Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[King Prout]

and, with that, I'm out for the weekend.
either the stated standards will be applied, or they shall not.

[Dimensio]

- I said 100,000 years.

You are making a false statement. You said "- Also, lava at the top of one of Hawaii's volcanos was dated by carbon dating to be MILLIONS of YEARS old when the HISTORICAL record PROVED it to be from the 19th century!

I ALSO said it was from an article I read in the 1970'S! Duh!

You have provided no reference at all for this alleged article.

[presently no screen name]

Lee Strobel, was a former atheist and Christian Apologist.

Studied the Bible to 'prove it wrong' instead became a Christian.

[presently no screen name]

trying to remove Christian Freepers

BINGO!

[Heartlander]

I have observed exactly two atheists posting in this discussion. Both are posting to correct false claims regarding the theory of evolution. Neither have stated that any particular religion is false. How many other atheists have you observed posting here?

I apologize. Now that evolution and Christianity are one in the same (per the article) there are no more atheists. Evolution caused your morality and “provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives…

[Dimensio]

Now that evolution and Christianity are one in the same (per the article) there are no more atheists.

The article does not claim that evolution and Christianity are "one in the same". The author is only stating that the theory of evolution does not contradict Christianity.

[presently no screen name]

100,000 or a million - it's only a difference of and "0". Talking evolution, it could 100,000 or 1,000,000. It's all made up, guess work anyway.

[Dimensio]

It's all made up, guess work anyway.

You are mistaken. While you choose to remain ignorant regarding the theory of evolution, that does not mean that the theory is "made up, guess work".

[Coyoteman]

1) Why are so many atheists in the religious forum?

This thread was started in News/Activism, and remained there for a number of posts. It was then hijacked to the Religion forum. Do you expect science-oriented folks to just give up the argument when that happens?

Science-oriented folks normally do not seek out the Religion forum, but the manner in which this thread was rudely hijacked there was unusual, and many of us simply followed along.

By the way, it is impolite to make personal attacks, such as calling fellow Freepers "atheists."

[Heartlander]

The title of the article:

Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

[presently no screen name]

While you choose to remain ignorant

That is a personal inflammatory remark! I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!

[Dimensio]

- Because when all ACTUAL, FACTUAL EVIDENCE is examined evolution is NOT playsible.

Why not?

- I didn't say that there was any scientific way to rule out God, I said atheistic evolutionists have ruled out God.

What about theists who accept the theory of evolution? Clearly they have not "ruled out God".

- The transitions you believe in are NOT even universally accepted within the evolutionist/MYTHOLOGICAL community. They disagree over many details and dates and such.

How so? Please provide a specific reference.

OLOGICAL community. They disagree over many details and dates and such. There is NO "Uniform BELIEF" concerning transitional fossils. And MANY SCIENTISTS flat-out reject the whole MYTH as the silly notion it is.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

- DNA. We have all but 1-2 chromosones in common with an ape...WHOOPTY-DOO! Look at the BIG DIFFERENCE those 1-2 chromosones make!

How do you explain the genetic similarities between humans and other ape species? Why do you believe that DNA evidence falsifies the theory of evolution.

- And I have given MANY links, books and a dictionary and an encyclopedia as sources that PROVE that evolution DOES include the origin of THE UNIVERSE and LIFE.

You appear to believe that repeating this statement will negate the fact that you misrepresented the encyclopaedia entry, fabricated elements of the dictionary definition and did not actually provide any specific references for your claims. You are wrong. It has already been explained that your references do not show that the theory of evolution addresses the origin of the universe. Ignoring that your claims are demonstratably wrong only makes you appear irrational.



Why are my statements wrong? Please be specific.

[Dimensio]

That is a personal inflammatory remark! I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!

I am sorry that you choose to remain ignorant. However, your statements on the subject of evolution, including you repetition of demonstratably false claims even after they are explained as false and your insistence that you are not obligated to support your unsubstantiated claims with evidence, leads to no other conclusion.

[Dimensio]

They're NOT "false"...they're dictionaries, encyclopedias and links to prove that you're still wrong.

Your statement does not appear to relate to anything that I stated in post #1135. Your replies appear to bear no relation to reality.