World-renowned psychic Ruth Montgomery wrote a book in 1976 called "The World Before" which discloses a wealth of information about the lost continents of Lemuria and Atlantis. Her Spirit Guides communicated this information in daily sessions of automatic writing. In the book's 'Forward', Ruth writes:

"An equally timely event for this book ("The World Before") occurred in California when Dr. Duane T. Gish, associate director of the San Diego-based Institute of Creation Research told a seminar that mounting scientific evidence supports Creationism over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Dr. Gish, who has worked in research laboratories of Cornell University Medical School, the University of California at Berkeley, and the pharmaceutical firm of Upjohn Company, said scientific evidences are FAR MORE IN LINE WITH A CREATED UNIVERSE THAN THEY ARE WITH EVOLUTION. Among his numerous examples were documented evidence of human footprints imbedded in stone underlying a Texas riverbed SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH DINOSAUR PRINTS---proof that such behemoths (giant creatures) did not die out thousands of years before man's advent, as previously argued by scientists. The Guides (Spirit Guides from the "Other Side") have repeatedly asserted that these giant behemoths (DINOSAURS), during their millions of years OF COEXISTENCE WITH HOMO SAPIENS, were one of the most terrifying problems with which early man had to cope."

dude-they died out millions of years ago, not thousands. let me guess-your professor refutes carbon dating, too?

The human race did NOT evolve from the apes. If they did, why haven't all the apes, that still live on Earth, evolved into human beings? All species--plant, animal and human--were individually created (by a highly evolved Intelligence). Therefore, it follows that animal forms do not evolve into human forms. Therefore, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is seriously in error.

darwin's theories do not even say that man evolved from ape.how much of his writings have you read?

man and apes shared a common ancestor... that's why we have multible primate species which inclueds humans.

Much like felines, canines, ursines, and mustelines evolved from a common acestor...

I think what he's trying to say is why haven't apes evolved despite the "common ancestry".

naw, he's just quoting what he was taught.

who knows... Why did canines and Ursines evolve the way they did? It's the same thing. Common Ancestor... multible branched species...

Even now, we still see the great apes develouping and slowly evolving...

But why not simultaneously evolving? What's the difference to someone who believes that? The difference to modern man and modern ape that is.

It's the difference between what someone believes on blind basic faith... that they get out of a book written by men who didn't know anything about evolution yet... and believing what scientists and paleantologiests have found and revamped and pieced together by finding fossils and whatnot to explain it all.

No, no, I think you misunderstood me. What is the difference between modern man and modern ape? Why didn't they evolve simulaneously
(for someone who believes that)?
Ignore the parentheses if it aids in answering the question.

ok-evolution 101-evolution happens when there is a need. modern apes are highly adapted to their environment, and are successful in their own way. research was don on an island near japan. fortuitously, the chimpanzees on this island had never seen a human. the reseachers allowed cocunuts to wash up on the island. the "monkees" discovered it was food, figured out how to open them on their own, and began to walk upright to carry the coconuts! evolution? not even, but given a few million years, if the coconuts or the walking upright helped in survival, there might be a change, as the ones who couldn't carry a coconut would not live as long and have less descendents. most animals fill in a very specific niche in the environment. we humans have our specialty, too, in that only we are capable of making semi-permanent changes in the environment.

I've heard that story.
So you don't believe in evolution, gideon mage?
Or to you is it more like an adaptation for survival?

How exactly do you know that a change will be made, and not that the monkeys just continue to walk upright and carry their coconuts =)

Adaptation in it self is evolution....
That’s the whole basis of natural selection
Here’s a better example...
Elephants are often killed for their tusks well there were some elephants that didn't grow tusks either through mutation or some long carried recessive gene
Well when all the other elephants are getting killed by the thousands these elephants are not and are then at a better advantage to reproduce and to pass on these genes to their offspring. So as a result of this more and more elephants began to be born with out tusks so in effect they have evolved and adapted to a factor in their environment

This in it's essence is a very dumbed down version of natural selection and to be honest I don't claim to be an expert by any means but it is quite obvious if you really understand how it works and why it works that evolution is everywhere around you in everyday life. And as far as not being able to test it in a lab, they have with many different kinds of single celled organisms and with fruit flies ECT. The evidence for and proving evolution is just as strong if not stronger than the evidence supporting the THEORY of gravity.... yes I said it even gravity is just a theory

And as far as ID is concerned how can everyone be so supportive of this movement when every one in the science fields are so against it? Because it is not science... it can’t be tested and it can't be proven....
Evolution has been tested and basically proven.... DNA is the key to evolution, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in the way DNA is passed from parent to parent. But I bet that if a person committed a crime against you or someone you know you would be all ready to give in to the theory of genetics... which is very closely tied to DNA....

Well duh they're were more being born without tusks, you just said why yourself. They were more likley to reproduce than elephants with tusks.

Then are you saying, manapa99, that gideon mage believes in evolution?

Species evolve in response to environmental changes. Not all members of a species are subject to the same changes at the same time. Thus one group may evolve - over many hundreds of thousands of years - in a different direction to another. Some of our ancestors slowly evolved into homo erectus as a result of changes in climate and vegetation around 2 million years ago, whilst others, living in a part of Africa less affected by these changes, evolved less dramatically and are no called gorillas.

