them. They're nothing more than human wishes combined with real footprints and erosion.
Did you know that evolution is ASSUMED in geology
Irrelevant Its assumed just like radiometric decay rates and the periodic table are assumed.
and is used to date rocks? And then the dating of those rocks is used to back evolution? Quie circular, isn't it?
LIE #3 Index fossils are used to date rocks, which have already been dated. Specific layer points are used to date other layers, since they've already been dated. Its only circular if you don't come to a first dating point.
Did you know that the amount of dust on the moon is enough for only several thousand years of accumulation?
WTF #1, LIE #4 Wow... you've really dug WAY back in the creationist Kool Aid for that one. I was almost willing to bet I'd never see this lunacy (pun intended) again. Bad data from 1974, combined with ignorance and compounding math errors by non-scientists and morons results in a claim so farcical that it can be summed up with: Prove it. Give me original scientific data on "moon dust" from later than 1974.
That the amount of cosmic dust in the universe
WTF #2 Uh... WHAT? From moon dust to cosmic dust, eh?
I'll give you credit, I tried to find some sort of background on this nonsense, but there isn't any, even on some really weird YEC sites. Not enough cosmic dust... that's funny.
That if the earth had been around for millions of years, it would've been spinning so fast it would have flattened out like a pancake?
WTF #3 Uh... yeah. I thought creationists claimed the Earth would have slowed to a stop by now? What possible process would cause the Earth to spin FASTER? AFAIK the earth is slowing very gradually and we have some nice coral and ice core information to show us how long a day was for the last few million years.
The folds in the Grand Canyon could only be formed by a catastrophe that both deposited, compressed, and folded the material at the same time?
LIE #5 Catastrophic water activity cannot explain the Grand canyon. Period. You'd be better off claiming "God did it cuz it's purdy" than claiming some flood scenario.
That the fossil record explodes about 4 thousand (or so) years ago--the time of the flood?
LIE #6 No, there isn't. There are also records from 4 thousand (or so) years ago from civilizations that do not mention getting wiped out by "the flood". There are Sumerian, Akkadian, and Persian Cuneiforms and Egyptian hieroglyphics from civilizations that pre and postdate the flood.
Theoretically
WTF #4 So you accept the scientists' suggestion that an organism needs X and Y to exist as life but refuse the idea that this is in no way a threat to evolutionary theory? That, in fact this has something more to do with evolutionary theory? Throwing out a lot of nonsense math about a bazillion earths and the likelihood of something happening is crap, you don't get to do the math because you clearly don't understand statistics or evolution.
I'm not going to argue with anyone here
WTF #5, LIE #7 You're already arguing.
next time you all start spewing forth crap about how people are denying the facts
You relying on the Paluxy footprints and moon dust arguments proves that you haven't examined a single fact.
take a look at all the above facts which YOU are denying, and probably haven't even heard of
If anyone here hasn't heard of the Paluxy footprints, there's a damn good reason. Its pure fantasy bullcrap.

votegreen
This is a Very Bad Thing for the Plutocracy. The Plutocracy permits the church to prey on the under/middle as a concession for their support of the Way Things Are.

You've got a point there. If people are raised to accept "Because that's the way it is" as a valid answer, they won't question why the top 0.01% of the population makes money hand over fist while they struggle to get by.

i believe in god
i believe in intelligent design
i believe in gw bush our holy commandier in chief
i believe in america, the almighty power that will save earth

amen

Don't buy into Evolution? Put your money where your mouth is.
No antibiotics for you.

Drive through.

PoTBoT: That's a pretty f*cking general statement to make for a country with hundreds of millions of people. Idiots.

I direct you to this chart:

It is sad that people are fighting over this in the arena of politics. Really it is silly to do so since we are more well informed than any previous generation with respect to science.

I find it interesting that while we claim to be a 'first world' nation we agree more on this issue with the 'third world' nations.

The Theory of Evolution is all wrong anyways. It’s a list of animals Chuck Norris wanted to keep.

Fahkinell-- "Species don't pop up overnight. The .. get this.. evolve! Over time. More time than it takes to watch LotR extended edition. Way more."

No, at some point a single mutation would have to create a new creature with a non-matching dna set. Sure, adaptations happen, but that is not evolution. Evolution is the creation of entirely new species. And a new species could not breed with its mother, could it? Otherwise it would not be new.

You see, the problem is, at some point a species boundary has to be created and crossed. And a singular "mutant" with an incompatible gene set would have to exist, along with a mate of a different gender, nearby and available for breeding, with an equivalent dna set. At the same time, randomly. So now we have two completely weird, yet beneficial mutations happening at precisely the same time, creating two specimens incompatible with their forebears, yet perfectly compatible with themselves.

