For those willing to consider a few facts about science and religion, evolutionary theory has never produced evidence of one species turning to another. True enough that there are adaptations within a species (evidence of a marvelous design), but never has science observed a cat turning into a dog for example. It just doesn’t happen, yet science claims that “one day” we will observe it.

and on and on and on…

He is making a straw man argument. He proposes a mish mash of sillyness and claims that science tells us …

But no scientist has ever said a cat would turn into a dog. That could not happen and has never been proposed by any evolutionist (which means scientist who studies evolution.,).

Actually language has been misused from the get go. Evolution is a fact. What Darwin did was to explain how it wored
There were, in fact, many theories about evolution being developed in the 19th century but Darwin’s was based on extensive observation of both biological and geological phenomenon.

Darwin’s book that set society on its heels was title “The Origin of the Species” and that’s what he discussed and explained. I suggest you who so adamantly don’t “believe in evolution” read Darwin’s book (which is on line) which is so well written that it is actually used in some Literature classes.

Either read that or read Mayr’s book “What Evolution Is”. Mayr’s book is rather difficult but does not presuppose any knowledge or belief. In fact he suggests that it would be suitable for those who don’t “believe in evolution” so that they can argue sensibly.

And no, spewing a lot of verbiage about your perverted view of the Bible does not have any weight in arguing against evolution.

Actually, the problem… and the amazing thing… is that they are able to ‘think’ like that without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

1. Catholics had learned some lessons from messing with Galileo and Copernicus, and were reading the bible a bit more deeply before kindling the stakes these days. The church does not believe the bible is meant to be taken literally, but requires knowledge of history, the cultures that wrote the bible at the time, etc. Of course the pope also has a direct bat phone to god, so there are still problems at times.
2. He and some catholic scholars felt Genesis could be interpreted to actually prove evolution ocurred. Biblical humans were running around naked, just eating fruits that fell off trees, and were doing no work or using tools in any fashion while in Eden. So until they ate the fruit of the “tree of knowlege of good and evil”, they basically lived a lot like really dumb primates. The priest likened eating the apple to starting the process of evolution into thinking humans, who were now capable of forming and using tools, hunting, farming, and making clothes. They also left Eden (the origin point of our species in Africa, it turns out for the guy looking for “proof of the bible in scientific discoveries”)and explored the earth, where they further evolved to adapt to differences in climate.

The final thing the priest noted was that evolution only ocurred because Eve insisted on dragging a resisting and clueless Adam primate to finally evolve. But she evolved first. Despite that, I still left the church due to their poor treatment of women in both human and spiritual rights. But I still have to award a few points for their capability to use reason in at least this area, compared to other fundamentalists. This is my first-ever posting, so I hope this is useful to someone.

What on earth makes you believe the EPA has had ANY commitment to clean up Superfund cites during the last 8 years? And, do you really think it’s irrelevant that people running what should be a science-based department believe in creation? I think their religious beliefs is part of the reason they’re incompetent and unwilling to do their civic duties.

These ad hominen round-and-round arguments just pit angry atheists against angry believers and produce nothing of lasting value.

Well stated, sir/madamme! Very well stated. And I’m gald to know that I am not alone in having to deal with this ‘tactic’. Now I have a new theme to give it. Thanks! :)

You can saddle up that three day old, rotten, fly blown corpse and ride it to Heaven if you like, just keep your fantasies out of my government and classroom.

The guy who thinks a 2000-year old collection of stories written by multiple authors is the last authority on current geo-political conflict thinks we need to do a little research and engage in “critical thinking.”

Okay, that’s just hilarious. These people are simply amazing!

An unintentional look at the tortured and confused mind of a religious fundamentalist: He calls us “hypocritical” for buying Christmas presents, but then offers that “real Christians” don’t observe the holiday. Hey stupid: if we are not “real Christians” like you are, then how can we be “hypocritical” for buying presents?

That’s a gross distortion. There are scores of fossil evidence showing “bridge” characteristics displayed between one form and another – feathers on dinosours, feet and rudimentary lungs on fish; even the ability of higher primates to make and use rudimentary tools.

The defenders of this man’s thinking would be 180 degrees opposite in their opinion if this were a follower of Islam presenting a mix of science and Islamic religion. Or any other religion aside from christianity. Defense of this kind of mixture of policy and religion ONLY occurs because the defending person is a believer in that religion.

“Evolution is just a theory. Another interesting theory is intelligent design. Now I personally believe the Bible is the word of God and the Bible says He created the world in 6 days and then he took a nap.”

In fact I would imagine Obama would say something similar. Although he would put it with more eloquence and hopefully not seem so awkwardly reluctant as Bush to accept the theory of Evolution