Do you treat atheist like second class citizens?

Wow, you evolutionist really do eat your own. So that's what they mean about the "survival of the fittest?" Not sure how a communist makes a bad scientist. It would be hard for religion to get in his way, wouldn't it?

This conflagration going on in the evolutionary community seems to be much larger then you let on. There was a quote that caught my eye in the scientific magazine "discovery" at the risk of now sending said mag to red55 evolutionary purgatory along with many noted evolutionist now resting uncomfortable there, here goes:

"Evolution is not only under attack by fundamental Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientist." Paleontologist Niles Eldredge a prominent evolutionist made this statement: "the doubt that has infiltrated the previous smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions. The lack of total agreement even within the warring camps, sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists."

Robert Jastrow made this observation: "To their chagrin [scientist] has no clear cut answer, because chemist have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientist do not know how that happened."

Just something for the masses to consider. I realize red, you have long committed your ancestry to the tadpoles. Of course there is always a chance you could evolve. Rib-it.

 

So what you are presenting is a few possibly out of context quotes? And that is supposed to replace pounds of peer reviewed material?

 

My point is there is no "simple cell."

This 'Peer review material," you speak of would be as impressive, as say, the "peer review material" coming from the Religious community. I understand they've written enough books to fill a few museums as well.

 

did the magazine forget to pluralize "scientists"?

also that is really, really not true. evolution is as true and real as gravity. end of story. there is no use arguing with anyone about it because the arguments against it are faith based.

 

i looked up that quote, it is 30 years old, and was about exactly what non-idiots knew it was about, the exact mechanisms of evolution, not whether evolution happens. here is the rest of the quote:

"Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare"

so again, these scientists were arguing evolution in the same sense that baseball stat-heads argue over baseball. they are not arguing that baseball doesnt exist. they are arguing over specifics point about it.

like i said anti-evolutionists are 100% religious morons. let me say that again: 100%.

 

Dang it Martin, why didn't you just come out and say that to begin with. Now you tell me, "that is really, really not true."

 

i guess. i dont follow what you are saying, amigo.

all you need to know is that evolution is a done deal, dude. if you would like we can take the same side on global warming sometime. but this one is over, bro.

 

That's because "math is the universal language of truth."

 

right, still not following your points.

my point is clear, you cant believe reality because you have faith in an opposing viewpoint. and faith, by nature, is irrational. so you cant be convinced. argument over.