Charles Darwin's Birthday

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 14, 2009 11:35 AM GMT
    It's the 200th Birthday of the man who brought us evolution
    The single most important discovery of our time
    http://www.darwin200.org/

    It's been the key of how our planet functions and how all living things came to be
    But the same people for the most part
    After 200 Years are STILL denying Darwin's discovery of evolution
    These are the same people who are trying to deny our rights too
    The religious nut jobs out there
    with their ridiculous claims of Creationism and now Intelligent Design

    and Just like how these right wing idiots have ruined us politically and economically
    They are still trying to ruin us intellectually
    http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/60697

    Richard Dawkins a preeminent evolutionary biologist himself recently had stated in and interview
    There are intelligent people who have been taught good science and evolution, and who may choose to believe in something religious that may seem to fly in the face of science. What do you make of that?

    It's certainly hard to know what to make of it. I think it's a betrayal of science. I think they have a religious agenda which, for reasons best known to themselves, they elevate above science.

    This asks the question ....
    when you look at our controversies in recent history
    there is a clear delineation between religious fundamentalism and the rest of the world

    do you think our major battle is with these crazies ... or is it more complicated than that????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 1:07 PM GMT
    One of the most influential thinkers in human history. Also one of the most misunderstood and misquoted. People have taken his "survival of the fittest" (which he supposedly never said) and extrapolated that to all sorts of heinous ideas. Basically those species that are nimblest at adapting to changes in their environment are the ones that survive and thrive. It has nothing to do with strength or power.

    Despite all the evidence to the contrary about evolution at work, there will always be people who are too frightened to acknowledge its' existence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 6:11 PM GMT
    Yep. Darwin was cool. They talked about him on CNN, and I think National Geographic or one of the channels along that line is running a special.

    Darwin brought great challenge, and continues to, to false belief systems that ignore good science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 8:51 PM GMT
    Obama recently gave Darwin a happy Birthday, and says we should renew a commitment to science and inquiry free from politics and ideologies ..

  • GoodPup

    Posts: 752

    Feb 14, 2009 9:43 PM GMT
    I thought even Darwin stated it was just a very improbable theory. I think other evolutionary theories are more realistic than this one... even though I personally am not into the whole evolution idea. Science is something that has laws and been proven... right? Evolution and Creationism are both theories and require some belief and faith for both sides... not a science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 10:06 PM GMT
    JaseinOC saidI thought even Darwin stated it was just a very improbable theory. I think other evolutionary theories are more realistic than this one... even though I personally am not into the whole evolution idea. Science is something that has laws and been proven... right?


    No. Science is the effort to better understand the physical world by applying the scientific method. It is through that process that something can become a law.

    JaseinOC saidEvolution and Creationism are both theories and require some belief and faith for both sides... not a science.


    I don't think you understand what the word theory means in the context of science. Creationism certainly hasn't gotten far enough through the scientific method to be considered a theory, evolution has. And since you are skeptical of theories I also assume you have issues with other theories like gravity?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 10:15 PM GMT
    There was a story on NPR yesterday about a principal (possibly an assistant principal) (who was a former biology teacher strangely enough) who is introducing 'Critical Thinking' to the classroom (as if it weren't already there in science classes).

    Here's what I took from the report: 'Critical Thinking' is the new euphemism for 'Intelligent Design' which is the old euphemism for 'Creationism.'
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 11:00 PM GMT
    JaseinOC saidI thought even Darwin stated it was just a very improbable theory. I think other evolutionary theories are more realistic than this one... even though I personally am not into the whole evolution idea. Science is something that has laws and been proven... right? Evolution and Creationism are both theories and require some belief and faith for both sides... not a science.


