Evolution has been Disproven

Actually, no it doesn't. Evolution doesn't give a rats ass where life came from. It just needs something with certain characteristics which it isn't really clear we would all call "alive".Of course, other scientific disciplines make it pretty clear that there was a time when there was no life on earth; in fact, no earth at all. So those other (not biology which is where evolution sits) disciplines would say that life came from non-life.Of course, this is exactly the religious view too. I thought all religions (certainly Christianity) say that there was a time when there was no life and a later time when there was life. "From the dust of the earth"; isn't that how it goes.If you are going to discuss things maybe you should bone up a bit first. You are working with some misconceptions. Ignornance is not a very strong foundation for discussion.

quote:

---

Can anyone credit the fact we're still having to reply to uninformed crap like this?

---

Consider it a privilege. You snub your nose at a seeker of knowledge, you make an enemy you do not need. Rather, go gently into that dark night, and bring your light and not a sledgehammer.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

True enough if he is actually seeking.However, there is ample opportunity to learn if one is really seeking.Since we've seen posts of almost exactly the same content many, many times there is some chance to predict the outcome.I'd say (no real data) about 80% of the posters are not seeking at all. They will show no signs that they even read the responses. They will either go away or simply restate the same thing several more times.

quote:

---

You have to picture evangelical Christianity as a vast factory continually churning out newly minted uninformed Creationists.

---

How utterly beneath the refined and educated mind. I know for fact, that full-fledged scientist do not fall from heaven. [quote]What continues to surprise *me* is the consistency with which Creationists like defender reject the various explanations concerning things that are truly superficial or even orthogonal to the debate, such as that abiogenesis and evolution are different, though obviously related, theories, or that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. If they're going to prove evolution impossible it won't be by refusing to understand the terminology.--Percy

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

This is an opinion often offered here, but it is untrue. Evolutionists *do* believe in abiogenesis, that life arose from non-life, but even if abiogenesis is wrong and the original cell was created by God, evolution still happens. Evolution only requires life capable of reproducing. Most reproductive events are imperfect, meaning the offspring does not inherit genes identical to its parent or parents. And that's all evolution is, descent with modification. This topic is better suited for the [forum=-10] forum. Don't you think this is more of a physics question? You could just as illogically ask, "Cooks cannot answer one very important question: where did life come from?" Many of the forums here are science forums, and this is one of them. If you're trying to make the case that Creationism isn't science, then we agree with you. But if you're instead trying to argue that Creationism is not religion but is science on par with evolution, then arguing from a theistic position works against you.You can argue the point about whether God should be included in science in either the [forum=-6] or [forum=-11] forums.-Percy

quote:

---

You have to picture evangelical Christianity as a vast factory continually churning out newly minted uninformed Creationists.

---

How utterly beneath the refined and educated mind. I know for fact, that full-fledged scientist do not fall from heaven.

quote:

---

What continues to surprise *me* is the consistency with which Creationists like defender reject the various explanations concerning things that are truly superficial or even orthogonal to the debate, such as that abiogenesis and evolution are different, though obviously related, theories, or that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. If they're going to prove evolution impossible it won't be by refusing to understand the terminology.

​

--Percy

---

If I were at this moment initiate to the subject of evolution, I would herewith refuse all possibilities.Snobbery is costly.You owe him an apology. If only to show that you allow for difference of belief, from conviction.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

quote:

---

But Percy, their lack of understanding is so basic to their belief system, don't try and take it away from them!!

---

arrogant snobbery. feel good?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

quote:

---

You have to picture evangelical Christianity as a vast factory continually churning out newly minted uninformed Creationists.

---

What an odd combination of sentences.The post claims that evangelical Christians are uniformed on the subjects discussed here. This is an easily demonstrable fact. You don't actually claim that more than a smattering of our fundamentatlist posters know jack squat about evolutionary theory do you?And, of course, full-fledged scientists do not fall from heaven. It requires a mind capable of handling years of education, some of it rather complex. The difference between that and the willingness to reach conclusions based on no understanding and then to attack a complex topic from a basis of total ignorance is exactly why these dicussions go on and on.ABE Are you claiming that they do understand the topics being discussed? Would you like to show that this is so?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-08-2005 13:13 AM

quote:

---

How that first life arose we don't know for sure.

---

in fact, you don't know it at all, which is what not knowing for sure actually is.You think it is this and you think it is that, and then you come back again to thinking it is this. Much good luck in finding out for sure.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

And you are somewhat familiar with the current state of the research in this area? You understand some of the chemistry?Or do you, in fact, know nothing at all about it?(you are right though that "for sure" is a silly thing to say. We aren't at that point yet and I'm guessing won't be for a decade or 3. Are you haning your religous world view on this never being worked out? I'd say that is a pretty bad bet.)

I wonder where that would leave God to retreat to? He has already had to leave the clouds, mountains and sky.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08 February 2005 13:37 AM

---

And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its nthropomorphism but also contibutes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life."I agree Albert!

quote:

---

True enough if he is actually seeking.

​

However, there is ample opportunity to learn if one is really seeking.

​

Since we've seen posts of almost exactly the same content many, many times there is some chance to predict the outcome.

​

I'd say (no real data) about 80% of the posters are not seeking at all. They will show no signs that they even read the responses. They will either go away or simply restate the same thing several more times.

---

Thank you, Ned. You owe it to yourself and the listener, to say it again and again. Not just for the one who is asking, but also for yourselves. How many more aside from me are here to see how you deal?And how many times did any number of things have to be told to you before you finally 'got them'? And how much has been told you over time and to this day, you still don't get it?If you don't want the same materials over and over, kill 'em in proposed 'new' topics. Then you don't have to stoop to this kind of 'offender'.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 02-08-2005 13:36 AM

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

Would you like to engage in dialogue with a Bible scholar?Would you like to engage in dialogue with a brain surgeon?Would you like to engage in dialogue with an auto-mechanic?Would you like to engage in dialogue with a professional cook?I do not claim science as my forte, so your invitation is nonsense and you know it, and disrespectful at that. I do claim, however, that there are evangelicals who know science. That smattering here, to begin with.
Isn't the air rather thin up there on your high horse?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

quote:

---

(you are right though that "for sure" is a silly thing to say.

---

thank you, Ned.

Check on having engaged in dialogue with numbers 1, 3 and 4.Check to surgeons but not brain.All the discussions were interesting and informative.What is the point exactly?We were not talking about the few evangelicals who know science, we were talking about the run-of-the mill poster here who comments without knowing what they are talking about.We were talking about your, perhaps snide, comments about origin of life research as well.I haven't seen any reason to withdraw any statements about the level of knowledge of the "usual" evangelical poster who comes here. It isn't, however, a derogatory comment to say that someone is ignorant even though it is used like that very frequently. We are all ignorant in a huge number of areas.I also don't see any reason to suggest that a majority (or even large minority) are really 'seeking" anything. While ignorance itself isn't a crime the maintenance of willful ignorance in the face of available information is.ABE
If you are not knowledgable about an area it is best to avoid being overly strong in your position. It can be embarassing.If you consider it arrogance to point out that someone is making unfounded statements from a position of utter ignorance then I guess I am arrogant. I'd say that someone who puts some effort into leaning before saying too much has a right to point out the error of those who don't.This is especially true when that same error is repeated over and over and there is an entire community devoted to maintaining an appalling level of ignorance.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-08-2005 14:05 AM