With all due respect, Jonestown is the result of one dogmatic ideology guiding its followers to the same poisonous batch of Kool-Aid.
ROFL!!! You're kidding right? *Please* tell me no one could be this clueless without trolling.
Hint: Jonestown was the result of *religious* belief gone wrong, not the result of people concerned about learning about a scientific subject before they attempt to critique it.
The Reverend Jim Jones founded his own church, the People's Temple. The House of Representatives report on Jonestown states, "A goodly number of middle-class blacks and whites came out of strong fundamentalist religious family backgrounds and were attracted by what they saw as the evangelical nature of People's Temple." Of others who were not so directly religious, the report states, "to the extent that a religious motivation was involved, it was seen chiefly in terms of Jones' seeming concrete application of Judeo-Christian principles."
They drank from it and the rest is history. I bet their loved ones wished that they would have had more outside influence. Wouldnt you agree?
Yes, I'm sure they wish that someone had pointed out that not all which claims to be religious is good or true. If someone had told them to be sure they understand a subject well before drawing conclusions about it, like I frequently do, they might still be alive today.
Now tell me again how you can somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that my advocacy of education and knowledge is somehow "the same poisonous batch of Kool-Aid" as what caused Jonestown. Are you sure you have any clue whatsoever, or are you just posting random accusations because you're unable to refute science on its own merits?
You guys are getting more and more bizarre.
Why don't you psuedo-evolutionists go read something other than science journals for a change, instead of parroting the lies of the neo-Darwinists' essays written by people ignorant of basic skills needed to reason?
Why don't you identify any actual flaws in the material if you think there are any, isntead of issuing bitter broadsides empty of any real content?
BTW-Why the insults instead of reasoned debate?
I don't know, I was wondering that about your insults. Why don't you try reasoned debate for a change, like I do? I provide facts, argument, evidence, research results, etc. I do it so often that whiners goofily accuse me of "spamming" because I provide far more reasoned debate than they can cope with. And all you come back with is insults like accusing me of being like Jim Jones or something. I'm amused that being shown a taste of the overwhelming evidence can drive you so far up the wall that you start spewing hysterical diatribes.
Is debate not needed?
Certainly, which is why I engage in large amounts of debate. Why don't you try it for a change, instead of calling me the next Jim Jones and other hilariously lame insults?
I have just one request for you that will help me understand evolution more clearly. And please do not send me on a wild hunt for info I have already read.
I am flattered that you consider me capable of mind-reading well enough to be able to determine what you have and have not already read.
Explain to me JUST 1 theory in Darwinian Evolution that is no longer in disputed. Surely, something in the millions of papers about the theory of evolution is settled. Right?
Sure. That evolution has occurred. Living things today are not the same as living things in the past, say 200 million years ago. Happy now?
I mean most people in the scientific world agree that the theory of relativity is "solid." Right? Is anything about evolution similar?
Yes, almost all of it.
And by the way, you're laboring under a delusion -- "settled" and "solid" are not synonymous with "no longer in disputed [sic]". The latter standard is impossible to meet, because no matter how solid and settled any conclusion might be, *some* idiot somewhere is going to dispute it, out of mental illness if nothing else. You can still find people who deny that the Earth is spherical, that communism doesn't work, that Americans landed on the Moon in 1969, and that President Bush won the election in 2000, for example. But those issues are still "settled" and "solid", because there is overwhelming evidence supporting them, no significant evidence against them, no rational opposition to them (i.e., no argument that holds water).