    I honestly don't know why people wasted their brains dreaming up something as silly as creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory whose hypotheses have been tested for decades. Creationism is a desperate attempt to put a modern sheen on some stories that were written thousands of years ago. Why bother? If you take comfort in the message and lessons the bible teaches fine, but don't try and make it into something it is not. Or as my Mom would say "trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 11:02 PM GMT
    That was a general knowledge extra credit question at the end of one of my mid-terms.... icon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2009 11:10 PM GMT
    As some of you may be aware, (and yes, I am waiting for Sedative to throw in his bit) I am a Creationist. I'll stick my neck out to say that there is nothing absurd with the idea of a six-day Creation week as narated in Genesis. And I have been around parts of the world, such as the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, Great Barrier Reef, the crater of Mt Etna (in Sicily) and the Jurassic Coast (in the UK). There is nothing I've seen at those natural wonders that caused me to lose faith in Creation.
    So, according to Sam Harris, one of America's radical atheists, 53% of all Americans share my opinion. But are they really that stupid? Can one honestly admit that more than half of America's population is deceived, or not properly educated, or bigoted? Or, as I believe, there are some outstanding academics out there who believe (or has believed before they died) in Divine Creation. Examples I could give include Dr S. I. McMillen, MD; John C. Whitcombe, ThD; Henry M. Morris, PhD; and John C. McCampbell, PhD.
    Does this testify that one can be very intelligent and educated, have a scholarship in Paleotology and Uniformitarianism, yet CHOOSE to believe the Bible's revelation instead?
    Going by the writings of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and some of the posts found here, it is us, who believe in Creationism, who seem to be persecuted, not the other way round. The evolutionist accuse us of being uneducated and bigoted. That is not the case. Rather, we Creationists uphold Science, and we owe a lot of thanks to the discipline and the many scientists who have devoted their lives to make this world a better place to live.
    If you read, for example, "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcombe and Morris (a heavy and scholarly volume written for students and graduates in Paleontology and Historical Geology) with an open mind, you'll find that actually there is a kind of "limited evolution" which does not contradict the Bible. Examples include the Horse kind, where the Horse, Zebroid, Quagga and Zebra, along with the Onager, Kianger, Kiang and Ass, all may have descended from a common ancestor. The Canine family could be another example, the Dog, the Fox (Grey, Red and Artic), the Wolf, Coyote, Jackal and the Hyena, all could come from a single pair as the Bible indicates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:01 AM GMT
    JaseinOC saidI thought even Darwin stated it was just a very improbable theory.


    No, Darwin never stated that. What he did do was acknowledge, several times, that there were facets of his theories which might seem difficult to believe at the outset, but become quite convincing once you study the evidence closely.

    JaseinOC saidI think other evolutionary theories are more realistic than this one...


    I'm not sure what you mean by "other" evolutionary theories. In the 150 years since Darwin published his work, we have learned a great deal more about how evolution works, and the relevant theories and models have themselves evolved considerably as a result. Biologists do not refer to evolution theory as "Darwinism"; they call it "the modern synthesis". But the basic Darwinian concepts of common descent and natural selection are still intact, although there is a lot more to it than that.

    If, on the other hand, you really mean *competing* evolutionary theories, there have been a few in the past, such as Lamarck's theory. However, unlike the Darwinian model, those theories were found to be flawed, and have fallen by the wayside.

    JaseinOC saidScience is something that has laws and been proven... right?


    No, that is not correct. Nothing is "proven" in science. The concept of "proof" is reserved for the realm of math and pure logic. Once you get into the real world, proof is impossible. The best we have are observable, measureable and repeatable facts, and testable explanations of those facts. The former are called laws, and the latter are called theories. Theories do not become laws; laws are part of theories. For instance, the law of gravity is part of gravitational theory. Both are subject to change, pending new information. Newton's laws certainly seemed absolute... until Einstein came around.

    JaseinOC saidEvolution and Creationism are both theories and require some belief and faith for both sides... not a science.


    Nope. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not something one believes in; you either accept it or you don't after evaluating the evidence. There are clear ways in which evolution could be shown to be false. Since no one has accomplished that in 150 years, you would definitely win a Nobel prize if you were to do so.

    Creationism is an idea, not a scientific theory. It offers no objective means of testing or falsification. It requires assumptions which haven't been and cannot be demonstrated. Whenever creationists DO make testable claims, and those claims are tested and debunked, creationists ignore the results.

    Furthermore, the phrase "both sides" is misleading. The issue here is not "evolution versus creationism". It's science versus the VAST array of alternative ways of talking about the world. There are many, many different stories of where we come from. If scientific standards are to be dispensed with, should we not teach them all? I think a social studies class would be more appropriate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:14 AM GMT
    Darwin told us how.

    We still don't know why.

