cheap trick behind the most devastating lie in the history of mankind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_Poll ^ | 10/15/2003 | self

[Truth666]

Here are the some of the results of a 1999 Gallup poll on creationism, evolution, and public education :
49% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
Evolution theory is the most important weapon to twist people's minds.
For 99% of the people the most important REAL reason for believing in it : a trick that costed a few bucks, 100 years ago.
Even more incredible : the trick has remained the same until now.
Only lately, with very fast computers that allow virtual reality software to perform convincing enough, have we seen some effects added to the base trick.
I wonder who is the first Freeper to find out the trick behind the most devastating lie in the history of mankind.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The only "ideas" that had any traction during these times were "let's kill the rich ad take their money."

As opposed to the Modern State which says: "Let's take just a bit from the poor, we can make it up in volume."

[jennyp]

My complaint is not with the research, but the sensationalist hype with which they bypass peer review and go straight to the press, baiting the press with laughably misleading assertions.

In my "job" as webmistress of Creation/Evolution: The Eternal Debate, I've been scouring the science news daily for a year & a half. The news stories you see invariably follow the press releases, which are issued by the universities or the journals to publicize the publication of the peer-reviewed studies.

IOW, when you read about a scientific breakthrough or new theory, it's almost always based on a peer-reviewed study. It's true that the headlines often make more sweeping claims than the articles themselves, many of which can be more forceful in their claims than the studies that they're based on. But for any story you'll always find one or two well-written articles that explore the nuances of the actual findings. Sometimes it takes a couple days for the more-informative article to come out. But sometimes not.

The point is, it's hardly ever like the cold-fusion fiasco.

[jennyp]

>>>>You're kidding, right? Did you miss the 20th century? China? The Soviet Union?

>>That's not atheism's fault.

Yes it is. Atheism cannot offer an objection to genocide. Some atheists have belief systems independent of the definition of atheism which object to genocide.

If you cut the breaklines, it's hard to argue you're not responsible when the car crashes.

True, if you convince someone that their worldview is based on a lie, you probably do have an obligation to show them why morality itself is still securely justified. But I'm an Objectivist, so my morality has never depended on a pronouncement by a supernatural Authority Figure or Creator anyway.

[dangus]

Well, yes and no. The journal will approve some dull topic such as say, biochemists replicated hypothetical young-earth conditions (c. 4 billion years ago), and were able to generate nucleotides. But the university will scream "Life Created in a Bottle! Breath-taking discovery manages to spontaneously create building blocks of life in a jar," knowing full well that the reporters (who took a total of nine science credits after the 10th grade) will understand nothing but the sensationalist press release title which is a full-blown, outrageous lie which has zero to do with the reality of the science.

[20somethingconservative]

Communism is based on the theory of evolution, just like nazis.

Communism is based on the theory of evolution? Since the government is supporting the weaker of society to keep them strong how is it possibly based on the theory of evolution? Would not our capitalistic society, survival of the fittest business more closely follow the theory of evolution? The good businesses succeed. The bad businesses fail. Society grows stronger.

[qam1]

Tells me that most atheists are indeed democrats.

The Answer is no.

From AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY 2001

People with No religion Identified themselves as Democrats 30% of the time which is actually less than Baptist (39%), Catholics (36%)and Methodist (32%)

The thing is only 17% people in the No religion class identify themselves as Republicans with 43% Indenpendents and 10% None which shows me that yes in fact the hard core fundementalist are chasing/turning off people from the Republican party

[Dimensio]

I apologize for my decidedly caustic and accusatory post. It was clearly inflammatory and unprovoked.

[20somethingconservative]

Qwinn, I have been reading your on going debate with Sentis in this thread. It seams that Sentis is proving your point about tolerance more and more with every post.

I am one of those "intelligent design" believers that a so loved by the fringes of both sides of the argument. While that makes my beliefs of the creation of the Earth different from yours, it allows me see perfectly the ego and audacity that can be found on both sides of the argument. I guess that would reflect on who I see as the winners of the two major debates raging through this thread. You soundly defeated Sentis, and VadeRetro defeated Truth666. Both of conclusions are of course IMHO.

I appreciate greatly both your and Vade's remarks. They were well thought, well written, and very insightful.

[RightWingNilla]

Poll any high school biology class, and at least 70% of them will say that their biology teacher is guilty of all sorts of despicable crimes against humanity.

I am still traumatized by my 10th grade memories of being forced to learn all the enzymes and intermediates in the citric acid cycle.

[Cold Heat]

the hard core fundementalist are chasing/turning off people from the Republican party

I don't buy the fact that they are driving people off, but I do agree that they are myopic and sometimes damaging to the party as a whole.

The point I was trying to make matches what I see on the street. The poll indicated that more than 15% of the Dem's claimed no belief in God and only 3% of Repubs.

Not hard to understand and difficult to argue with, although it seems that people are.(go figure)

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

So Marx was a full-blown commie totally independent of evolution.

Marx and Engels were commies and used the ToE to further their agenda.

Evolution and Communism

[WhiteGuy]

Another good answer.

I tend to agree with you, although I am far from studies at a seminary...............

I get a great deal of pleasure debating the unknown......

(it's best done over a nice bottle of wine or scotch)

The best to you!

[PatrickHenry]

Marx and Engels were commies and used the ToE to further their agenda.

How very odd. A well-known creationist website (Institute for Creation Research) publishes this article:
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM.

That rascal Darwin ... covering all the bases.

[js1138]

I guess you can have it both ways. I bet most murderers ate mashed potatoes when they were kids.

[PatrickHenry]

You may be certain that the same bogus argument (Marx & Darwin) will appear in a future thread. If not championed by the same people, then at least the same people will silently lurk while one of their intellectual colleagues makes the identical claim. Then the bogus claim will be shot down again, and just as certainly it will re-appear in one of the next threads. Same people; same claims, over and over. That's what makes these threads so thrilling.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I suppose some credit should be given to the French naturalist Buffon. Darwin was more of an opportunist.

[PatrickHenry]

Buffon suggested common descent. Darwin came up with the mechanism of natural selection, and he gathered an enormous amount of evidence in support of his theory. Also, since Darwin was about a century after Buffon, you could hardly say he leaped to publish first. Ultimately, except for the indivuals personally involved, it probably doesn't matter who came up with the theory first. The theory itself is what counts.

[jennyp]

I'm surprised no creationist has piped up to claim that Darwin stole the idea from James Hutton. (Which would be a wildly inaccurate understanding of the discovery of Hutton's long-ignored work.)

[PatrickHenry]

Darn. Hutton had it! Funny how these things work out.

[js1138]

Interesting, but Hutton would be acceptable to the microevolutionists. Darwin took on the concept of common descent, which is what causes all the stir.