Comments on: Go USA! We’re #2 …. kind of …

By: nothingpletty

nothingpletty — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 06:07:04 +0000

The creationists (won’t dignify them with a cap., believe that Adam and Eve were real, not allegory. They have no proof of that except some words on a page. You are not going to shake them in the belief.
10,000 French man can be wrong, but not 60? of the semi-literate population?
We’re going backwards, my friends. A new Dark Age is blossoming.

By: Zach

Zach — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:46:05 +0000

If God did have anything to do with Earth, would we be having this debate?

By: Elvin

Elvin — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:47:12 +0000

The saving grace is that where it counts (among the scientists, physicists and astronomers) the US believes in evolution. I’m surprised there’s still a debate, i thought the fossils settled the issue…missing links and all.
Relying on the supernatural explanation defies logic in explaining the unknown. It reminds me of the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy,” a native in the Kalahari Desert encounters technology for the first time–in the shape of a Coke bottle. I found this to be very amusing, but I also began to see parallels between his thought process, and that of the modern day Theist. Both are using CAVEMAN LOGIC to explain their world. I fail to see the difference between “hmm, bottle fall from sky, must be gods” and “hmm, trees and butterflies prove the existence of god.”
In both of these cases, someone is simply replacing one unknown for another unknown, but proving nothing!

By: Epistaxis

Epistaxis — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:11:57 +0000

So many people here are saying that Americans’ disbelief in evolution is a testament to our skepticism. Is that the same form of skepticism that manifests itself in the disproportionate number of us who believe in ESP, UFOs, and astrology as well? I don’t think “skepticism” is quite the right word for that.

By: Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality

Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:16:11 +0000

This is a good start, but we must make sure that Americans know and accept scientific truths as taught in the Holy King James Bible, with no alterations to make them more politically correct for modern liberals: http://www.heterodoxy.com/societyofchristians/biblically_correct_science_facts.pdf

By: bert

bert — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 05:29:59 +0000

can you americans stop badmouthing comunism as an example? 100 000 000 people mostly died of starvaition due to the fact that the US decided they were going to both invade (1918) and stop selling grain to them.
PS Ok britian and france helped
PPS EVOlUTION IS THE SAME KIND OF THEORY AS THE THEORY OG GRAVITY!

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:27:25 +0000

From the 8/22/06 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education: Educators Question Absence of Evolution From List of Majors Eligible for New Grants "Like a gap in the fossil record, evolutionary biology is missing from a list of majors that the U.S. Department of Education has deemed eligible for a new federal grant program designed to reward students majoring in engineering, mathematics, science, or certain foreign languages. That absence apparently indicates that students in the evolutionary sciences do not qualify for the grants, and some observers are wondering whether the omission was deliberate." To read the full article, click here.

By: John

John — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:26:18 +0000

Evolution by means of natural selection can be stated as a simple logical proposition. Therefore anyone who wants to disprove evolution only has to disprove one of the following three statements which go into the logical proposition. Here they are:
1. Life exists.
2. Life reproduces itself over time.
3. Individual instances of life have physical characteristics than can vary between individuals (Example 1. some humans have brown eyes, others have blue eyes; Example 2. some baby cows are born with two heads).
These three propositions then lead logically to the following:
4. Some individual instances of life reproduce more copies of themselves than others because different physical traits must interact with the earthly environment in different ways that may be either 1. beneficial to the reproduction of that life form, 2. not beneficial to the reproduction of that life form or 3. inconsequential to the reproduction of that life form.
This implies the logical conclusion 5.
5. The physical composition of populations of individual life forms change over time because traits promoting reproductive success cause themselves to be reproduced with greater frequency in the next generation and traits that are less successful cause themselves to be reproduced with reduced frequency (this is the phenomenon that evolution by natural selection describes).
Thus the logical proposition based on the numbering of the statements above would be:
If 1, 2 and 3 are true
Then 4 is true and consequently 5 is true.
So if you would like to disprove evolution all you need do is disprove any of the statements one through three, which would disprove four and its implied consequence five, thus DISPROVING EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION!!! Good luck.

By: Lou

Lou — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:35:58 +0000

Evolution through natural selection is not a “lottery”. To simplify it so is ignorant. We can all agree that the environment changes, we have proof that the world has changed complexions a thousand times over. We also have proof that genetic material randomly mutates (this is how cancer happens). There is reproducable, scientific evidence for every aspect of evolutionary theory: Computer models, genome research, genetic modification (germ line and somatic cell therapy are how we create our food these days)…
Given that we know the world has changed dramatically in the past AND we know that species undergo constant change (ask the AKC how they determine breeds in dogs), then why is it difficult to agree that, when environmental change happens some genetic traits will prove to be beneficial in the new environment? And further, these traits will likely propagate due to the success they bring for individuals??
Or are we to believe that God was out of ideas when he created humans so he gave them loads of genetic material that is identical to roundworms??? And furthermore, when this God continued to pull the strings of biology he/she decided to have genes mutate in order to creat interspecies variation…and, even though MOST of these mutations prove to be disastrous and/or life-ending for the individuals it’s perfectly OK, because the suffering of an individual doesn’t matter? If you want to insist that a creator started life then you have a problem…because most of what scientists have found as proof of evolutiuon turns out to be pretty darn bad news for individuals. Given the choice between genetic inheritance and a sadistic creator, I’d like to believe that no one was behind all the suffering that our own biology causes us….
You can’t have your creator AND an omniscient, benevolent God….the two are contradictory…
And please, don’t glorify Job in order to explain this problem. That story was written as an attempt to explain this obvious contradiction.

By: greyburny

greyburny — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:58:34 +0000

That explains how Bush got elected.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:08:44 +0000

As has been said by others, evolution does not claim to explain the moment that life began. What it does claim is after that initial spark of life, there began a series of events that is still underway today, unaided by any higher power than nature itself. Your argument about the plausibility of it all sounds the same from both sides of the fence.
When you state,”There is no credible scientific evidence that evolution is the origin of life.”, certainly you can see that the same statement holds true for creationism. The difference being that science is still looking for the answer and religion claims to already know it, so no further investigation is needed. Nothing to see here folks, keep moving!
Is it possible that a “higher power” created life here, yes. If you count a more advanced spacefaring race sending a contaminated probe to this world, or making a pit stop to empty their latrines. An all knowing supernatural being created in the minds of men, highly unlikely.
The self-satisfying claims of creationists since these debates have began, “I didnt come from no monkey!” are true to a certain extent. If you go back far enough they came from slime and ooze, the only difference between them and me, is that I’m ok with that.
The journey thing…” You are always more likely to reach your destination when you plan the trip”.
If you dont plan your trip, your always at your destination.
Since you take the whole lottery concept out of context, I will just drop it.

By: GM

GM — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:00:47 +0000

Oops. Canada (The second largest country on the planet) was overlooked . . . . . . . again.

By: Noumenon

Noumenon — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:12:00 +0000

Shane — I don’t believe the theory of natural selection is supposed to explain how life arose from sludge. Natural selection explains how things that reproduce with variation come to appear as though they were designed. It couldn’t begin to work until living things appeared and began to replicate themselves.
Life-from-sludge is something scientists have hardly any explanation for and don’t understand well. That’s why they spend more time defending natural selection, which explains how life developed after it arose from its mysterious origins.

By: Fin

Fin — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:10:45 +0000

bruce thompson is a jackass. Oh us americans have bailed out the europeans so much. That doesnt make you and your friends lesser idiots (no offence to the few intelligent americans out there). You are an idiot with a fair lesser intelligence than most countries due to i suspect mass inbreeding and a ridiculous education system. your idiot country wont even allow world renowned published college text books to be sold in your country because oh ‘ we have a better way to teach’. yeah right. blow it out your ass with your white supremist religous farce way of thinking. If your people were not so thick and didnt act like sheep the world would be an almost perfect place. you dont realise how your arrogance angers a real person. BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS. Just because your american does not mean people actually care about you. Cause they dont. Chances are your a fat slob that lives behind his computer ordering his food and all lifes supposed necessities from the net. oh and colour is how its spelled not color. Did i mention your an idiot??

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:21:43 +0000

@James -

1) A scientific theory is not the same as the generally accepted definition of theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Wikipedia is not necessarily a credible source of information.

2) For those who cannot grasp how life ‘spontaneously’ appeared, check out Dawkin’s ‘The Selfish Gene’. Regardless of whether you agree with him or think he’s a tit, it nevertheless gives a very good overview of evolution and how life probably began. It’s all chemical reactions people, nothing more.

I have not read this, it sounds interesting though. I’ll put it on my list.
The “chemical reactions” necessary to produce life from “sludge” have not been reproduced by human beings…and therefore are still “theory”. If you don’t like the word “theory”, substitute the word conjecture or speculation; Both words capture the spirit of my intended meaning.

3) Assume you go for the creation argument, you’re just treading water – after all, who created the creator?

The creator is. It is ironic that the evolutionist has no problem accepting the concept of billions of years of lottery but cannot accept the concept of a creator who pre-existed. Both are supernatural.