And that has to happen at some point in time. Otherwise, no new species.

I'd like to see someone do that math on that one.

Mr. Clarence Butterworth-- "Who's the designer, then? Space aliens? God? Abe Vigoda?"

Great question. I have no clue. What you do think?

Is it an entity? Or perhaps a force we simply cannot explain yet? Consider the discover of radio frequency waveforms, capable of transmitting information silently and invisibly over thousands of miles, seemingly instantaneously, through solid objects. Had you postulated their existence 300 years ago, you might have received the same sort of derision directed by Darwinists toward their skeptics today.

Which is why I say the Darwinist view demands blind faith. If you doubt them, they attack you as a heretic. Kinda pathetic, for people who pretend to support science.

"Haven't you heard? Even respected modern scientistis reject carbon dating."

That's why we use Radiometric dating for fossils you dolt...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/08/09/fossilembryo_pla.html?category= histor y&guid=20060809153030
http://www.sahelanthropus.com/

really not that hard to understand.

/wrists

The answer to the rhetorical headline becomes clear in this thread. The answer is "because many bat-shiat crazy folks like Bevets breed in these here United States".

friendly_neighborhood_misanthrope

Skeptos

Moon dust - R. A Lyttleton, The Modern Universe, Harper, 1956, p. 72

Let me get this straight -- you're trying to back up your claims about moon dust by citing a book from BEFORE SPUTNIK???

You have got to be a troll.

Saying, "Um, no" doesn't make a point, buddy.

Cite your "modern measurements" for cosmic dust. Check G Abell, Exploration of the Universe, Holt, Rinehart and Winston for the fact that not only is the AMOUNT of dust against evolutionary though, but also the speed of the dust, which indicates a "young" earth.

Better yet, I'll give you a cite which is actually from this century. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe of microwave background fluctuations gives an age of 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years for the Universe.

As for the "angular momentum" crap, that's way off. Or, at least according to R. L. Wysong.

You mean, this R. L. Wysong?

"Dr. R.L. Wysong is a veterinarian, has taught as a professor of Anatomy, and is a young earth creationist. Wysong's book, The Creation/Evolution Controversy (1974) summarises the controversy."

Yeah, obviously this guy's a real expert on astrophysics.

Please tell me this was a troll.

I'm not a troll, but instead of calling you one, I'll just accept it as arrogance and ignorace voiced by a very loud typer.

Methinks you should look up that Bible verse about removing the beam in one's own eye. . .

Sunny Ray

Evolutionists want to smugly destroy this for many people and I just find it very rude.

You find the truth to be rude? Besides, having a beef with one part of Christianity does not mean that they're trying to "destroy" your beliefs. Also, keep in mind that Catholicism takes no stance on evolution other than that if it happened, it was God's doing. Evolution is OK by them (and the Lutherans).

Ha ha. Lots of people don't understand that we share 99% of the same DNA with monkeys and a large percentage of the same DNA with lots of other species.

Also, what about Junk DNA, Redundant DNA and all that?

And then there's people that believe in a kind and loving God but millions of people died of Smallpox, many of them babies. LOL ^_^

Wouldn't it be the biggest practical joke in all of farkdom if Bevets were just the greatest troll in the history of the internet? Maybe if he were Stephen Jay Gould or something...

I was almost expecting someone to say that "this survey was only based on 1484 people, that can't be accurate when there are nearly 300 million people in the usa!

Hasn't happened, luckily. Or I'd have to gouge my eyes out.

Whyteraven74-- "Lacking evidence? Like the evidence born out of genetic studies of various strains of bacteria? The discouver of gene jumping? The understanding that the fact DNA replicates with a decent failure rate?"

Sure, mutations happen all the time. And clearly, species adapt to some extent. Humans with Sickle Cell Anemia don't get malaria, for example.

But, having adapted thusly, that bacterium is still a bacterium.

Show me a new species, from random mutation.

panoplos

Maybe because evolution is just a theory? Somebodys opinion on things.

Ignorant rebuttal #1. In science, the term "Theory" is used to describe a set of claims that are supported by so much evidence and verified observations that the claims are universally accepted as fact. The Theory of Evolution is in the same camp as the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity.

This "big bang" THEORY sounds sillier than the idea of creation. That is just my opinion.

Except for the fact that this "silly" theory actually has real evidence to support it, unlike the idea of creation. It absolutely amazes me that people find creation myths written 2500 years ago by uneducated goat herders to be more believable than modern scientific proof.

It's simple. America is run by religious fanatics who think evolving from monkeys is wrong. Yet they elected a man to run this country who resembles a monkey in all manner.

Odd? Ironic? Stupid? - YOU DECIDE!

