It is possible though I always thought that reason Atheists so hated Church was due to all the unpleasant business during preceding era.

Gaurav on May 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Atheists always seem to forget about:

– The Salvation Army, founded in the 1800s to help the poorest people with food, shelter and support for their families.

– Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Shaftesbury, who led English efforts to establish child-labor laws in Britain, thereby protecting children from abuse by employers.

– Bartolome de Las Casas, who spent more than 50 years in the 1500s fighting for the rights of natives in Hispaniola.

– Basil the Great, 4th century, who set up centers to distribute food to orphans and the needy, and founded the Basileus as a hotel-hospital for poor visitors from other lands.

– William Wilberforce, the Christian abolitionist who campaigned tirelessly to abolish slavery in Britain, ultimately setting free some 700,000 slaves.

Inconvenient people all, I suppose.

–

Oh, really?!? Can you site that evidence please? The field of biology has NEVER determined the origin of life.

I never claimed it had. When I say “creationism” I’m merely referring to the theory of biological complexity and diverity, i.e. that humans, birds, dogs, etc. were created whole in their present form, rather than evolving from a common ancestor.

You tell me one single instance where biology has proof against creationism or proof for spontaneous life.

Spontaneous generation is the belief that complex life “poofs” out of nothing (which is basically what creationists believe.) This is distinct from abiogenesis, which states that life had simple self replicating RNA precursors.

And abiogensis is a study within biochemistry, not evolution. So I’m sorry to say attacking abiogensis doesn’t affect the theory of evolution in the slightest.

I’m afraid my original point still stands.

Creationism in the field of biology is about as valid as holocaust denial in the field of history

In fact, you would probably have an easier time finding holocaust deniers in history departments than findng a creationist in a biology department.

I’m sorry, but creationism in the field of biology is about as valid as holocaust denial in the field of history

Oh, really?!? Can you site that evidence please? The field of biology has NEVER determined the origin of life. It claims to know how that life was first formed but they haven’t been able to re-produce it. You tell me one single instance where biology has proof against creationism or proof for spontaneous life. You know good and well that any discussion on the origins of life are nothing but theory and have a high probability that they will never be known – at least for you.

The homo-sapeins were descended from neandertahal lie was taught as fact in the same way evoultionist argue in these countless threads. Any questioning or doubt of it was hersey or just considered stupid.

Well, perhaps denying common descent altogether was considered stupid. Netwonian mechanics had the mechanics of gravity on some levels wrong for about three hundred years before relativity found the problem. That doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist. You don’t hear anyone saying “People were called STUPID for denying classical mechanics until Einstein refined and overtuned it. So how can we know this ‘inertia’ thing is real at all?”

It is the way atheist have took this sceintific theory and used it to attack belief in God by mocking ridicule and elitist snobbery.

That’s fair in some circumstances and not fair in others. There is a difference between being condescending to creationism and being condescending to religion. I’m sorry, but creationism in the field of biology is about as valid as holocaust denial in the field of history or Jesus mythicism in the field of New Testament scholarship. Whether or not evolution is true or whether not God exists are two, seperate, non-overlapping questions.

The moral of the story is if your going to decalare the debate over and such and such is a fact it better damn well be a fact.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

The debate on common descent IS over. Even Michael Behe, the guy who coined “Irreducable Complexity,” accepts common descent. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t unanswered questions, however. One of the most fascinating debates within evolution to me is the origin of flight. The two prevailing theories are “trees down” or “ground up.” They both have their supporters and detractors and eviendece taken from modern bird psychology and fossils, and it will probably be a while before the matter reaches a consensus. But of course, that is why science exists in the first place: to answer mysteries about the natural world.

The moral of the story is if your going to decalare the debate over and such and such is a fact it better damn well be a fact.

kangjie on May 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

High school students have to learn the scientific theories of the time. Some of those theories may later be disproved or altered.

Scientist who advance theories should and do have those theories challenged by peers.

If by failures, you mean incorrect assumptions about the history of life (like the early 20th century belief that Homo Sapeins were descended from neanderthals), well, that’s just part of science.
justfinethanks on May 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I have to take issue with this.
The homo-sapeins were descended from neandertahal lie was taught as fact in the same way evoultionist argue in these countless threads. Any questioning or doubt of it was hersey or just considered stupid.
It is the moral certainty of the supporters of the theory of evooultion that is the problem. Not necessarily the scientist working on it full time. It is the way atheist have took this sceintific theory and used it to attack belief in God by mocking ridicule and elitist snobbery.
That is not a part of science supposedly. The problems is with the people who have politzed the issue and that is not creationist.
The moral of the story is if your going to decalare the debate over and such and such is a fact it better damn well be a fact.