Homo erectus spread out of Africa into Asia. Some of those who remained in Africa evolved into Homo Sapiens, whereas those in Asia did not. Because they were not subjected to the same environmental changes.

Very simple really.

Oh my.

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

Huh?? Scientists think that one group of apes, in response to their environment, started evolving in a way that would eventually lead to humanity (and many other now-extinct hominids). Why on earth should that cause the rest of the apes to go extinct? It's as silly as saying "If I am descended from Irish ancestors [which I am], why are there still Irish people around?" (Yes, I'm aware that I haven't evolved from my Irish forebears; the point is that whatever happened to my ancestors, it didn't affect the rest of the Irish population.)
If you don't believe me, please note that the leading creationist organization Answers in Genesis agrees with me, and now lists this argument in their "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" web page.--Talk Origins

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...nt_use.asp#apes

Fossil Hominids: Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Please visit three of the most respected sites on the web for answers to your questions--Talk.Origins, The Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution and The Leakey Foundation.

*Talk.Origins Archive
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

*The Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/

*The Leakey Foundation
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/

If you dismiss them, then I'm convinced you will listen to no one.

Also, please read "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" by Richard Dawkins (Oxford University). Outstanding read.

*Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/039...1988531-0244141

*World of Richard Dawkins
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO...ive/index.shtml

*Evowiki (EvoWiki's goal is to promote general evolution education, and to provide mainstream scientific responses to the arguments of creationism and other antievolutionists.)
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page

A must see!

Penn & Teller on creationism
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/09...-commentary.php

washingtonpost.com

New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory
Pa. Trial Will Ask Whether 'Alternatives' Can Pass as Science
By Rick Weiss and David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 26, 2005; A08

When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.

But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.

"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could -- through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection -- give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

Evolution's repeated power to predict the unexpected goes a long way toward explaining why so many scientists and others are practically apoplectic over the recent decision by a Pennsylvania school board to treat evolution as an unproven hypothesis, on par with "alternative" explanations such as Intelligent Design (ID), the proposition that life as we know it could not have arisen without the helping hand of some mysterious intelligent force.

Today, in a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pa., a federal judge will begin to hear a case that asks whether ID or other alternative explanations deserve to be taught in a biology class. But the plaintiffs, who are parents opposed to teaching ID as science, will do more than merely argue that those alternatives are weaker than the theory of evolution.

They will make the case -- plain to most scientists but poorly understood by many others -- that these alternatives are not scientific theories at all.

"What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions," Lander said. "You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence."

Lander's experiment tested a quirky prediction of evolutionary theory: that a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough to reduce an individual's odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater than the number one divided by the population of that species.

The rule proved true not only for mice and chimps, Lander said. A new and still unpublished analysis of the canine genome has found that dogs, whose numbers have historically been greater than those of apes but smaller than for mice, have an intermediate number of harmful mutations -- again, just as evolution predicts.

"Evolution is a way of understanding the world that continues to hold up day after day to scientific tests," Lander said.

By contrast, said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intelligent Design offers nothing in the way of testable predictions.

"Just because they call it a theory doesn't make it a scientific theory," Leshner said. "The concept of an intelligent designer is not a scientifically testable assertion."

Asked to provide examples of non-obvious, testable predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design, John West, an associate director of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based ID think tank, offered one: In 1998, he said, an ID theorist, reckoning that an intelligent designer would not fill animals' genomes with DNA that had no use, predicted that much of the "junk" DNA in animals' genomes -- long seen as the detritus of evolutionary processes -- will someday be found to have a function.

(In fact, some "junk" DNA has indeed been found to be functional in recent years, though more than 90 percent of human DNA still appears to be the flotsam of biological history.) In any case, West said, it is up to Darwinists to prove ID wrong.

"Chance and necessity don't seem to be good candidates for explaining the appearance of higher-order complexity, so the best explanation is an intelligent cause," West said.

Simple and Hard

The controversy that has periodically erupted around evolution can be attributed at least in part to the fact that it is both simple to understand and hard to believe.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, working independently in the early- to mid-1800s, each came up with the concept of "natural selection." Each sought to explain the astounding diversity of life he found in exotic places, Darwin in the Galapagos Islands and Wallace in Brazil.

Their idea was this:

By some accident of nature whose workings neither man could explain, an organism may exhibit a variation in shape, color or body function new to the species. Although most of these new traits are damaging -- probably lethal -- a small fraction actually help. They may make it easier to hide from predators (like a moth's coloration), exploit a food source (an anteater's long tongue), or make seeds more durable (the coconut's buoyant husk).

If the trait does help an organism survive, that individual will be more likely to reproduce. Its offspring will then inherit the change. They, in turn, will have an advantage over organisms that are identical except for that one beneficial change. Over time, the descendants that inherited what might be termed the "happy accident" will outnumber the descendants of its less fit, but initially far more numerous, brethren.

There are two important consequences of this mechanism.

The first is that organisms will tend to adapt to their environments. If the planet's atmosphere contains lots of oxygen but very little methane gas, living things are going to end up tolerating oxygen -- and possibly even depending on it. But do not expect to see many methane-breathers.

This appearance of "perfect fit" makes it seem as if organisms must have been the product of an intelligent force. But this appearance of perfection is deceiving. It gives no hint of the numberless evolutionary dead ends -- lineages that, according to the fossil record, survived for a while but then died out, probably because changes in the environment made their once-perfect designs not so perfect anymore.

The second result of Darwin and Wallace's mechanism is that over time it will create species diversity. As additional "happy accidents" alter an organism's descendants over millions of years, those descendants will come to look less and less like other organisms with which they share a common ancestor. Eventually, the descendants will be able to mate only with each other. They will be lions and tigers -- each a distinct species, but both descended from the same ancient cat.

What is hard to understand about this process is that it is essentially passive. The mechanism is called "natural selection" because the conditions at hand -- nature -- determine which accidents are beneficial and which are not. Organisms do not seek ends.

Giraffes do not decide to grow long necks to browse the high branches above the competition. But a four-legged mammal on the savannah once upon a time was endowed with a longer neck than its brothers and sisters. It ate better. We call its descendants giraffes.

That a mechanism driven by random events should result in perfectly adapted organisms -- and so many different types -- seems illogical.

"Even today a good many distinguished minds seem unable to accept or even to understand that from a source of noise, natural selection alone and unaided could have drawn all the music of the biosphere," Jacques Monod, a French biologist and Nobel Prize winner, wrote in 1970 in the book "Chance and Necessity."

Natural selection was really hard to accept in Darwin's day. But it has become easier with the discovery of genes, DNA and techniques that have made it possible to watch natural selection happen.

DNA is a stringlike molecule made up of paired beads called nucleotides. It carries the instructions for making proteins and RNA, the chief building materials of life. Individually, these instructions are called genes.

The random changes Darwin knew must be happening are accidents that happen to DNA and genes. Today, they can be documented and catalogued in real time, inside cells.

Cells sometimes make errors when they copy their DNA before dividing. These mutations can disable a gene -- or change its action. Occasionally cells also duplicate an entire gene by mistake, providing offspring with two copies instead of one. Both these events provide raw material for new genes with new and potentially useful functions -- and ultimately raw material for new organisms and species.

Richard E. Lenski, a biologist at Michigan State University, has been following 12 cultures of the bacterium Escherichia coli since 1988, comprising more than 25,000 generations. All 12 cultures were genetically identical at the start. For years he gave each the same daily stress: six hours of food (glucose) and 18 hours of starvation. All 12 strains adapted to this by becoming faster consumers of glucose and developing bigger cell size than their 1988 "parents."

When Lenski and his colleagues examined each strain's genes, they found that the strains had not acquired the same mutations. Instead, there was some variety in the happy accidents that had allowed each culture to survive. And when the 12 strains were then subjected to a different stress -- a new food source -- they did not fare equally well. In some, the changes from the first round of adaptation stood in the way of adaptation to the new conditions. The 12 strains had started to diverge, taking the first evolutionary steps that might eventually make them different species -- just as Darwin and Wallace predicted.

In fact, one of the more exciting developments in biology in the past 25 years has been how much DNA alone can teach about the evolutionary history of life on Earth.

For example, genome sequencing projects have shown that human beings, dogs, frogs and flies (and many, many other species) share a huge number of genes in common. These include not only genes for tissues they all share, such as muscle, which is not such a surprise, but also the genes that go into basic body-planning (specifying head and tail, front and back) and appendage-building (making things that stick out from the body, such as antennae, fins, legs and arms).

As scientists have identified the totality of DNA -- the genomes -- of many species, they have unearthed the molecular equivalent of the fossil record.

It is now clear from fossil and molecular evidence that certain patterns of growth in multicellular organisms appeared about 600 million years ago. Those patterns proved so useful that versions of the genes governing them are carried by nearly every species that has arisen since.

These several hundred "tool kit genes," in the words of University of Wisconsin biologist Sean B. Carroll, are molecular evidence of natural selection's ability to hold on to very useful functions that arise.

Research on how and when tool kit genes are turned on and off also has helped explain how evolutionary changes in DNA gave rise to Earth's vast diversity of species. Studies indicate that the determination of an organism's form during embryonic development is largely the result of a small number of genes that are turned on in varying combinations and order. Gene regulation is where the action is.

Consequently, mutations in regulatory portions of a DNA strand can have effects just as dramatic as those prompted by mutations in genes themselves. They can, for example, cancel the development of an appendage -- or add an appendage where one never existed. This discovery refuted assertions by Intelligent Design advocates that gene mutation and natural selection can, at most, explain the fine-tuning of species.

"The mechanisms that make the small differences between species are the same ones that make the big differences between kingdoms," said Carroll, author of a book, "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," that describes many of these new insights.

Although the central tenets of evolution have done nothing but grow stronger with every experimental challenge, the story is still evolving, Carroll and other scientists acknowledge. Some details are sure to be refined over time. The question to be answered in Harrisburg is whether Intelligent Design has anything scientific to add for now, or whether it belongs instead in philosophy class.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Learn what the experts have to say about "Intelligent Design"
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename...olution_experts

FAQ's
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename...s_evolution#faq

ID
http://www.talkdesign.org/

Kindly,

Sean

ZeroShadow
I’m a little confused about you statement about my post... of course I said there were more being born without tusks... I was giving it as an example as proof of evolution... what exactly is wrong with my statement?