This "Argument" is the #1 reason that Pragmatism was created, and for about 100 years was the All American philosophy used by our nations greatest thinkers, leaders and interpreters of law. If any of you care to know what it is in a nutshell:
Nothing is all one way or the other, it is a combination of the two and at either extreme of any debate there will be fallacies and falsehoods but the further away from any extreme you will find the most truth. One can practice this philosophy without any intolerance or intellectual one-upmanship due to the fact that its sole purpose is to ascertain the truth.
/Being self-righteous is a fault of both Humanists and Fundamentalists.

pestochicken: Because Americans are afraid of death, and they desperately want to believe that they will continue to exist after they die. It's really that simple, and and all the education in the world isn't going to change it.

RFT
/impressed.

rogersnowden does not understand what the term "species" means...

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

or he is intentionally obfuscating it to make his bullcrap sound more plausible....

QUESTION Why doesn't America believe in evolution?

ANSWER

rogersnowden: No, at some point a single mutation would have to create a new creature with a non-matching dna set. Sure, adaptations happen, but that is not evolution. Evolution is the creation of entirely new species. And a new species could not breed with its mother, could it? Otherwise it would not be new.

Again, species do not pop up overnight. Small changes, that still allow individuals to mate with others of the same species, gradually add up, more or less. After enough changes, you have an individual that might not be able to mate with one of the ancestors. I don't see how this is a problem.

If I'm getting this wrong, please correct me, I'm admittedly no biologist.

The Billdozer / Shadesofblack

The Billdozer said: "rationally have science and religion in his life down!"

You cannot be rational and have religion in your life.

Shadesofblack clearly explains three posts before your little gem

He says "Well, no, they're not; but faith and reason are, and evolutionary theory is the sum total of reason's most modern attempts to understand the biological world. Evolution is science, and science - well, good science - and faith are antithetical. Faith is belief without, nay, in spite of evidence. Science and reason call for the opposite: belief only in that which empirical evidence can support."

I couldnt have (hoped) to say it better myself. In short, you cannot be rational and believe in the supernatural.

Bono said it best:

"The less you know, the more you believe"

Last Night on Earth - Pop

Because it offends the christian theoracracy. You don't want to upset the Jesus Taliban.

Well, I have a question. If we start teaching creationism in schools, why don't we teach the origin of life beliefs of Hindus/Buddhists et.al. as well? I mean come on now, they form the third largest religious grouping in the world, should they not get a hearing as well??

Show me a new species, from random mutation.

Humans. There was no design.

rogersnowden "Show me a new species, from random mutation.

Show me where scientists have said that speciation and natural selection depend solely on "random" mutation.

"It absolutely amazes me that people find creation myths written 2500 years ago by uneducated goat herders to be more believable than modern scientific proof."

Probably because those how believe creation fairytales have the same education as said goat herders...

Here's a picture of one:

Just because Creationists don't have the "facts" to absolutley, without question, prove that God did, in fact, create this world as described in the Bible doesn't give the Evolutionists the right to destroy the belief system of millions, perhaps billions. Because of human failings, Creationists need their Faith, the thought that things will be better in Heaven than they are Earth. Evolutionists want to smugly destroy this for many people and I just find it very rude.

Most people I know want people to fact the realities of the world and the facts and use reason to come to the conclusion that we should be trying to make this world better for us and our children because that is all we can do for them. Oh, it's okay to destory the earth with ozone and kill people in wars because we will be at peace and nothing will be bad in Heaven. I'm personally really tired of that cop out and wish people would stop faking their religion as an excuse to just go home and turn on their favorite sitcom and sit down watching tv while eating at the dinner table. At least watch the science channel if you are going to do that then you can learn about Toumai. I find it really rude that Christians are okay and so complicant with the way the actual real world this life time works; oh lets fark things up here cause our God will let us into our perfect heaven and that life on Earth, shooo glad that's over.

All dogs go to heaven eh?

rogersnowden: No, at some point a single mutation would have to create a new creature with a non-matching dna set. Sure, adaptations happen, but that is not evolution. Evolution is the creation of entirely new species. And a new species could not breed with its mother, could it? Otherwise it would not be new.

You see, the problem is, at some point a species boundary has to be created and crossed. And a singular "mutant" with an incompatible gene set would have to exist, along with a mate of a different gender, nearby and available for breeding, with an equivalent dna set. At the same time, randomly. So now we have two completely weird, yet beneficial mutations happening at precisely the same time, creating two specimens incompatible with their forebears, yet perfectly compatible with themselves.

And that has to happen at some point in time. Otherwise, no new species.

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

Votegreen
You are wrong. If I am not mistaken, Darwin was a deeply religious man, and he came up with the theory of evolution, so by your way of thinking it is impossible for Darwin to do what he did.
/all encompassing closed statements show ignorance and fear.