Skip to comments.
Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans
New York Times ^
| 08/15/2006
Posted on 08/15/2006 2:30:35 PM PDT by FewsOrange
In surveys conducted in 2005, people in the United States and 32 European countries were asked whether to respond true, false or not sure to this statement: Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals. The same question was posed to Japanese adults in 2001. The United States had the second-highest percentage of adults who said the statement was false and the second-lowest percentage who said the statement was true, researchers reported in the current issue of Science. Only adults in Turkey expressed more doubts on evolution. In Iceland, 85 percent agreed with the statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; evolution; faith; idjits; worldopinion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 last
To: freedumb2003
Well here is one link that is recen,t and a word search shows the aclu comes up plenty in the thread. It looked to me at least there was some some evo high fiving back slapping type celebration going on there.
Evolution issue tips boards balance [Kansas school board election] Or "Darwin won"
There are probably 20 or 30 more articles like that, but I only have so much time and energy to put into this project.
W.
61
posted on
08/16/2006 11:03:15 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: freedumb2003
62
posted on
08/17/2006 8:56:59 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: FewsOrange
If evolution was true, which it's not, there would be no reason to be against gay marriage and every reason to favor it.
63
posted on
08/17/2006 8:59:35 AM PDT
by
DungeonMaster
(More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
To: RunningWolf
They are noting the results, not the ACLU's involvement.
64
posted on
08/17/2006 9:45:33 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
To: DungeonMaster
If evolution was true, which it's not, there would be no reason to be against gay marriage and every reason to favor it. What an interesting, if convoluted, statement. How does that reason out? If anything, TToE would say that being gay is a "dead end" evolutionary tract.
65
posted on
08/17/2006 9:47:31 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
To: freedumb2003
Without the ACLU's involvement, they would not have had the results.
No evo is decrying the aclu's involvement in those threads.
How about you, here is the opportunity for at least one evolutionist to renounce the activities of the aclu in matters concerning public school and teaching of darwinsistic evolution.
W.
66
posted on
08/17/2006 10:07:13 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: freedumb2003
What an interesting, if convoluted, statement. How does that reason out? If anything, TToE would say that being gay is a "dead end" evolutionary tract. Evolution is a religion and it has very little in the way of sexual morality to worry about. Not only that but it also has the problem of over population to worry about.
67
posted on
08/17/2006 10:12:29 AM PDT
by
DungeonMaster
(More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
To: stands2reason
The title pulled me in.
The joke potential was enormous but then it got all serious and stuff.
68
posted on
08/17/2006 2:39:47 PM PDT
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow, real poverty)
To: stands2reason
Reporting for duty ma'am!
Do I get a swim noodle to beat posters of the Helen pics?
69
posted on
08/17/2006 2:42:30 PM PDT
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow, real poverty)
To: Harmless Teddy Bear
I was thinking along the lines of psychological warfare.
I tell the men who post her picture that they are secretly attracted to her, that's why they post her pic so much. (and it does seem to be a guy thing -creepy, no?)
70
posted on
08/17/2006 3:15:46 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
To: DungeonMaster
When you call evolution a religion, does that mean you intend to give it the respect due to a religion, or does it mean that you own religion is open to the same kind of evisceration that evolution generally gets?
71
posted on
08/17/2006 3:23:19 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: stands2reason
I think it is related to the "courtesy sniff" concept where if a guy finds something stinky he must get all of his friends to smell it too.
72
posted on
08/17/2006 3:41:56 PM PDT
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow, real poverty)
To: js1138; DungeonMaster
When you call evolution a religion, does that mean you intend to give it the respect due to a religion, or does it mean that you own religion is open to the same kind of evisceration that evolution generally gets?How just about letting biology labs and biologists be tax-exempt? This would include pharmceutical firms, of course.
To: js1138
When you call evolution a religion, does that mean you intend to give it the respect due to a religion, or does it mean that you own religion is open to the same kind of evisceration that evolution generally gets? The bible doesn't say anything about "respect due to a religion".
"Evisceration" LOL.
74
posted on
08/21/2006 5:06:58 AM PDT
by
DungeonMaster
(More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson