NationStates Jolt Archive

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?Lol. No. Intelligent design is the laughing stock among scientists and athiests, and anyone else in the loop.

I am a biologist who believes in the theory of evolution AND God's creation. So there hehe :P

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?
No, it's the rantings of a mildly retarded paranoid schitzophrenic with late-term syphilys rotting his brain.

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

No it's not true, thats just propaganda and total rubbish....most educated people, scientists and atheists, and even the Church of England 'believe' in Evolution....only crackpots and ignorant people wouldn't.

No it's not true, thats just propaganda and total rubbish....most educated people, scientists and atheists, and even the Church of England 'believe' in Evolution....only crackpots and ignorant people wouldn't.
There's nothing to "believe" about evolution, anyway, it's been scientifically proven!

...evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!

I don't know of one single working scientist who thinks that evolution is a laughing stock. There is a mathematician who believes in intelligent design, but maths ain't science.

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?
How the fuck is it that we live in a world where enough people buy this bullshit that there's a television channel to promote it?

How the fuck is it that we live in a world where enough people buy this bullshit that there's a television channel to promote it?It's not just one channel...

It's not just one channel...
That's even sadder.

What? A religious TV station not only misrepresenting science, but making outright lies about it? Inconceivable!

... Sarcasm aside, it's absolutely disgusting, and horrendously inaccurate, to say the very least.

Simple answer: No.

And just because I can:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10565004&postcount=102

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?
Why is it that people who call themselves vituous and are supposed to value truth and honesty spew such blatant and barefaced lies just to further their agendas.

"You will know them by the fruit they bear," said Jesus. Or words to that effect. But, yeah, that's how you know what they're really after.

Propaganda.
Reputable scientists do believe in evolution. If you want a religious source of information that lives in the real world, try The Christian Science Monitor.

well, seeing as on monday I'm starting my next section of my bio course (at university level), which happens to be evolution, I'd have to disagree with whatever you saw on tv

Anything to make people believe that the world was created in 7 days and we've only been around for 5,000 years... :rolleyes:

I really hope that evolution will bring change to our species - whenever someone says something incredibly stupid like that, their heads should implode!

*goes back to zee lab to look after Igor and zee monkey*

I really hope that evolution will bring change to our species - whenever someone says something incredibly stupid like that, their heads should implode!
Unfortunately, evolution is being hindered because we can't kill stupid people.

Well it's a Uk channel so it is quite mild compared to the American channels!

And it was an e-mail they read out.

It was just propaganda, sweetie. Stop watching the religion channel.

Unfortunately, evolution is being hindered because we can't kill stupid people.
Yeah. Postnatal abortion or active Darwinism would rock :D

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

yeah of course its true. there is a 30 minute show on the religion channel that attacks evolution. then another show comes on after it about a preacher that takes his towel, wipes his forehead and drops it to the ground, then everyone on stage with him faints. behold the power of god!

No, and lol.

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a scientist made some discovery that completely negated Darwinism to the point where there was no saving it. Suppose this scientist didn't have an alternate theory, simply that he'd refuted Darwin somehow.

Now, would this scientist be listened to, or would he be laughed/bullied into silence?

This is all hypothetical, bu the point I'm making is that for the folks who responded negatively in this thread, I wonder if it occurred to anyone for even a moment that there could possibly have been something to it. It just seems like a lot of the responses were knee-jerk.

I don't know about you, but to me, science has always been something to keep an open mind about. Thoughts?

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a scientist made some discovery that completely negated Darwinism to the point where there was no saving it. Suppose this scientist didn't have an alternate theory, simply that he'd refuted Darwin somehow.

Now, would this scientist be listened to, or would he be laughed/bullied into silence?

This is all hypothetical, bu the point I'm making is that for the folks who responded negatively in this thread, I wonder if it occurred to anyone for even a moment that there could possibly have been something to it. It just seems like a lot of the responses were knee-jerk.

I don't know about you, but to me, science has always been something to keep an open mind about. Thoughts?
If a discovery was made that showed evolution to be impossible, evolution would be scrapped and we would have to say "We don't know how the current species came about". That's the beauty of science, it's self-correcting. Religious dogma isn't.

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a scientist made some discovery that completely negated Darwinism to the point where there was no saving it. Suppose this scientist didn't have an alternate theory, simply that he'd refuted Darwin somehow.

Now, would this scientist be listened to, or would he be laughed/bullied into silence?
You'd be surprised to know that people are looking for a discovery like that all the time. It would make anyone's career. If it could be proven that evolution by means of natural selection is impossible, that'd win the Nobel Prize.

And scientist try. They're trying to come up with better and better models to explain biology and they do it by challenging current understanding. The fact that no one has come up with something that entirely negates the concept of evolution and natural selection is quite telling.

If a discovery was made that showed evolution to be impossible, evolution would be scrapped and we would have to say "We don't know how the current species came about". That's the beauty of science, it's self-correcting. Religious dogma isn't.

I agree that would certainly be the ideal, and we would all like to believe in the objectivity of the scientists involved in this research.

But as I mentioned, look at the reactions from the other posters. Nobody gave that possibility the time of day. It was an automatic reply generally to the effect of: "Religious zealots know nothing. We have the answer. Ignore that nonsense." You must admit, that wasn't exactly an objective answer.

I would venture to say it's almost as if strict Darwinists are a bit on the dogmatic side themselves, being as inflexible as Creationists are portrayed as.

Could a scientist be truly objective? Remember that a lot of these people made their living publishing books, writing papers, teaching classes and soliciting grants from governments and educational institutions to fund their work and research. If suddenly Darwinism was shown to be false, they would have a LOT to lose, including their income, prestige and in some cases, their life's work. Their credibility would be broken and their careers would be in serious trouble.

For most people, that would be more than enough to make them very nervous about an alternative popping up. Think about it. Scientists are not infallible. They're human beings just like the rest of us, and put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you and I.

Just a thought.

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a scientist made some discovery that completely negated Darwinism to the point where there was no saving it. Suppose this scientist didn't have an alternate theory, simply that he'd refuted Darwin somehow.

Now, would this scientist be listened to, or would he be laughed/bullied into silence?

This is all hypothetical, bu the point I'm making is that for the folks who responded negatively in this thread, I wonder if it occurred to anyone for even a moment that there could possibly have been something to it. It just seems like a lot of the responses were knee-jerk.

I don't know about you, but to me, science has always been something to keep an open mind about. Thoughts?
It would be very interesting to see what would happen if we found a fossilized rabbit the age of a diplocaulus. I'm sure many people would try to find the mistake in the dating of the specimen, but if it turned out to be true, there's no telling what that would mean.

But as I mentioned, look at the reactions from the other posters. Nobody gave that possibility the time of day. It was an automatic reply generally to the effect of: "Religious zealots know nothing. We have the answer. Ignore that nonsense." You must admit, that wasn't exactly an objective answer.
This may come as a surprise to you, but people in this forum don't represent the scientific community.

I agree that would certainly be the ideal, and we would all like to believe in the objectivity of the scientists involved in this research.

But as I mentioned, look at the reactions from the other posters. Nobody gave that possibility the time of day. It was an automatic reply generally to the effect of: "Religious zealots know nothing. We have the answer. Ignore that nonsense." You must admit, that wasn't exactly an objective answer.

I would venture to say it's almost as if strict Darwinists are a bit on the dogmatic side themselves, being as inflexible as Creationists are portrayed as.

Could a scientist be truly objective? Remember that a lot of these people made their living publishing books, writing papers, teaching classes and soliciting grants from governments and educational institutions to fund their work and research. If suddenly Darwinism was shown to be false, they would have a LOT to lose, including their income, prestige and in some cases, their life's work. Their credibility would be broken and their careers would be in serious trouble.

For most people, that would be more than enough to make them very nervous about an alternative popping up. Think about it. Scientists are not infallible. They're human beings just like the rest of us, and put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you and I.

Just a thought.
Scientists who make discoveries publish them in peer-reviewed journals. Other scientists look at them and criticize them. If they can't find fault with the methodology and they can repeat the observation or experiment, the new data is accepted. Failure to do so will cause a scientist to lose his income, prestige, and the respect of his peers. Accepting new, peer reviewed and tested data guarantees that they will still be able to show their face among fellow scientists and still earn grants and keep their jobs.

I agree that would certainly be the ideal, and we would all like to believe in the objectivity of the scientists involved in this research.

But as I mentioned, look at the reactions from the other posters. Nobody gave that possibility the time of day. It was an automatic reply generally to the effect of: "Religious zealots know nothing. We have the answer. Ignore that nonsense." You must admit, that wasn't exactly an objective answer.

I would venture to say it's almost as if strict Darwinists are a bit on the dogmatic side themselves, being as inflexible as Creationists are portrayed as.

Could a scientist be truly objective? Remember that a lot of these people made their living publishing books, writing papers, teaching classes and soliciting grants from governments and educational institutions to fund their work and research. If suddenly Darwinism was shown to be false, they would have a LOT to lose, including their income, prestige and in some cases, their life's work. Their credibility would be broken and their careers would be in serious trouble.

For most people, that would be more than enough to make them very nervous about an alternative popping up. Think about it. Scientists are not infallible. They're human beings just like the rest of us, and put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you and I.

Just a thought.

Science can be resistant to new ideas. As Gallileo can attest to. But things get really ugly when science is run by religion. Afterall, Gallileo was acused of Heresy. :p

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if we found a fossilized rabbit the age of a diplocaulus. I'm sure many people would try to find the mistake in the dating of the specimen, but if it turned out to be true, there's no telling what that would mean.
There's one. Not a rabbit, but rabbit-like creature. As a consequence the entire mammalian evolution model is being revised.

This may come as a surprise to you, but people in this forum don't represent the scientific community.

That is true, they don't. That fact carries 2 implications: Either the fact that we aren't scientists means we haven't any basis to discuss the subject, or we agree that this is informal and therefore it doesn't matter.

That is true, they don't. That fact carries 2 implications: Either the fact that we aren't scientists means we haven't any basis to discuss the subject, or we agree that this is informal and therefore it doesn't matter.
I vote for number 2.

Scientists who make discoveries publish them in peer-reviewed journals. Other scientists look at them and criticize them. If they can't find fault with the methodology and they can repeat the observation or experiment, the new data is accepted. Failure to do so will cause a scientist to lose his income, prestige, and the respect of his peers. Accepting new, peer reviewed and tested data guarantees that they will still be able to show their face among fellow scientists and still earn grants and keep their jobs.

That is true, and I thank you for pointing it out. I would like to point out a couple of things though, that can still impact objectivity.

Firstly, grants come from governments and educational institutions. That carries with it a certain level of politics. Scientists who receive grants generally tend to be ones who are likely to find what the benefactor of the grants wants them to, or grant money dries up in a hurry. As I'm sure we can all agree, politics and science never mix well, and the results are seldom good ones.

Secondly, you correctly point out the way the situation is meant to work, but in reality it's not so clean and perfect. There are plenty of issues in the scientific community that are hotly debated, with factions coalescing around differing or competing theories. No area of science is immune to that. Mix this with a little politics, and suddenly the waters become very muddy indeed.

That is true, and I thank you for pointing it out. I would like to point out a couple of things though, that can still impact objectivity.

Firstly, grants come from governments and educational institutions. That carries with it a certain level of politics. Scientists who receive grants generally tend to be ones who are likely to find what the benefactor of the grants wants them to, or grant money dries up in a hurry. As I'm sure we can all agree, politics and science never mix well, and the results are seldom good ones.

Secondly, you correctly point out the way the situation is meant to work, but in reality it's not so clean and perfect. There are plenty of issues in the scientific community that are hotly debated, with factions coalescing around differing or competing theories. No area of science is immune to that. Mix this with a little politics, and suddenly the waters become very muddy indeed.You're right, money and politics can muddy the scientific waters. Look at the oil company scientists that still deny global warming, but for the most part the facts speak for themselves. Most scientists agree that global warming is taking place. No system is perfect, but science comes closer than most.

did your show suggest just what an atheist would believe in if they didnt believe in evolution? is the creation of the species the one way in which an atheist isnt an atheist?

did your show suggest just what an atheist would believe in if they didnt believe in evolution? is the creation of the species the one way in which an atheist isnt an atheist?

No, it just said it was rubbish and that it was just an excuse so that atheists don't have to feel accountable.

I know a few scientists that dont believe in evolution... My freinds dad who is a professor at a university doesn't believe in evolution :eek:

No, it's the rantings of a mildly retarded paranoid schitzophrenic with late-term syphilys rotting his brain.

that's a bit extreme of a claim for not having any evidence. my my. but well-phrased insult, albeit unconvincingly employed. for the record, i'm a zoology (well zoology student...getting there) who believes in microevolution, but i've never been presented with any scientific evidence of macroevolution

No, it just said it was rubbish and that it was just an excuse so that atheists don't have to feel accountable.
hmmmm did they hint at accountable for WHAT?

and were these guys intelligent designers or literal creationists?

did they suggest that most scientists today believe in the "direct from the hand of god and unchanging ever since" kinda creation instead of evolution?

its such an odd claim.

Science can be resistant to new ideas. As Gallileo can attest to. But things get really ugly when science is run by religion. Afterall, Gallileo was acused of Heresy. :p

just wanted to point out who made the discoveries and offered the theories that got Galileo in trouble...Copernicus. what was Copernicus? a catholic priest. religious people have been on both sides of scientific advancement, as have non-religious people.

that's a bit extreme of a claim for not having any evidence. my my. but well-phrased insult, albeit unconvincingly employed. for the record, i'm a zoology (well zoology student...getting there) who believes in microevolution, but i've never been presented with any scientific evidence of macroevolution

May I suggest you read this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html) article on macro-evolution?

that's a bit extreme of a claim for not having any evidence. my my. but well-phrased insult, albeit unconvincingly employed. for the record, i'm a zoology (well zoology student...getting there) who believes in microevolution, but i've never been presented with any scientific evidence of macroevolution
There actually is evidence for evolution from one species into another. As a zoology student perhaps you're familiar with ring species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

They're basically a snapshot of the process of speciation.

Also there are catterpillars in Hawaii that over the course of one thousand years have evolved to lay their eggs on and eat only banana leaves. They couldn't have existed before because bananas were only imported about a thousand years ago. They're closely related to other species of moths on the islands, but are a separate species.

Don't take the insult seriously. I just act a little silly on the internet.

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

Well if it was on TV; it must be true.

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a scientist made some discovery that completely negated Darwinism to the point where there was no saving it. Suppose this scientist didn't have an alternate theory, simply that he'd refuted Darwin somehow.

Now, would this scientist be listened to, or would he be laughed/bullied into silence?

This is all hypothetical, bu the point I'm making is that for the folks who responded negatively in this thread, I wonder if it occurred to anyone for even a moment that there could possibly have been something to it. It just seems like a lot of the responses were knee-jerk.

I don't know about you, but to me, science has always been something to keep an open mind about. Thoughts?

You have never been in the world of science have you?

For every announcement you make; there will be at least 100 others that will scream you are a moron and where did you get your degree *insert rival school*?

It has always been that way. Darwin himself spent many years trying to bullet proof his arguments as much as possible.

So yes. He will be laughed at and bullied. If he gives up then that is his fault.

Other people will take his data and run their own experiments; if they can't prove him wrong; guess what happens?

Peer review is a great thing.

But as I mentioned, look at the reactions from the other posters. Nobody gave that possibility the time of day. It was an automatic reply generally to the effect of: "Religious zealots know nothing. We have the answer. Ignore that nonsense." You must admit, that wasn't exactly an objective answer.

Not at all. The Religious types keep parroting the same old disproved claims. Most don't even understand the basics of genetics and biology.

I would venture to say it's almost as if strict Darwinists are a bit on the dogmatic side themselves, being as inflexible as Creationists are portrayed as.

Actually no. The claim of dogmatism can only be applied if you can prove a valid claim was ignored.


Could a scientist be truly objective? Remember that a lot of these people made their living publishing books, writing papers, teaching classes and soliciting grants from governments and educational institutions to fund their work and research.

Beside the point. A brilliant man doesn't become stupid because something that was thought to be correct is now shown to be wrong.

The "book publishers" will start writing about the new research.


If suddenly Darwinism was shown to be false, they would have a LOT to lose, including their income, prestige and in some cases, their life's work. Their credibility would be broken and their careers would be in serious trouble.

Sorry but that is wrong. They will continue their careers.


For most people, that would be more than enough to make them very nervous about an alternative popping up. Think about it. Scientists are not infallible. They're human beings just like the rest of us, and put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you and I.

Just a thought.

A scientist being infallible is not a valid compliant. Do you know why? Peer Review. A scientist can make himself famous by proving a generally accepted theory is wrong.

Science can be resistant to new ideas. As Gallileo can attest to. But things get really ugly when science is run by religion. Afterall, Gallileo was acused of Heresy. :p

Don't forget the imprisoned part!

A scientist being infallible is not a valid compliant. Do you know why? Peer Review. A scientist can make himself famous by proving a generally accepted theory is wrong.

Of course it's a valid issue. Some people will say the most hostile and virulent things to a person for disagreeing with something a scientist stated. You've seen it right here in this thread. if I were to enter a post on a thread like this to the effect of:

"Charles Darwin made a very serious mistake, and drew the wrong conclusions. His theory of Evolution is therefore false."

Can you just imagine the flames I would receive? And these flames would ocme from people who may or may not even bother to look into why the comment was made. That's like treating Darwin as infallible.

Let's face it. It's human nature to put someone up on a pedestal when they tell us what we want to hear. People don't want to hear about the imperfections of scientists because it is scientists whom we rely upon to bring us information. The thought that they could be mistaken, especially on an issue as grand as Evolution/Creationism, is scary indeed.

Peer Review is a wonderful concept but like I said before, it can be affected by politics. Can you honestly say an issue as big and as emotionally charged as this one would not be tainted by political angles?

The Original Poster mentioned that this program was on a Christian TV channel. Was the scientist him/herself a Christian? We can reasonably conclude that a TV station like that would carry those conclusions in either case, but what do we know about this scientist?

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

Who said that, Pat Roberts? Unless the speaker provided unrefutable statistics, I'm inclined to think it's more of an opinion than a fact.

Of course it's a valid issue. Some people will say the most hostile and virulent things to a person for disagreeing with something a scientist stated. You've seen it right here in this thread. if I were to enter a post on a thread like this to the effect of:

"Charles Darwin made a very serious mistake, and drew the wrong conclusions. His theory of Evolution is therefore false."

Can you just imagine the flames I would receive? And these flames would ocme from people who may or may not even bother to look into why the comment was made. That's like treating Darwin as infallible.


What do you expect? You offer no reasons; just an opinion. Yes you will get flamed.

I hate to tell you even in the real world of science you will still get flamed even when you are right.

If you don't have a thick skin then you don't publish. Peer Review is a nasty lover.


Let's face it. It's human nature to put someone up on a pedestal when they tell us what we want to hear.

People don't want to hear about the imperfections of scientists because it is scientists whom we rely upon to bring us information.

:rolleyes: Nobody has ever claimed Scientists are perfect.

I can tell you first hand that Dr. Johanson is about as big an asshole you can get. Do I worship him. No. Do I read his comments and listen to him? Yes.


The thought that they could be mistaken, especially on an issue as grand as Evolution/Creationism, is scary indeed.


You have never looked into the evolution debates have you? Even the evolution proponents fight bitterly over processes involved.


Peer Review is a wonderful concept but like I said before, it can be affected by politics. Can you honestly say an issue as big and as emotionally charged as this one would not be tainted by political angles?


Actually no. Your claim only works if it was one country. Peer Review is from all over the world.

You make a rather stupid claim and force it via politics then you can bet nobody will listen to any more of your dribble.

Do you think anybody will listen to the Korean doctor (stem cells) anymore?

Suppose for a moment, hypothetically, that a scientist made some discovery that completely negated Darwinism to the point where there was no saving it. Suppose this scientist didn't have an alternate theory, simply that he'd refuted Darwin somehow.

Now, would this scientist be listened to, or would he be laughed/bullied into silence?

This is all hypothetical, bu the point I'm making is that for the folks who responded negatively in this thread, I wonder if it occurred to anyone for even a moment that there could possibly have been something to it. It just seems like a lot of the responses were knee-jerk.

I don't know about you, but to me, science has always been something to keep an open mind about. Thoughts?

Your problem is that people weren't reacting to a new scientific discovery. They were reacting to the blatant lie that most atheists and scientist don't 'believe' in evolution. Your evidence is flawed to the point that one wonders if you don't have an agenda.

As to the point you are trying to make in your faulty argument, change is always painful, but you can only call people dogmatic if they ignore evidence and you've offered nothing to show that has happened or is happening.

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

Evolution is a laughing matter in science, that's true.

It's only a laughing matter though because so many Americans still don't accept it despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the complete lack of evidence for other explanations such as Intelligent Design.

As my grad school prof in Methods of Research always reminded us:

CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

Who said that, Pat Roberts? Unless the speaker provided unrefutable statistics, I'm inclined to think it's more of an opinion than a fact.

It was a viewers e-mail they read out.

It was a viewers e-mail they read out.

And you took it to be credible?

C'mon, mon ami, use those little grey cells.

No, evolution is fact, pretty much.

Did someone talk about ancient rabbits? Did they consummate much? Were they hyperactive? Huh? Were they?

This is all hypothetical, bu the point I'm making is that for the folks who responded negatively in this thread, I wonder if it occurred to anyone for even a moment that there could possibly have been something to it. It just seems like a lot of the responses were knee-jerk.

I don't know about you, but to me, science has always been something to keep an open mind about. Thoughts?

Um. Look back at the OP.
The statement wasn't that evolution was wrong but (1) that it was a "laughing stock" among scientists and (2) "most athiests don't believe in it."

Those statements couldn't possibly "have [] something to it." Knee-jerk responses were more than adequate. You are letting skepticism about science blind you to the discussion. Now who doesn't have an open mind?

That is true, they don't. That fact carries 2 implications: Either the fact that we aren't scientists means we haven't any basis to discuss the subject, or we agree that this is informal and therefore it doesn't matter.
Uh, actually, I'm a scientist. But you don't care about me anyway:fluffle:

Uh, actually, I'm a scientist. But you don't care about me anyway:fluffle:

I'm in the mix too, a grad student doing molecular evolution. But I am too obsessed with fornicating rabbits to be useful to anyone but fornicating rabbits.

Lets examine the sources: TV and the Religious channel: Stupidity squared.

Lets examine the sources: TV and the Religious channel: Stupidity squared.
*applauds*

*applauds*

*bows* I try.

*bows* I try.

Man are you a cool dude. Pinnacle of coolness extraordinaire.:cool:

Big Jim P is so cool, the waves he surfs on freeze solid to keep him there.

Man are you a cool dude. Pinnacle of coolness extraordinaire.:cool:

Big Jim P is so cool, the waves he surfs on freeze solid to keep him there.

Then surely he is a Hockey player?

Lets examine the sources: TV and the Religious channel: Stupidity squared.

Theres no need to bad-mouth TV. Admittedly the Religious channel is a joke, like intelligent design, but leave the TV alone!

It is indeed sad when you realize the evolution of television.

Television began waaaaaay back with the idea that it would be cultural entertainment and education for the masses.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_television_history,00.shtml

Now, by and large, it is mindless crap that caters to the lowest common denominator and erodes both the attention span and the intelligence of the habitual viewer.

You think humans have evolved past gladiatorial games? Think again. Every time you watch Survivor, Maury Povitch or Jerry Springer you are watching hapless people being destroyed (albeit of their own free will this time) for the gratification of the masses.

Not all television is crap, I watch selectively and enjoy much of what I choose to watch, I am often amused and educated, outraged and suprised. I fail to see how that can be a bad thing. It;s just sitting in front of every tacky soap, low level sitcom, bad programing that makes us think badly of the TV as a medium of communication. After all, the internet is the same, you get from it what you look for.

Evolution: hundreds of years of study, millions of years of evidence.

ID: ....

Well, I know which I would trust.



True story -- was in the American Museum of Natural History (http://www.amnh.org) quite soon after they opened The Rose Center for Earth and Space (http://www.amnh.org/rose/) with a friend. We sat down and watched a fifteen minute movie on black holes and worm holes.

As we were walking away, said friend told me, "You know, they got that all wrong."

I looked at friend curiously. "Really?"

"Yes. That's not right at all, because on Star Trek........"


Yep, you heard it. Because on Star Trek, a bunch of writers whose job is to make for entertaining television disagreed with degreed scientists who have devoted years of study to their fields, OBVIOUSLY the scientists were wrong.

The saddest part was this person was completely serious.

Not all television is crap, I watch selectively and enjoy much of what I choose to watch, I am often amused and educated, outraged and suprised. I fail to see how that can be a bad thing. It;s just sitting in front of every tacky soap, low level sitcom, bad programing that makes us think badly of the TV as a medium of communication. After all, the internet is the same, you get from it what you look for.


I did say by and large, which means "not all, but a significant amount".
I worked selling time for television programs for seven years. ;) There is an awful lot of bad stuff out there.

I don't need a Suped up label for what i believe.

This is all a somewhat difficult subject. As a Christian who was raised very consious of science, I have always been able to find a balance between the two. Actually, I am studying Catholicism, and I'm reading a Church endorsed book written by a priest, and he touches on evolution. I found his thoughts on it to be quite interesting.

He states that God is truth, and if in science something is discovered and is true, then it must be. God and science are not exclusive. This priest (I left the book in my car, so I cannot unfortunatly name him, though I know the book is called The Faith Explained) says that what people should be concerned with is not the evolution of the body, but of the soul. Evolution could very well be how our bodies came into existence, but it was the soul that was introduced later.

I am not saying the people on the television were correct. I don't really think they were wrong, however, in saying what they do believe. We can choose to decide for ourselves. We were given free will. But as a Christian, it is equally frustrating to see other Christians deny the beauty of science because they are afraid it will disprove what they think is true. God is not someone who works through magic, he is not a crazy face in the sky that makes cars float and "breaks the laws of science". A Christian denying science, to me, is like seeing the works of an artist and refusing to believe that he did them because he used a paintbrush, just as I think someone denying God over science is like seeing the painting and refusing to believe there was an artist who painted it.

Now I know to people who don't believe in God this may not be a very good explanation, but to those who do, or who acknowledge that there might be God, I think it is something worth thinking about.

I did say by and large, which means "not all, but a significant amount".
I worked selling time for television programs for seven years. ;) There is an awful lot of bad stuff out there.

Oh I know it....

Have you ever watched 'EuroTrash'?

I know a few scientists that dont believe in evolution... My freinds dad who is a professor at a university doesn't believe in evolution :eek:
He's not a biology prof, is he?

Christian institutions have become so hermetic recently (in Europe at least) is it really suprising that they seem so out of touch?

However annoying they are now, at least they don't have such a stranglehold over the state, that evolution isn't taught in schools or even worse... taught alongside creationism.

The church is like an old relative that only appears during the holidays and starts blabbering on incoherently about the good old days. The fact that they have been marginalised to such an extent is encouraging.

Take away their tax exempt status and cut them off from the state and they'll be as strong as the British Communist Party or the church of Zeus, with all their antiquated beliefs and practices.

Christian institutions have become so hermetic recently (in Europe at least) is it really suprising that they seem so out of touch?

However annoying they are now, at least they don't have such a stranglehold over the state, that evolution isn't taught in schools or even worse... taught alongside creationism.

The church is like an old relative that only appears during the holidays and starts blabbering on incoherently about the good old days. The fact that they have been marginalised to such an extent is encouraging.

Take away their tax exempt status and cut them off from the state and they'll be as strong as the British Communist Party or the church of Zeus, with all their antiquated beliefs and practices.

I'm not sure which "the church" you are referring to. Most Christian denominations accept evolution. (which makes the comments reported by the OP even more bizarre)

just wanted to point out who made the discoveries and offered the theories that got Galileo in trouble...Copernicus. what was Copernicus? a catholic priest. religious people have been on both sides of scientific advancement, as have non-religious people.
No, what got Galileo in trouble was the fact that he went and published a book with an idiot spouting what the pope would say concerning what heavenly body is the centre of the universe.

I'm not sure which "the church" you are referring to. Most Christian denominations accept evolution. (which makes the comments reported by the OP even more bizarre)

My comments were perhaps unclear, the COE to be specific.

Let me clarify I don't mean facilitated evolution or evolution after creation I mean completely scientific from the beginning onwards. In terms of life being a consequence of natural events. From this point, you arrive at a stage where evolution is irreconcilable with Judeo-Christian doctrine. This aside, I can't understand how anything but biblical literalism over the issue of creation can be considered Christianity in any case, it seems a rather selective form of faith, if you believe the bible to be the inspired word of god.

My original comments were too broad perhaps, hope this clears up what I meant originally.

It is my understanding (and I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong) that both the Church of England and the Catholic Church accept that the Bible is not literal, and accept evolution as fact.

Evolution: hundreds of years of study, millions of years of evidence.

ID: ....

Well, I know which I would trust.



True story -- was in the American Museum of Natural History (http://www.amnh.org) quite soon after they opened The Rose Center for Earth and Space (http://www.amnh.org/rose/) with a friend. We sat down and watched a fifteen minute movie on black holes and worm holes.

As we were walking away, said friend told me, "You know, they got that all wrong."

I looked at friend curiously. "Really?"

"Yes. That's not right at all, because on Star Trek........"


Yep, you heard it. Because on Star Trek, a bunch of writers whose job is to make for entertaining television disagreed with degreed scientists who have devoted years of study to their fields, OBVIOUSLY the scientists were wrong.

The saddest part was this person was completely serious.
Actually, Star Trek writers...well, up till Enterprise, anyway...did their best to try to stick to science.

That said, that is just plain sad. I need to smack Trekkies like that in the face. Gives those of us who educate ourselves about real science instead of accepting everything on Trek as real science a bad name...

It is my understanding (and I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong) that both the Church of England and the Catholic Church accept that the Bible is not literal, and accept evolution as fact.

You are correct.

It is my understanding (and I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong) that both the Church of England and the Catholic Church accept that the Bible is not literal, and accept evolution as fact.

The COE and the Catholic Church have no universal party line, and divisions between the liberal and conservative factors within the church are rife. Especially over gay clergy in the Anglican church. All Christian churches propogate the idea of a creator god, and the creator god as an agent of evolution or creation preceding evolution.

What I argued was that the idea that man descended from other primates after years and years of biological evolution is not compatible to Christianity. If you do not believe in the infallibility of the bible, why retain it's moral code? This sort of Christianity seems to be between atheism and orthodox Judeo-Christian thought, what rational argument is there for keeping Christianity if you don't believe that the bible is true in essence. Some things in the bible could perhaps be taken metaphorically, but the majority it would seem is meant to be taken factually. The idea that you can pick and choose passages out of the bible doesn't really make too much sense if you still call it a religion. Call it a philosophy if you're going to be selective about what parts of the bible you obey and consider true and what parts you do not. Surely if you believe the bible is the inspired word of god, it isn't going to vary in truth from passage to passage.

You are correct.

I'm not doubting that it is correct, I'm doubting the validity of Christian churches holding this viewpoint from a canonical persective.

To me it makes less sense to hold moderate or liberal viewpoints than fundamentalist one if you have faith in god and the bible.

This is from an atheist looking in bemuzed from the outside by the way. Perhaps you can help me understand your viewpoint It almost seems to be a faithless belief in god, keeping a foot in both the camps of secularity and Christianity. Or is it that the many millions of religious moderates and liberals are taking Pascals wager?

It is my understanding (and I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong) that both the Church of England and the Catholic Church accept that the Bible is not literal, and accept evolution as fact.

I can't speak for the CoE, but yes, Catholic Church accepts evolution.
Of course, to some, we are the spawn of Satan, but meh.

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

Don't believe the media, I once read on a vegan website that young calfs of milking cows are killed so that the cows produce more milk.

There's nothing to "believe" about evolution, anyway, it's been scientifically proven!
Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven. It's a theory.

Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven. It's a theory.Ever heard of the Theory of Gravity?

Ever heard of the Theory of Gravity?

I sure haven't... I've heard of the Law of Gravity, though...

Scientific Law-Proven and accepted as established fact
Theory-Scientific Hypothesis that seems to be true, but is not 100% certain

I sure haven't... I've heard of the Law of Gravity, though...

Scientific Law-Proven and accepted as established fact
Theory-Scientific Hypothesis that seems to be true, but is not 100% certain
Nothing is 100% proven and many things that are considered laws have less evidence than evolution. Want an example? Newton's laws. Newton's laws don't just have less evidence. We know them to be false. They are simply close enough to be extremely useful when not looking on the micro level. Kind of like using 3.14159 for pi in most calculations.

Nothing is 100% proven and many things that are considered laws have less evidence than evolution. Want an example? Newton's laws. Newton's laws don't just have less evidence. We know them to be false. They are simply close enough to be extremely useful when not looking on the micro level. Kind of like using 3.14159 for pi in most calculations.

Fine, even Laws aren't 100%. Isn't that beside the point? If, as you say, Laws are not 100% guranteed, then Theory is even less reliable still. If Natural Selection is only a theory, even IF it's the best theory available, that doesn't justify being completely closed-minded and hostile toward other possibilities. So many people accuse Creationists of being closed minded and stubborn, but it isn't any different in the Darwin camp. They treat Natural Selection as if it WERE 100% reliable and condemn anyone who does not.

Why is it that people who call themselves vituous and are supposed to value truth and honesty spew such blatant and barefaced lies just to further their agendas.

"You will know them by the fruit they bear," said Jesus. Or words to that effect. But, yeah, that's how you know what they're really after.
Does this mean that Satan has control of the airwaves? :eek:

Fine, even Laws aren't 100%. Isn't that beside the point? If, as you say, Laws are not 100% guranteed, then Theory is even less reliable still. If Natural Selection is only a theory, even IF it's the best theory available, that doesn't justify being completely closed-minded and hostile toward other possibilities. So many people accuse Creationists of being closed minded and stubborn, but it isn't any different in the Darwin camp. They treat Natural Selection as if it WERE 100% reliable and condemn anyone who does not.
No one is being close-minged and hostile, though. Nobody except you.

Show me a single condemnation of anything that hasn't been examined thoroughly and shown to be unscientific?

Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven. It's a theory.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48944-2005Mar19.html

Fine, even Laws aren't 100%. Isn't that beside the point? If, as you say, Laws are not 100% guranteed, then Theory is even less reliable still. If Natural Selection is only a theory, even IF it's the best theory available, that doesn't justify being completely closed-minded and hostile toward other possibilities. So many people accuse Creationists of being closed minded and stubborn, but it isn't any different in the Darwin camp. They treat Natural Selection as if it WERE 100% reliable and condemn anyone who does not.
You're right, it doesn't justify being closed-minded and hostile toward other possibilities. It's just that creationism isn't a scientific possibility. It falls outside the realm of what science deals with because of it's appeal to a supernatural force.

No it's not true, thats just propaganda and total rubbish....most educated people, scientists and atheists, and even the Church of England 'believe' in Evolution....only crackpots and ignorant people wouldn't.
Don't forget the Roman Catholic church it "believes" in evolution as well.

Look all evolution is, is this. Evolution a hereditary change in line decent over time. You adapt and you have kids in other words. What most people get confused with is the Theory of Evolution and the The big band "theory". Which the big bang theory is not acutally a theory because there is no way to test it. It is a weak hypothesis at best. Evolution does NOT explain how life began, only how it progressed. I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. I believe to be a tool used by God. Now I am not going to get into a religious debate over whether or not I am going to hell because I believe in evolution. But you need to know the scientific definition of evolution before you proclaim it does not exist. The biggest misconception out there is that evolution and christianity are not compatible and this is false. In the bible God said that he created the earth, he did NOT say how. I believe in God, but I have a higher opinion of him than most evangelical christians do. I believe that he is so powerfull and all knowing that he created life in a logical complex manner. Rather out of thin air.

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

Well as I am not studying anything even equating to science I am not fully qualified to answer this question, however my partner - who is studying to become a lecturer in Zoology - assures me that evolution has been more or less proven (there was actually a rather surreal and fast evolution of a kind of Wallaby that occured in Hawaii in the early 20th century) and that there is little to no evidence that suggest we, and other living things, simply randomly appeared like this because some bearded fellow wanted us to...

No one is being close-minged and hostile, though. Nobody except you.


Are you serious? What? I make an observation from what I've seen in the posts, so now I'm closed-minded and hostile... Who crapped in your cornflakes this morning?

Or is that how you respond to everybody who disagrees with you?

You're right, it doesn't justify being closed-minded and hostile toward other possibilities. It's just that creationism isn't a scientific possibility. It falls outside the realm of what science deals with because of it's appeal to a supernatural force.

I'll concede that Creationism isn't provable by scientific methods if you'll concede that Darwinism MIGHT just be wrong.

We need to keep in mind that there aren't necessarily only two possibilities on this issue.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48944-2005Mar19.html

For every URL someone posts on here to prove one side, a URL could be posted to support the other. At the end of the day, it's a battle of "my expert is better than yours."

I'll concede that Creationism isn't provable by scientific methods if you'll concede that Darwinism MIGHT just be wrong.

We need to keep in mind that there aren't necessarily only two possibilities on this issue.
Darwin's view of evolution is certainly wrong. He believed, like Lamarck, in the inheritance of aquired traits. Do you want me to concede that evolution might be wrong? Sure. And gravity might not apply on the other side of the universe too, but the odds are very slim.

I'll concede that Creationism isn't provable by scientific methods if you'll concede that Darwinism MIGHT just be wrong.

We need to keep in mind that there aren't necessarily only two possibilities on this issue.

Everyone should understand that, as science, the theory might be wrong, but I've yet to see a reason that we should devote any more brain-power to this statment than a 'knee-jerk reaction'.

For every URL someone posts on here to prove one side, a URL could be posted to support the other. At the end of the day, it's a battle of "my expert is better than yours."

Yeah, except if you actually read the articles, you might realize which ones are slightly more reasonable.

Are you serious? What? I make an observation from what I've seen in the posts, so now I'm closed-minded and hostile... Who crapped in your cornflakes this morning?

Or is that how you respond to everybody who disagrees with you?

Um, you made an 'observation' that everyone who disagreed with the OP, that said the majority of scientists thought evolution was wrong and that most atheists do as well, was close-minded and then attacked them for not listening to opposing views. There were no opposing views, only lies about what the majority of people of various groups think. The only one being close-minded on the issue is you.

I find it amusing that you say there is something wrong with my post for point this out, but you entered the thread suggesting that EVERYONE who supports evolution is close-minded and hostile to opposing views and when we pointed out things specifically found in your statements you act as if it proves your point.

The point holds. The only one being close-minded and hostile is you.

I'll concede that Creationism isn't provable by scientific methods if you'll concede that Darwinism MIGHT just be wrong.

We need to keep in mind that there aren't necessarily only two possibilities on this issue.

Darwinism IS wrong. No one holds Darwinism to be true anymore. Evolutionary theory is not Darwinism. And science as a discipline holds that EVERY theory, EVERY law, EVERY hypothesis MIGHT be wrong. It's the very basis of science. The goal of testing is to disprove hypotheses, theories and laws. That's the point.

What you're saying isn't an opinion. It's objectively wrong. One has to completely ignore the basis of science in order to buy into what you're selling.

What you're saying isn't an opinion. It's objectively wrong. One has to completely ignore the basis of science in order to buy into what you're selling.

Reading comprehension test: What HAVE I been selling, exactly? All I've stated was that Darwinists tend to be as dogmatic as Creationists. You disagree, fine. Where is all this venom coming from?

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

No.

Um, you made an 'observation' that everyone who disagreed with the OP, that said the majority of scientists thought evolution was wrong and that most atheists do as well, was close-minded and then attacked them for not listening to opposing views. There were no opposing views, only lies about what the majority of people of various groups think. The only one being close-minded on the issue is you.

I find it amusing that you say there is something wrong with my post for point this out, but you entered the thread suggesting that EVERYONE who supports evolution is close-minded and hostile to opposing views and when we pointed out things specifically found in your statements you act as if it proves your point.

The point holds. The only one being close-minded and hostile is you.

Please don't respond to me again until you've correctly read my statements. I'll waste no more time defending myself against your inaccurate statements.

For the record: I didn't say EVERYONE who suported Evolution. Your whole irrational attack on me is based on that idea.

Yeah, except if you actually read the articles, you might realize which ones are slightly more reasonable.

"My expert is better than yours" argument.

Reading comprehension test: What HAVE I been selling, exactly? All I've stated was that Darwinists tend to be as dogmatic as Creationists. You disagree, fine. Where is all this venom coming from?

I've never met a 'Darwinist', first of all. Second of all, Creationists rely on dogma which you admit. You have failed to show one once of evidence that people that agree with evolutionary theory rely on dogma.

The only thing that you've established is that you don't realize that science questions everything, not just including but ESPECIALLY its own conclusions.

Please don't respond to me again until you've correctly read my statements. I'll waste no more time defending myself against your inaccurate statements.

For the record: I didn't say EVERYONE who suported Evolution. Your whole irrational attack on me is based on that idea.

Interesting how we all draw the same conclusion, but it's that we simply having read and understood your posts. I'll tell you what - why don't you explain how a post that attacks everyone as being close-minded because they disagree with an objective falsehood about the opinion of the majority of scientists and atheists, claiming they are all unwilling to look at opposing theories (something that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread) is not close-minded or hostile?

You tell me... what would you call it?

"My expert is better than yours" argument.

What experts are you presenting? You're not even claiming that Creationism is a scientific theory.

Fine, even Laws aren't 100%. Isn't that beside the point? If, as you say, Laws are not 100% guranteed, then Theory is even less reliable still. If Natural Selection is only a theory, even IF it's the best theory available, that doesn't justify being completely closed-minded and hostile toward other possibilities. So many people accuse Creationists of being closed minded and stubborn, but it isn't any different in the Darwin camp. They treat Natural Selection as if it WERE 100% reliable and condemn anyone who does not.
I know this is old but I had to respond to it.
Know what disproved Newton's LAWS of motion?
The THEORY of Relativity.
Theory and Law are in the same bracket when it comes to amount of proof.

Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven. It's a theory.

Somebody needs to take a science class......

Ever heard of the Theory of Gravity?

You know that is hogwash. You should believe in Intelligent Falling!

For every URL someone posts on here to prove one side, a URL could be posted to support the other. At the end of the day, it's a battle of "my expert is better than yours."

The problem is that many if not most of your "experts" like to use analogies and simply attack perceived errors in Evolution rather then offer data for review.

Reading comprehension test: What HAVE I been selling, exactly? All I've stated was that Darwinists tend to be as dogmatic as Creationists. You disagree, fine. Where is all this venom coming from?

I haven't met anybody that claimed to be a Darwinist. I have met countless people who support evolution.

Dogmatic? If you mean not accepting claims without something put up for review and or testing, yes they are dogmatic. If you mean the fact they won't let Christianity into the science classroom, then yes they are dogmatic.

"My expert is better than yours" argument.

Because we know all "experts" are equal. :rolleyes:

Pray tell, what experts have you brought to the table? It appears none.

Reading comprehension test: What HAVE I been selling, exactly? All I've stated was that Darwinists tend to be as dogmatic as Creationists. You disagree, fine. Where is all this venom coming from?

the under ridiculousness of your statement and the vehemency with which you defend it and its absurd assumptions may have caused the "venom" of which you speak.

Funny though how you call the majority of posters close-minded and knee-jerk, but it is the ones that disagree with you that are being venomous.

I sure haven't... I've heard of the Law of Gravity, though...

Scientific Law-Proven and accepted as established fact


Actually its a statement of fact that meant to explain an action or a set of actions. The result is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed with math. They are accepted at face value because they have always been observed to be true.

Guess what happens if the expected result doesn't happen?


Theory-Scientific Hypothesis that seems to be true, but is not 100% certain

Ok. Now you made a bad mistake. You can't lump these two together.

A hypothesis is more or less an educated guess based on observation. It has not been proved yet. Further experimentation or observation will either refute or support it.

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Reading comprehension test: What HAVE I been selling, exactly? All I've stated was that Darwinists tend to be as dogmatic as Creationists. You disagree, fine. Where is all this venom coming from?

This view is incorrect. In modern evolutionary biology, with the advent of molecular genetics, some ideas that Darwin proposed is demonstrably wrong. For example blended inheritance.

Few people (I hope none!) worship Darwin like a deity and believe everything he says. Like any other scientific idea, evolutionary biology has been refined through the years, by expanding on some ideas, and dropping others.

There's nothing to "believe" about evolution, anyway, it's been scientifically proven!

Nothing has been scientifically proven.

that evolution is a "laughing stock" amongst scientists and most athiests' don't believe in it!!
Admittedly it was on a religious channel but is this true?

My agnostic daughter (BSc in biology, currently getting her Master's in Epidemiology - therefore a scientist) accepts the fact of evolution and finds Intelligent Design quite amusing, when she's not being annoyed by the idiots who believe in it. Incidentally, she's getting her Master's at Loma Linda University - a Christian school.