[gobucks]

Long read. But worth it.

[gobucks]

many many things here that are quite interesting about the fellow.

Didn't know how much of this either of you knew, but a ping for you all nonetheless. Betty, you might want to ping your list.

[mitch5501]

"The real issue is the nature of God...(snip)...evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible.

How long will it take for an evolutionist to post that he believes in the God of the Bible...and thus show that the above statement is false?

The real issue is not the "nature of God" rather it is what the word 'believe' actually means.

God bless

[Alacarte]

People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons.

Since when did science become a multiple choice piece of information? You don't choose to 'believe' in how the natural world works. Either you understand, or you don't, period.

To steal a quip from Bill Maher. "The author isn't so sure about gravity either, he thinks it may be a plot by jews to get people to drop spare change."

[Alacarte]

It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words nearly 50 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming.

Of all the blatant lies that get distributed here about evolution, this is one of the worst. This assertion holds absolutely no credibility. The past 50 years has seen a medical revolution thanks to DNA, which is the best proof for evolution. Darwin knew there was some mechanism that allowed the transmission of data from one generation to the next, but he did not know what it was. DNA fits his theory PERFECTLY.

In recent years, the scientific community has gone to unprecedented lengths, to not only publicly support evolution, but denounce ID and creationism as pseudoscience.

If this ridiculous assertion that the scientific community is abandoning evolution is not just a blatant lie, then I challenge anyone here to post a reference to an ACTUAL scientific institution or organization that questions evolution. DISCOVERY INSTITUTE is NOT a science institution! A science institution is a place where actual research is done, a place that actually contributes to science. Links to a peer reviewed publication in the scientific literature will do just as well.

This entire article is a distortion of history and science. EVERY new hypothesis has mistakes and errors when it begins, what does pointing out Darwin's errors prove, other than the way science works? Science evolves and corrects and improves itself all the time. Eventually evolution was so well proven and accepted that it became a theory. Even today evolution is changing with new data, expanding and correcting any errors that may arise.

Evolutionary science is not just an 'idea.' It is used everyday by medical researchers, ecologists, zoologists... If it were not real science, they would notice, cause nothing would work right!

You all act as if the scientific community is some invisible, abstract entity to be quoted when it suits you, and ignored otherwise. No, the scientific community, as well as the literature (not that technical biology papers make any sense to non-biologists, but you can search for papers disputing evolution) are easy to find. Go to the journal websites, or major science institution websites like the Royal Society, or the NAS, and read for yourself what the scientific community says about evolution, you'll find it's much different from what the religious community says.

[StJacques]

". . . It is worthy to note that Dr. Thompson penned the above words nearly 50 years ago. In subsequent years, recent developments and discoveries throughout the sciences have made belief in evolution more and more difficult. So much so that some scientists have now abandoned the theory while others, although continuing to exercise faith that evolution is true, concede that convincing evidence for it may never be forthcoming. . . ."

This is the most ridiculous claim imaginable because the truth is just the opposite. The evidence for evolution is now so overwhelming that evolution itself approaches facticity. There are real debates about the engine of evolutionary change in science, but there is no debate about evolution itself, because no evidence has been brought forth to challenge it. There are just repeated claims from anti-evolution mutual support groups that such evidence has been provided, but these groups and their members never answer the most basic questions put to them about that evidence and they deny proven scientific facts, such as radiometric dating, observed instances of speciation, and much more.

I'll put up the same challenge here that I have posted at least three other times on other threads. To anyone who wants to charge that the scientific evidence for evolution has been discredited in recent years, please explain how oil companies search for oil using the evidence of the fossil record to establish the geologic age of rock formations whose potential for holding oil deposits they assess based upon the taxonomy of fossil remains. No anti-evolutionist has ever answered this challenge on this board because doing so will make clear that the assertion that science has produced evidence that calls evolution into question is blatantly false. Every day geologists use the evidence of evolution to find oil and with each passing year they have become better at finding it.

So come on you opponents of evolution, explain to me and the rest of the board how geologists find oil. And after you explain it, try to post that idiotic claim that the evidence for evolution has been discredited by new scientific discoveries. I would just love to see you tell it to a Petroleum Geologist.

[RightWhale]

People believe in evolution for a variety of reasons.

The theory makes sense, very simply, of an otherwise bewildering variety of forms of life. That is attractive to mathematically-inclined scientists.