People reject evolution

Why do you always start these Troll Post for?

Sources please.

oh OF COURSE! if that many people believe it, it MUST be true!!!
most of the world also used to believe the earth was flat and that fire was magic...

*sharpens her claws on Kevn's wooden head*

Just proves how much propaganda the public has absorbed

Oh wow, thats so cool! So reality is based on popular belief? Lets see if I get this straight, when most of the world thousands of years ago thought the world was flat, it really was, and only after it was discovered to be a sphere that it transformed into one? Oh wait, but if it wasn't a sphere to begin with, wouldn't it have been discovered to be flat?

Ok, lets forget that hard stuff like logic. I say that if we can get most people to vote and reject gravity, which of course, is nothing but a theory, we can all fly at will?

This is way cool.

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/gravity.html

Stop making me dig this stuff up.

(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

If people are SO stupid, why do we let them pick leaders via the vote?

BTW, it was the "scientists" who insisted the Earth was flat.

Oh, stop your belly aching... sheesh! Do you have anything other than complaints to contribute? No? I'm so surprised, I mean you usually are so insightful and full of wisdom.

No it was NOT. In fact, it was scientists like Ptolemy who figured out the earth was, in fact, round.

You still spouting your nonsense about the rest of the world not accepting evolution, Kevn? I posted links to surveys that show very clearly how wrong you were on that. I guess you only accept surveys that agree with you.

"Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded.

In his book The Discovers, author Daniel Boorstin stated: ‘A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia … afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers’.1

Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’.

Lactantius
The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.

Many such historians have simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical.

Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.

Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

Later writers repeated the error
In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.

In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.

Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ — these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.

Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.

Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.)

Encyclopedias erase the myth
While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopædias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).

There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Adapted by Ian Taylor for Creation Science Association of Ontario, Feature No. 30, from the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians (ISBN 027595904X), by history professor Jeffrey Burton Russell. Summarized by Paula McKerlie. Further modified March 2004."

The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years.


boohoo, catholic church accepts evolution

Name one.

Let's see, from no mention all the way to neutrality? Woohoo! Giant steps!

Finish the quote. The important part highlighted.

The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years.

Did you just quote from someone from the Creation Science Association?

THIS Creation Science Association:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science_Association?

You expect us to take you seriously?

Come on. Come clean. You don't really mean any of this, you just like riling us up. Admit it.

Yer KILLING me.

Now you're just throwing us easily debunked bullshit to keep us busy, right?

Stupid people vote, hold office, even propose legislation on what should be taught in schools. It doesn't make them any less stupid.



Like this guy?

"The facts are simple," says Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society. "The earth is flat."

As you stand in his front yard, it is hard to argue the point. From among the Joshua trees, creosote bushes, and tumbleweeds surrounding his southern California hillside home, you have a spectacular view of the Mojave Desert. It looks as flat as a pool table. Nearly 20 miles to the west lies the small city of Lancaster; you can see right over it. Beyond Lancaster, 20 more miles as the cueball rolls, the Tehachepi Mountains rise up from the desert floor. Los Angeles is not far to the south.

Near Lancaster, you see the Rockwell International plant where the Space Shuttle was built. To the north, beyond the next hill, lies Edwards Air Force Base, where the Shuttle was tested. There, also, the Shuttle will land when it returns from orbiting the earth. (At least, that's NASA's story.)

"You can't orbit a flat earth," says Mr. Johnson. "The Space Shuttle is a joke--and a very ludicrous joke."

His soft voice carries conviction, for Charles Johnson is on the level. He believes that the main purpose of the space program is to prop up a dying myth--the myth that the earth is a globe.

Continued at http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Or did you mean some other scientist? And are you talking before or after Claudius Ptolemaeus? I'd appreciate it if you could clear that up for me. Thanks!

I Reject Rationale Thought!!!!!!! Flame Me!!!!

Most people are morons. Does that make it a good thing to be?

hmm I reject your theory about most people

When DNA mutates, it generally resuffles the information... though in some cases the result is an increase in information.

What causes this increase? Copy and duplication errors... AKA mutations. When the errors occur, some of the duplication process "stutters" meaning that one section (or more) is repeated in the DNA string. Example: 1234 is the "string" but the stutter effect would result in something like this: 12334
The copy errors result in changes to the information... so 1234 could become 1472. Overall, there is no loss of information, as the loss of the 3 is offset by the gain of the 7.

Yes, that is excessively simplified, but it is still an accurate example. Using your own example of the Strep pneumo, the DNA sections that tell it to produce the protein were altered. Now it tells it to do something other than produce a protein, but the same amount of information is still there.


The entire "mutations == loss of information" garbage was debunked years ago... why bother repeating something known to be untrue?

What else does Kevn have?

Wrong! ALL people are morons!