Yelekiah
I personally can't say what gideon believes in that's not for me to say I was just trying to point out a better explanation of evolution in action in the world today, one that can be seen happening in our own time
As for what gideon believes you will have to direct that question to him

I would very much like to thank Essan and seanph for giving much more information on why apes still exist and an excellent post about evolution in general thanks....

Source

Go and study evolution because you clearly dont't have any understanding of it.

Small details can be wrong in the theory itself and we will continue to correct them...The general idea of evolution is correct and it's not really a debate except among the uneducated and ignorant.

science does not involve belief-it's either real or not. and scientists are constantly changing based on experiments. until very they believed that heat and fire were related to a substance called phlogisten, which is now pretty much accepted to be imaginary. sciencew is never a matter of belief. my favorite example is "ufo's". either they are real or they are not. many times i have told someone that i am an occultist, and they responded "really? do you believe in u.f.o.'s?" my answer, like for evolution, is that belief has nothing to do with it. either the have come here or not. either evo is real or not. there really is very little conflict between evo and god. read the first chapter of genesis. the only thing out of order is the birds. now for the second chapter, it concerns itself with the "Adam" (the Man) and his wife "chava" (life). these two were the eponymus first most distant ancestors of the Jews. all ancient cultures called themselves "the people" from china to australia to the hopi. all, including the earliy jews.

Because it really depends to where they lived to how they evolved and what features they contained.

actually, modern apes are not like apes millions of years ago, they have evolved to where they are, too.

The dinosaurs may well have died out millions of years ago, but mounting archaelogical evidence is revealing that mankind has existed on Earth for millions, not merely thousands, of years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that humans and dinosaurs may have co-existed. When the dinosaurs were wiped out by some major cataclysm, such as a meteor striking Earth or a sudden Pole shift (or both), it is also quite possible that a remnant of the dinosaurs survived, just as there has always been a surviving human remnant after world-wide catastrophe struck more than once in ancient times (such as the sinking of the lost continents of Lemuria and Atlantis. A remembrance of the latter is recorded in the story of Noah and the Ark, as well as in stories recorded in other Sacred Scriptures of the world!).
If some dinosaurs survived catastrophe, they may well have co-existed with humans, and it obviously would not have been a peaceful relationship. It would have been all too easy for gigantic dinosaurs to make a meal out of those tiny humans.
So-called myths and legends of the ancient world are packed with tales of huge monsters in fierce combat with humans, of mighty dragons swooping down and devouring hapless villagers. The modern world has come to regard these stories as pure fiction, but could it be possible that there is some truth contained in them? Perhaps legends and myths can be regarded as a true history of the world. Perhaps tales of mighty monsters and dragons are humanity's remembrance of terrifying battles with dinosaurs in very ancient times!

not actually. the earliest ancestors of man were only about a million yearsago, which is not even close.

ET I have got the impression in some of your posts that you are religious.

This goes against the traditional Christian belief that the world is about 10,000 years old.

zandito, my friend, they believe it is 6000 years old. 10,000 would be the end of the last ice age, you know, the flood, wink wink! admitting 10,000 would be like them admitting that the ice age was real.

Many millions of years ago highly-evolved space people came to Earth and have been protecting this planet ever since the first humans arrived. These ET races created the physical bodies of our ancestors. With their highly advanced technology, they used genetic engineering to create the bodies of the first humans on Earth. Various kinds of animal forms (such as the feline) were experimented with, but the ape body proved to be the most successful as a vehicle for incarnating human souls. That is how humanity acquired an ape-like physical form (NOT through the painfully slow process of apes evolving into humans!). Has anyone seen the famous Science-Fiction movie "2001, A Space Oddysey", based on the book by Arthur C. Clarke? At least a grain of truth is contained in the famous scene in which a huge, rectangular monolith descends from the sky and lands in a desolate, desert area where a group of apes live. When the awe-struck primates touch this metallic structure built by an ET race, their brain power is dramatically increased in only a few moments; their evolution accelerated to that of human intelligence in seconds! The potent energy radiating from the rectangular flying object was responsible for this. Therefore, this fictional film is essentially expressing the truth that 'evolution' was accelerated by the genetic intervention of highly-advanced space races.
The so-called "Garden of Eden" was the biological laboratory used to create the infant human race. "Adam" was not a single individual, but the entire human race created by the ET's genetic engineering. Modern man descended from that Adamic Race.

It wpould be so nice to actually believe something like this. I would love to have a close encounter. i'm even reading a book about this right now, called "When gods and men fought together." fascinating reading, but not proof. proof would be the space people landing in madison square gardens or joe robbie stadium.

DINOSAURS AND HUMANS CO-EXISTED:

Channeling messages from Spirit Guides in her book "The World Before", famous psychic Ruth Montgomery writes:

"Civilization on Mother Earth has never again equalled the towering heights achieved in those golden years on Lemuria and Atlantis (highly advanced civilisations founded almost 1 million years ago). Most of the people were high-minded, and due to their industrious bent, the land was covered with luxuriant vegetation. But not all was idylic. Thanks to the succulence created through man's endeavours, some species were reproducing even more rapidly than the human race. Giant birds and mammals attacked the crops, enormous lizards crawled out of the sea to stalk the land, and the DINOSAURS with their gigantic bodies and tiny brains struck with such ferocity that people began banding together in tightly guarded communities. On Mu (Lemuria) the danger was so great that Lemurians had to dig shelters beneath the earth, or enlarge caves in the hillsides to escape the predatory beasts.
The (Spirit) Guides give a graphic description of this lamentable era, writing, "In the land of Lemuria were GIANT DINOSAURS who roamed the plains and struck down forests in their wake, destroying crops and uprooting orchards that had been tenderly nurtured for food and shade. They trampled on all within range---one toe could crush a small child---and fought mighty battles among themselves over such tasty morsels as MAN and smaller beasts. Their great tails lashed through brush and stream, bent only on seeking food and shelter from mighty storms that occasionally swept the burgeoning earth."

It can now be understood why films such as "Jurassic Park" have had such a powerful impact on millions of people today. Within our DNA is the racial memory of humanity's epic struggle with giant dinosaurs. Millions of 20th Century people have reincarnated from those ancient times in Lemuria and Atlantis, in which dinosaurs stalked the Earth searching for food in the form of humans and other animals.

Thats the stupidest thing I've heard. It stems from people who argue about evolution without even understanding it. Where does evolution say that apes evolve into humans? Nowhere. It says that human ancestors, which were great apes, evolved into humans, but not all apes.



You're premise lacks factual support. Therefore, your conclusion is erroneous.



He's wrong to say that too. According to evolution, they have evolved.



See? Quite understandable isnt it? This is natural selection.



Now what you need is proof/evidence in order to turn that story into something more.

I thought this would add to the conversation:

Teaching Evolution: The Argument Is Not About Science
by Thomas E. Brewton
30 September 2005

Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with establishing atheistic socialism as the official national religion.


The ACLU has sued to stop the Dover Area [Pennsylvania] School District from instructing students that Darwinism is not necessarily a scientific fact, because, they say, doing so amounts to “an establishment of religion.”

The ACLU is correct that religion is involved, but it’s on the wrong side of the street. Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with establishing atheistic socialism as the official national religion.

The absolutely essential doctrine of Darwinism is atheism, the assertion that life came into being by accident, via purely physical means. Without this doctrine and the corresponding thesis that all animal and plant life evolved from a single, primitive life form, there is no point at all in advocating Darwinism. Without the atheistic rejection of God as the Creator of the entire universe, Darwinism would be no more than a footnote in taxonomic classification of plants and animals.

Science can deal only with aspects of the material world to describe the phenomena of nature and to seek explanations for the processes of nature. Science cannot claim to deal with ontology, the branch of philosophy that seeks to understand the nature and source of Being itself (how the phenomena and processes of nature came to exist), an inquiry that inevitably travels the path of religious explanations.

But that is precisely what Darwinism claims to do. Without its religious ontological content, Darwinian evolution brings nothing useful to the table that earlier schools of biology had not already delivered.

In sharp distinction to Darwinian evolution, the only part of biology that is truly scientific is taxonomic description and classification of life forms into family, genus, and species. Even there, fierce debate rages within the biological community, because biology is not an exact science in the same way that chemistry and physics are.

Darwinian evolution, unlike true sciences such as chemistry and physics, cannot be employed to predict anything or to make exact classifications of anything. It is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis with no way to employ normal scientific tests to assess its validity. Believers have nothing to cling to beyond the word of Darwinians that things “could have been” as they hypothesize.

Darwin, whose family included notorious atheists, wrote that his efforts to concoct the hypothesis of evolution were motivated by a desire to discredit the Book of Genesis and what he called the damnable doctrine of Christianity.

Darwinism is not, as popularly thought, merely the idea of natural selection, which proposes that, when environmental conditions change substantially enough to impact life forms, some individual members of a species may be better adapted to the new environmental conditions and will survive in greater numbers than other members of the same species. This also has been called survival of the fittest.

Few people will disagree with this idea. But no one needed Charles Darwin to bring it to society’s attention, because people had been selectively breeding and hybridizing animals and plants for thousands of years.

Darwinism is, however, exceedingly useful to the secular religion of socialism, which accounts for the ACLU’s rabid support.

By hypothesizing secular and material factors as the sole agents affecting life, Darwin provided a rationalization to support liberal-socialists’ proclivities for controlling all human thought and activity by collectivized government regulation.

Thomas Huxley, the English biologist who in the 1860s and 70s became the best known promoter of Darwinism, coined the term agnostic and declared that there is no such thing as right or wrong, no such thing as sin; there is only the struggle for survival in a continually evolving world of material, social, and life forms. Karl Marx was a contemporary of Darwin, and his followers enthusiastically endorsed Darwinism as proof of Marx’s theory of atheistic, materialistic, dialectic processes of history that would inevitably lead to world socialism.

Without Darwinism there would have been no “science” of eugenics, which was conceptualized by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, in 1865, six years after Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species. Eugenics endeavors to give natural selection a hand by deciding whether, in the interests of perfecting humanity, certain individuals ought to be sterilized to eliminate them as breeding stock that would mongrelize the human race.

Both Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood and Adolph Hitler’s master-race theories were based upon Darwinian eugenics.

John Dewey in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century established what has become today’s multi-cultural and politically-correct education. Among its central tenets are moral relativism and the psychological thesis that humans have no immortal souls, but are simply mechanisms that respond to sensual pleasure or pain. Dewey based today’s educational theories on Darwin’s assertion that everything is continually evolving. Therefore, Dewey concluded, there can be no such thing as timeless principles of morality. All that counts is whether your actions get you what you want.

Note that Dewey’s philosophy of a Darwinian world with no timeless moral standards is also the theoretical basis for liberal-socialist judicial activism, yet another reason for the ACLU’s near hysterical support of Darwinism. Liberal media like the New York Times never tire of telling us that the Constitution must evolve to encompass the latest fads of hedonism, marital infidelity, and sexual promiscuity.

Of course, if there is no God and none of the constraints of Judeo-Christian morality upon the powers of government, if political life is only a matter of survival of the fittest, the way is open for totalitarianism in Stalin’s Soviet Russia and Hitler’s National Socialist Germany.

Thomas E. Brewton had the extraordinary good fortune to study political philosophy under Eric Voegelin and Constitutional law under Walter Berns. His website is The View from 1776.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4632.html

Okay either you have your self never actually studied evolution, or your are just completely not understanding
First off it is science in a complete form and as morals and what ever evolution has to do with it I personally am an atheist and I do have high morals the first and most important on is to not hate anyone else... which is one quite a few Christians lack apparently...
Another one is the right for anyone to live their life how they see fit so long as they are happy and not hurting anyone else.... again something that's somewhat lacking in the Christian world...

But anyway before I get completely off topic...

Evolution has been tested in labs it is a science in it's purest form as for what religions people try to base on evolution that has nothing to do with Darwin and his extensive research or with anything he published

And how can you say it's not a science?????

Biology which has given us extensive amounts of cures and information about the world around us is almost completely based on evolution and natural selection....

I personally can't see how you can be so ignorant of this and how you can honestly think a post about this is even worth copying and pasting

This is how! A picture.

it seems to me that there are so many people trying to say that evolution isn't true or isn't real or something else that makes no sence at all....
people it's proven it is as much a fact as gravaty.....
before you say it's not proven or that soemone else has proof of a designer please do some acctualy reasearch it's completely nonsence
every major science branch has spoken out against ID and that in it self should say something
please lets don't mis educate our children
MOVE FORWARD not BACKWARD

That is a fact. It is so sad that in this day and age there are some people that would believe in a mythological entity that created the world in 6 days.

I think you seem to be mistaking fact for fiction.

Theres as much proof for this, as Hobbits once living in England!

Welcome MrFlibble! That was a wonderful first post

On a side note, one of Gish's frequent tactics in debates is openly lying - asking "where are all the transitional fossils?" and the like. He even uses the "parallel footprints" argument, even though it has been disproven for years, because he can count on his audience not knowing that it has been disproven.

honestly i hav e yet to hear an agrgument that has not been disproven come from creationist... and IDers

every time something else comes out it is always easy to find the real answers.. and the reasearch that scientist have done to find them....

like blood cloting.. eyes..... they ahve all been traced evolutionaly but yet you stille hear people giving these examples, because they are ignorant of what evolution really is and how it really works...

Thanks Zandore.

I meant to say 'I think you seem to be mistaking fiction for fact' but never mind

[quote]The ACLU has sued to stop the Dover Area [Pennsylvania] School District from instructing students that Darwinism is not necessarily a scientific fact, because, they say, doing so amounts to “an establishment of religion.”[/quote]

If Brewton were actually EXAMINING the case rather than trying to advocate his nonsensical beliefs, he would notice that the board members who tried to put the Intelligent Design nonsense in have been rather loud about the fact that they are conservative Christians. In other words, the religion IS on their side of the hallway.

[quote]The ACLU is correct that religion is involved, but it’s on the wrong side of the street. Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with establishing atheistic socialism as the official national religion. [/quote]

Wow, an amazing unsupported claim! His little pet theory ignores the fact that some of the greatest Evolutionary Biologists, including Alfred Wallace, were spiritualists, and Theodosius Dobhavansky was an Orthodox Christian.

His little claim is typical of many creationists, who believe that just about all of the natural evidence that contradicts Biblical beliefs was invented to spread Atheism. Never mind that geologists thought the world was millions of years old before evolution was conceived, and the like.

[quote]The absolutely essential doctrine of Darwinism is atheism, the assertion that life came into being by accident, via purely physical means. Without this doctrine and the corresponding thesis that all animal and plant life evolved from a single, primitive life form, there is no point at all in advocating Darwinism. Without the atheistic rejection of God as the Creator of the entire universe, Darwinism would be no more than a footnote in taxonomic classification of plants and animals. [/quote]

Absolute nonsense. Evolution is the theory and fact that, over time, mutations give rise to new creatures in response to environmental stimuli. In other words, 'descent with modification.' Chance plays a factor, but only in one part of the selection, which is far from chancey; the best species to suit their environments survive, not just the luckiest.

As for his garbage about the "need for atheistic rejection of God" as fundamentally part of the belief in evolution, he apparently forgot that the Pope John Paul acknowledged the veracity of evolution as "more than just a theory." Or that some of the strongest defenders of evolution are theistic evolutionists, who believe that God had a role in guiding evolution, but do not believe in ID. One example is Roger Pennock, who is a Quaker.

[quote]Science can deal only with aspects of the material world to describe the phenomena of nature and to seek explanations for the processes of nature. Science cannot claim to deal with ontology, the branch of philosophy that seeks to understand the nature and source of Being itself (how the phenomena and processes of nature came to exist), an inquiry that inevitably travels the path of religious explanations. [/quote]

Nonsense. The natural history of the world falls under 'seeking understanding of the processes of nature.' What does he think climatology is, if not the study of records and signs of climate change among weather patterns?

Incidently, ontology is typically defined as "The study of what exists."

[quote]But that is precisely what Darwinism claims to do. Without its religious ontological content, Darwinian evolution brings nothing useful to the table that earlier schools of biology had not already delivered.[/quote]

This is also nonsense. Evolution has explained things ranging from the origins of disease to the nature of domestication. It is the central unifying framework of biology, and without it, absolutely nothing makes sense.

For example, AIDS is living proof of evolution. The virus has a 1 in a million chance of error, meaning that the mutation rate is extremely high; the HIV that enters you usually has very little in common with the AIDS that kills you. It also explains why AIDS is so dangerous; it adapts to just about every drug if it is used frequently enough.The same goes for the emergence of penicillin-resistant bacteria, after years of overuse of the drug.

In high school, Evolutionary Biology really ought to be taught as a class in of its own. Instead, usually it is relegated to only one chapter.

[quote]In sharp distinction to Darwinian evolution, the only part of biology that is truly scientific is taxonomic description and classification of life forms into family, genus, and species. Even there, fierce debate rages within the biological community, because biology is not an exact science in the same way that chemistry and physics are. [/quote]

This is highly amusing. Taxonomy is the only truly scientific part of biology? He really needs to read the works of several biologists, rather than spout his religious background or make unsupported statements. And yes, biology actually is considered a science by most other hard sciences such as chemistry and physics, and a hard science at that.

[quote]Darwinian evolution, unlike true sciences such as chemistry and physics, cannot be employed to predict anything or to make exact classifications of anything. It is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis with no way to employ normal scientific tests to assess its validity. Believers have nothing to cling to beyond the word of Darwinians that things “could have been” as they hypothesize. [/quote]

Wrong. We have used evolution to predict the origins of diseases, and those predictions have held out. That bit about the mutations in Chimpanzee DNA mentioned earlier are a further support.

[quote]Darwin, whose family included notorious atheists, wrote that his efforts to concoct the hypothesis of evolution were motivated by a desire to discredit the Book of Genesis and what he called the damnable doctrine of Christianity. [/quote]

You've got to love it when people throw around completely unsupported claims about motive. If Darwin wanted to discredit Christianity, why did he take so long to release the theory, and only when he heard Alfred Wallace had reached the same conclusion and was going to publish? How is his supposed hatred for christianity reconciled with the fact that he was going to become a minister in the Anglican Church before he left on the Beagle? Or the fact that his wife was a very strong Christian her entire life, which caused Darwin some familial strife and explains part of his reluctance to publish?

Have you noticed something about this author? I have; he has no idea what he is talking about, and his claims are mostly either ignorance, or lies.

[quote]Darwinism is not, as popularly thought, merely the idea of natural selection, which proposes that, when environmental conditions change substantially enough to impact life forms, some individual members of a species may be better adapted to the new environmental conditions and will survive in greater numbers than other members of the same species. This also has been called survival of the fittest.

Few people will disagree with this idea. But no one needed Charles Darwin to bring it to society’s attention, because people had been selectively breeding and hybridizing animals and plants for thousands of years. [/quote]

The irony is that this was, and is, a strong support for evolution, but he doesn't seem to grasp that. Most amusingly, it contradicts with his earlier assessment of evolution as a tool for atheistic socialism.

[quote]Darwinism is, however, exceedingly useful to the secular religion of socialism, which accounts for the ACLU’s rabid support. [/quote]

Brewton doesn't even seem to know what socialism is. For those out there who don't know, socialism is actually an economic system of planning the use of economic resources. It is not an ideology, but many people - including this author - seem to confuse it with Communism.

[quote]By hypothesizing secular and material factors as the sole agents affecting life, Darwin provided a rationalization to support liberal-socialists’ proclivities for controlling all human thought and activity by collectivized government regulation. [/quote]

Yet another unsupported claim. Evolution actually is a big equalizer, and frequent enemy of communist ideas; it tells us that although humans generally do not differ much from one another, we also have built-in tendencies and instincts, which goes strongly against the 'blank slate' ideology that inspired Communism.

[quote]Thomas Huxley, the English biologist who in the 1860s and 70s became the best known promoter of Darwinism, coined the term agnostic and declared that there is no such thing as right or wrong, no such thing as sin; there is only the struggle for survival in a continually evolving world of material, social, and life forms. Karl Marx was a contemporary of Darwin, and his followers enthusiastically endorsed Darwinism as proof of Marx’s theory of atheistic, materialistic, dialectic processes of history that would inevitably lead to world socialism.[/quote]

Like a typical heavily conservative political writer, he throws around Marx like he is some 'curse of the devil.' Marx endorsed Darwinism. So what? It doesn't affect the validity of evolution, and evolution does not call for collective socialism.

Huxley's statement is warped, too, which is kind of ironic, since Huxley was actually quite the opposite of a social Darwinist. He argued strongly against Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism, claiming that the civilized, moral conduct should not resemble natural selection.

[quote]Without Darwinism there would have been no “science” of eugenics, which was conceptualized by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, in 1865, six years after Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species. Eugenics endeavors to give natural selection a hand by deciding whether, in the interests of perfecting humanity, certain individuals ought to be sterilized to eliminate them as breeding stock that would mongrelize the human race. [/quote]

Strictly speaking, Eugenics is selective breeding. It is based off of the idea of transmission of desirable traits, but although Galton conceived of the name, he was hardly the first 'eugenicist;' Plato argued for the breeding of people into castes for his ideal society in The Republic.
Eugenics does not even require sterilization, although it has frequently been used as such as an excuse for underlying racism and nationalism.

[quote]Both Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood and Adolph Hitler’s master-race theories were based upon Darwinian eugenics. [/quote]

Another unsupported claim. Hitler actually believed, in Mein Kampf, that the Aryans were created by God, whereas the Jews and inferior races resulted from evolution. But even as such, evolutionary theory makes no statement in support or against Eugenics. The fact that its ideas were used to develop Eugenics does not constitute a moral condemnation on its own. Whether or not transubstantiation happened was the basis for significant religious battles between the Calvinists and Catholics, yet we never see the author condemn Christianity, do we?

[quote]John Dewey in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century established what has become today’s multi-cultural and politically-correct education. Among its central tenets are moral relativism and the psychological thesis that humans have no immortal souls, but are simply mechanisms that respond to sensual pleasure or pain. Dewey based today’s educational theories on Darwin’s assertion that everything is continually evolving. Therefore, Dewey concluded, there can be no such thing as timeless principles of morality. All that counts is whether your actions get you what you want. [/quote]

He's preaching to the choir, by implying that the idea that morality is relative, or that everything is constantly changing, is a bad thing. But is it really? If morality did not evolve, we would still be stoning adulteresses to death, like it is advocated in Leviticus in the Bible.

He also, as usual, misquotes or slanders a person's statement. Frankly, I'm getting tired of his lies.

[quote]Note that Dewey’s philosophy of a Darwinian world with no timeless moral standards is also the theoretical basis for liberal-socialist judicial activism, yet another reason for the ACLU’s near hysterical support of Darwinism. Liberal media like the New York Times never tire of telling us that the Constitution must evolve to encompass the latest fads of hedonism, marital infidelity, and sexual promiscuity. [/quote]

Again, he's preaching to the choir. The above is a political viewpoint, which no bearing on whether evolution is correct or not. The fact that he slanders the ACLU in the process because he believes that there ought to be laws prohibiting people's consensual sexual activities is an irritating red herring.

[quote]Of course, if there is no God and none of the constraints of Judeo-Christian morality upon the powers of government, if political life is only a matter of survival of the fittest, the way is open for totalitarianism in Stalin’s Soviet Russia and Hitler’s National Socialist Germany.[/quote]

Why's that? Again, he makes the connection between atheism and totalitarianism. But why is that, especially considering that much of what he would consider 'Judeo-Christian morality' was consumed by religious moderates from humanistic ideas? Or that Communism, although it denied the supernatural, was extremely religious in terms of an ideology.

[quote]Thomas E. Brewton had the extraordinary good fortune to study political philosophy under Eric Voegelin and Constitutional law under Walter Berns. His website is The View from 1776.[/quote]

Although this is straying into the insult area, I would say he had the incredible misfortune to not pick up the habit of actually listening to what the other side is saying when he argues his point, or of relying on evidence.

It still means the same thing!

Guardsman Bass

excilent post there thanks for going through all the trouble of setting everyone steight about what scoobysnack said.
excilent work

Ok... breathe in... breathe out.....

To understand the basics of evolution, go here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

This is a web site hoted by Berkeley University, one of the Ivy League schools. This is *not* something "channeled by a spirit guide". It's *not* something presented by someone from a creationist university who says that evolution is wrong and "lots of stuff points to that" but then doesn't show any references. This is *not* something that assumes that since 5% of existing 2000+yo copies of old testament works contain a word that many educated and established historians and linguists presume means hippopottamus or rinocerous, it *could* mean "brontosaurous" if you eat enough lead paint chips, and thus proves Noah had dinosaurs in the ark.

This is an academic presentation with references. It discusses DNA, several forms of isotope dating (not just carbon 14), and other branches of science involved.

One again, that's http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Mike

you know i was thinking about all of the earlyer argumetns against evolution and then i remembered a christian website that not only says not to use certain arguments but says flat out they are not true.....

so the first one....


well lets see what they had to say......




okay now remember that this is a christian website.... telling you the truth... lol

now lets have a look at the next one....



well what does the CHRISTIAN website sayin the section that says agruments definantly not to be used...



well simple enough i guess... but there could have been more proof but then this is a website promoting creationism.... oh well

as for the rest you can read it here

Arguments not to use against evolution....

Thank you for the breathing exercise!

From one of Manapa's quotes:Again I stated....Humans DID NOT evolve from apes!
Humans AND apes evolved from a common PRIMATE species.

Source


Hey Rak...It worked this time

EDIT: Used wrong quote

sorry zandor i don't follow.. i was quoting etvisitor7
didn't mean any offence
and i agree with you about the common ancestor i was just pointing out that even a christian group says other christians shouldn't use that argument...