Really? Look, I’m not even going to argue the merits, but evolution is often treated the same way as Global Warming, with people turning it into a political issue rather than a scientific one, and I’m not just talking about those who oppose it.

This is certainly fair. Any theory that has to deal with origins has to be politically charged. You can point to atheists (like PZ Myers and Dawkins) who insist that evolution rules out the existence of any kind of God with the same ferver of any young Earth Creationist.

The supporters often trumpet any small success but ignore the failures and scandals.

You can’t really fault people for using “successes” to argue for their viewpoint. If by failures, you mean incorrect assumptions about the history of life (like the early 20th century belief that Homo Sapeins were descended from neanderthals), well, that’s just part of science.

And the “Scandals” you reference are usually no such thing. Things like “nebraska man” or “Archeoraptor” were never published in any peer reviewed journal nor accepted by the scientific community. They were instead hyped by the media. (And before you start, it’s not really fair to compare the current hype to thoe situations, because this fossil finding WAS published in a peer reviewed journal.)

Creationists may be 100% wrong, but it’s not as though they get a bad feeling about evolution from nowhere.

If by bad feeling you mean that evoltion is “hard to believe” or “defies common sense” I agree. But much of science defies common sense. When my six grade physics teacher told me that matter cannot be destroyed, I thought he was talking nonsense. You light a newspaper on fire, it burns up, that matter is obviously destroyed from existence, right?

Evolution isn’t obvious, and that’s the reason it is a science in the first place.

hope this works

Thanks for the help!

trailboss on May 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Welcome back. Good to “see” you.

i cant for the life of me understand why it was billed as such.

ernesto on May 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Really? Look, I’m not even going to argue the merits, but evolution is often treated the same way as Global Warming, with people turning it into a political issue rather than a scientific one, and I’m not just talking about those who oppose it.

The supporters often trumpet any small success but ignore the failures and scandals. In doing so, making it about religion (or rather the lack thereof) and not about simple, hard science.

Creationists may be 100% wrong, but it’s not as though they get a bad feeling about evolution from nowhere. What happened in this case is what’s been happening with the theory for quite some time.

this is a test of typing the symbols instead of using the radio buttons

Same way using Emphasis and Bolding.

[em] word you want emphasised [/em]

[strong] word you want bolded [/strong]

Using brackets instead of the lessthan/greater than.

[blockquote] Paste quote here [/blockquote]

Holy cow, am I mistaken or have you been absent for a while? I haven’t read them all but interesting posts.

Cindy Munford on May 21, 2009 at 8:43 AM

AWOL as charged. Thanks for remembering.

Does anyone know how to empahsize or bold? Cannot figure out how to do it?

If that was a sarcastic remark the reason I could not do the quotes is because my computer at work filters out the pics so I cannot see the buttons that you need to do the quotes.

Does any know how to spell empahsize or use the built in spell checker?

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Here on HA, to quote someone by typing the needed entry, you would copy the person’s post and in the reply box, start out with the symbol. Paste the post you wish quoted, and then once again, the symbol.

Like this only without the periods. Pasted post of who you whsh to quote here

Give that a try, and remember to take out the “.” periods.

You know this is the most straight forward I have heard evolutionist be in public.

I hope this means that the debates can actually be about science and not religion.

Because I remember actually thinking those were interesting classes on evolution. I don’t remember a thing from them really, and I’m sure it’s all changed by now, but I don’t like science and religion to be at war.

petunia on May 21, 2009 at 12:00 AM

I agree with your post 100 percent. It is time for atheist to take there own advice and let science be science without corrupting it for bigoted reasons.
Some of these guys simply use evoultion as a club to beat people with.Any questioning of it is heresy. You see that same sort of elitism right here by some HA commenters.

I guess the next obvious question is how did the life get on the other planet from which the life came? Did it evolve?

BTW – how do you get the indents for quoting other posters? Cannot figure out how to do it?

jsulman on May 21, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Good question and it is almost the chicken or egg arguement.
If we ever get a chance to talk to these higher lifer forms we could ask them.
I am not an atheist btw I was just speculating that there could be atheist who at least can question there (religion) of macro-evo and still be in the faith so to speak.
Maybe I’m wrong
When I have questioned the existence of god in the past I would lean more toward the existence of life on another planet as making more sense than macro-evo.
Following macr-evo to its conclusion means modern man could evolve into four legged horse looking creature with wings in millions years. Sounds way more out there than the UFO theory.

If that was a sarcastic remark the reason I could not do the quotes is because my computer at work filters out the pics so I cannot see the buttons that you need to do the quotes.

Does any know how to spell empahsize or use the built in spell checker?

Hit the “quote” button, then pate the quote, then hit the “quote” button again.

bluelightbrigade on May 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Or, paste, then “highlight” and hit the quote button. Whatever is highlighted will be “blockquote”.