    Apologies for the hippy dippy shit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:21 AM GMT
    In case I'm over running the space allocated in my post above, I also would like to add that David Puttman wrote a blog about organ transplants and other outstanding feats in Medicine. I fully agree with Puttman. Science has come a long way in improving our health. But wait! Isn't evolution about the survival of the fittest? This means then, according to Darwin, that those species which are weaker will die out as the stronger fights to survive. Is not that evolution?
    But the very testimony of Puttman teaches the opposite! According to Darwin, the weak, the sick and the infirm should be allowed to die. That is what evolution is about! But we build hospitals, we learn everything about the human body and how it functions, we train doctors, surgeons and other related scientists to reverse this evolutionary effect, so not only are we restored to health, but we can beget children and pass on our genes. That is not evolution! Darwinism demands the opposite, for the weak to die out. Walk into any operating theatre and you will see surgeons wash their hands thoroughly before operating. Where did this originate? None other than from the book of Numbers, where it says that if a dead body is touched, one must wash not only his hands, but bathe fully and wash and dry his clothes.
    Numbers, chapter 19.
    The Bible is right up there with modern science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:35 AM GMT
    Any technology, such as modern medicine, offers up both a good and bad side. The technology is really neither good nor bad, but, just is. Most technology can be used in a variety of ways.

    Does technology / modern medicine short circuit natural selection / survival of the fittest? Yes, it does. That doesn't disprove the scientific theory of evolution which has held to ongoing scrutiny for many decades.

    Evolution happens, though, even when it give folks the gift of life. Natural adaptation still occurs. The weaker survive, however, as well.

    Ultimately, technology allows us to FIX the underlying problems with the weaker, and, to some degree, would allow us to evolve more quickly.

    The World is mostly covered by water. Now, using technology, let's say we give humans the ability to live in water. We've created a whole new species. At that point, we've gained the ability to evolve ourselves (we pretty much have it now). Imagine the forthcoming integration of man and machine. It's just a matter of time. Imagine the forthcoming use of cloning to grow new body parts and so on. Bigger, stronger, faster...The Bionic Man. None of which invalidates evolution as the poster above would wish us to believe. If anything, I think, it VALIDATES evolution when we gain the ability to selectively evolve ourselves.

    Selective-breeding has been going on for a VERY LONG time.

    Nonetheless, evolution and time, roll along doing their things. Just because modern technology allows us to help the weaker / afflicted folks doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Evolution still hums along. It does.

    Unlike false belief systems (pick your flavor), evolution holds up to scientific examination, and critical thinking. There is a preponderance of evidence that the theory is correct. Does that not mean a theory cannot be wrong? No. However, over 1000s of years, false belief systems haven't offered up anything that provides a preponderance of evidence of their existence. Instead they push an agenda of myth, fable, stories, based upon an indoctrination / brain washing from a very early age. Hank says it's so, so it must be. That's not science, nor theory, but...myth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:42 AM GMT
    NotThatOld said Isn't evolution about the survival of the fittest? This means then, according to Darwin, that those species which are weaker will die out as the stronger fights to survive. Is not that evolution?.


    No, that isn't what evolution, more specifically natural selection, is about. That is the common straw man argument that Creationist often drag out when they argue against Evolution though.

    Though I disagree with Creationism, I have no fundamental issue with people believing in it. What I do take issue with is the demand that it be taught in Science classes as an alternative to Evolution. Creationism is not science and it if it going to be taught it should be taught in the proper context I think metaphysics or religious studies would be a far better place for it.

    Edit: on second thought metaphysics might not be the best place for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:43 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidIn case I'm over running the space allocated in my post above, I also would like to add that David Puttman wrote a blog about organ transplants and other outstanding feats in Medicine. I fully agree with Puttman. Science has come a long way in improving our health. But wait! Isn't evolution about the survival of the fittest? This means then, according to Darwin, that those species which are weaker will die out as the stronger fights to survive. Is not that evolution?
    But the very testimony of Puttman teaches the opposite! According to Darwin, the weak, the sick and the infirm should be allowed to die. That is what evolution is about! But we build hospitals, we learn everything about the human body and how it functions, we train doctors, surgeons and other related scientists to reverse this evolutionary effect, so not only are we restored to health, but we can beget children and pass on our genes. That is not evolution! Darwinism demands the opposite, for the weak to die out. Walk into any operating theatre and you will see surgeons wash their hands thoroughly before operating. Where did this originate? None other than from the book of Numbers, where it says that if a dead body is touched, one must wash not only his hands, but bathe fully and wash and dry his clothes.
    Numbers, chapter 19.
    The Bible is right up there with modern science.


    But of corse, that would be a stupid thing to do. Evolution handed us a massive skull to house a massive brain. And our brain, not our bodies, is why we are at the top of the food chain. To not use our brains for wonderful things like organ transplants would turn our backs on our evolutionary heritage.

    And besides, even in strict evolutionary terms, people who have organ transplants tend to be way passed the age where breading starts to happen. There is a reason we are at peak health when our dicks start shooting sperm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:48 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidIn case I'm over running the space allocated in my post above, I also would like to add that David Puttman wrote a blog about organ transplants and other outstanding feats in Medicine. I fully agree with Puttman. Science has come a long way in improving our health. But wait! Isn't evolution about the survival of the fittest? This means then, according to Darwin, that those species which are weaker will die out as the stronger fights to survive. Is not that evolution?
    But the very testimony of Puttman teaches the opposite! According to Darwin, the weak, the sick and the infirm should be allowed to die. That is what evolution is about! But we build hospitals, we learn everything about the human body and how it functions, we train doctors, surgeons and other related scientists to reverse this evolutionary effect, so not only are we restored to health, but we can beget children and pass on our genes. That is not evolution! Darwinism demands the opposite, for the weak to die out. Walk into any operating theatre and you will see surgeons wash their hands thoroughly before operating. Where did this originate? None other than from the book of Numbers, where it says that if a dead body is touched, one must wash not only his hands, but bathe fully and wash and dry his clothes.
    Numbers, chapter 19.
    The Bible is right up there with modern science.


    Normally I would get fired up to reply to a message like this. but i know you.. sort of. I know your belief system and i know that you are not educated in this area (nothing wrong with that).

    But you are mixing various things up, applying ideas to the wrong scenerio and confusing the theories of Darwin. He would be rolling over in his grave right now.

    Understand... this is a very complex area of science. And we disrespect it when even trying to compare it to creationism... and idea which has NO scienctific data to support it.

    Ther is data and evidence to support evolution. They is NO... I repeat NO data or evidence to support that there is a god/goddess/alien deity

    That said, I ment a VERY intelligent evolutionary biologist, who teaches at a nationally respected college, who also believes in God. he has said it is not wrong or hypocritical to believe in both. I met him in a church actually.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:50 AM GMT
    NotThatOld said
    The Bible is right up there with modern science.


    WHOA... I didn't see that last quote.

    THAT... is a very ignorrant statement my friend.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 12:59 AM GMT
    For the record, "Survival of the Fittest" is not a Darwinian concept. Rather, it was coined by Herbert Spencer and his concept of "Social Darwinism". This is the man from which sprang pseudo-scientific justification for Racism and Sexism, and eugenics. This stuff is anathema to real, scientific Darwinism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 1:10 AM GMT
    NotThatOld said This means then, according to Darwin, that those species which are weaker will die out as the stronger fights to survive. Is not that evolution?


    Hmmm...

    No it dose not...it means that within a species individuals with hereditary difference from that of the general population that increase the likelihood of them to

    a) survive to an age to produce offspring

    b) produce more or 'fitter' offspring

    c) better enabled to feed, protect and nurse their offspring

    d) better equipped to compete for a mate

    Will thrive (sometimes but not always) at the expense of others within the same species and which will eventually given long enough period of time die out and replace the species from which they evolved.

    As for the bible is up there with modern science...Your example basically says.... Touching a rotting corpse makes you sick, don't touch corpses


    I'm sorry but that is not "up there" with modern germ theory



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 2:11 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidAs some of you may be aware, (and yes, I am waiting for Sedative to throw in his bit) I am a Creationist. I'll stick my neck out to say that there is nothing absurd with the idea of a six-day Creation week as narated in Genesis. And I have been around parts of the world, such as the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, Great Barrier Reef, the crater of Mt Etna (in Sicily) and the Jurassic Coast (in the UK). There is nothing I've seen at those natural wonders that caused me to lose faith in Creation.


    You can have faith in Creation without being a Creationist. There is nothing inherently atheistic about biological evolution. Most mainstream religious people do not see a conflict. Several large religious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, and the United Presbyterian Church in the USA have issued public statements acknowledging the validity of evolution theory and denouncing the teaching of creationism. Additionally, 11,848 individual members (so far) of the American Christian clergy have signed the following letter:

    Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.



    We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.


    I don't think I could put it better than that. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 2:48 AM GMT

    When we read statements from NotThatOld that get us a little taken a-back we do this, re-read the statement prefaced with the words,

    "I believe that.." and his statements abruptly snap into clearer perspective, such as

    "I believe that the Bible is right up there with modern science"


    We believe that NotThatOld is entitled to his beliefs: a matter of mutual respect as long as he is respectful of ours.

    -us
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 3:09 AM GMT
    JaseinOC saidI thought even Darwin stated it was just a very improbable theory. I think other evolutionary theories are more realistic than this one... even though I personally am not into the whole evolution idea. Science is something that has laws and been proven... right? Evolution and Creationism are both theories and require some belief and faith for both sides... not a science.


    Unless you're also ready to discredit scientific fields like Geology, Stratigraphy, Radiology, Physics, Paleontology, Genetics, Physiology, etc.

    ALL of which have given us real honest-to-goodness results, then yes, you could say Evolution was 'simply a theory'.

    What you don't seem to understand is that fields of science are interconnected intimately with each other. One can be used to give credence to another. By refuting something like the modern theories of evolution (which is NOT "darwinism", by the way), you are also saying that fully 3/4ths of science is false.

    And read Rotabilis' post. You seem to confuse 'theory' in science with 'theory' in layman's terms.

    Creationism is not considered a theory, it is merely a hypothesis that has a long history of not showing any scientifically testable and repeatable evidence.

    Please read more on what Theory means in Science, and probably about the entire scientific method as well so you'll understand why Creationism will NEVER be at par with the theories of evolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

    In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence. However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

    As for NotThatOld... sigh. If the Bible is up there with Science, stop wearing clothes of different materials already! Heathen. Start selling your daughters, buying slaves, walk on water.

    Oh and yeah. Breed some wonderful striped cattle while you're at it. And more "scientific" Bible stories. Sometimes, I really wonder if you had read your own Bible or do you just listen to preachers all day telling you about their 'proofs'?

    Ibn al-Haytham Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2009 3:17 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidDoes this testify that one can be very intelligent and educated, have a scholarship in Paleotology and Uniformitarianism, yet CHOOSE to believe the Bible's revelation instead?


    MOST people, however intelligent they might be, are knowledgeable about some things and ignorant about others. I can assemble and program a computer, but I have no idea how plastics are made or how to fly an airplane. Would you want someone who has a Nobel prize in astrophysics but who never studied medicine to operate on your heart? I don't think so.

    So, certainly, an intelligent and educated person can be a creationist. I've met several. They're still wrong. :-)

    However, I take issue with your use of the word "CHOOSE". Can we really choose what to believe? I don't think so. I can't choose to believe that pigs fly. I can consider it, I can imagine it, but I can't just make myself believe it at will. I would have to actually EXPERIENCE something persuasive (like, say, witnessing a pig flying) for my belief structure to change. Belief is not a choice; beliefs are formed (or changed) as a result of experience.

    (By the way, while Paleontology is an actual field, to my knowledge Uniformitarianism is not. It is a philosophy, or model, within the field of Geology. Modern geology incorporates a blend of Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism.)
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 15, 2009 1:00 PM GMT
    Does this testify that one can be very intelligent and educated, have a scholarship in Paleotology and Uniformitarianism, yet CHOOSE to believe the Bible's revelation instead?

    Yes, For whatever reason the people you have cited CHOOSE to believe in a false theory
    If you have been to these places and STILL Choose to believe what you believe you need to ask yourself why when faced with incontrovertible evidence that the earth is BILLIONS of years old and filled with evidence of a long line of exotic and wonderfully diverse creatures that have died out and changed over eons ... you still cling to something that has been shown to be wrong

    And don't throw in these obfuscations of the fossil evidentiary record
    The horse and the dog both have a long fossil record that can be followed and traced through the millenia
    That's why ALL academia worldwide do not place any credence in these works
    http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

    http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html

    According to Darwin, the weak, the sick and the infirm should be allowed to die. icon_confused.gif
    This is where I get off this train
    Charles Darwin NEVER SAID THIS
    This is the kind of stuff that killed 6 million people 60 years ago
    and still is used to maim and murder
    You have to go to Thomas Mathus my man
    and read his writings where DIVINE INTERVENTION made the classes and made the upper classes MORE FIT to survive
    Darwin took out the deity part of it and applied only scientific evidence
    that became natural selection

    And to try and use modern medicine as a disclaimer to evolution is seriously misguided and shows just how incorrect you are
    do you understand the long line of study that IS medicine these days and the medical literature that has brought us to where we are right now?
    Studies on
    The Cell Theory?
    The permeability of the various cells cells in our bodies? and how this has been changed over time and evolution?
    Ontogeny .... and how developing embryos go through the evolutionary process as different portions of DNA and RNA are turned on and off?
    The compatibility of tissue and cross-species use of skin.... cardiac tissue and bone?
    It's not Darwin who said people should be allowed to die
    but it's some of your misguided folk who cling to false beliefs that kill people like not Allowing Blood Transfusions
    and we still have people admitted to ERs morgues because they have shamed their families in the eyes of someone named GOD????