If you believe in something strong enough it doesn’t make it true. If you can look at evidence and say it is not there you can turn your back reality. But if you work hard to make something come true your dream can become the worlds nightmare. Stop the Religious fundamentalist on both sides for killing us all.

Man! I don't see any difference between these so-called "Christians" and you high-on-science fools.

One refers only to the parts of the Bible that suites his taste, the other ignores phenomena soothe his ego going against the very principles of science effectively turning it into religious dogma.

You say: what do you mean? I say: I can tell you nothing that hasn’t been said before on the subject. If you pulled your heads out of your respective rears and opened your eyes, you would realize as I did that faith and science don’t contradict but rather complement each other.

Kory writes, "I say: I can tell you nothing that hasn’t been said before on the subject" So why does he bother to comment. "faith and science don’t contradict but rather complement each other" he states. How does the religious view that the earth is 6000 years old complement the scientific view that it is 4 Billion plus. I suppose we'll never know what the glib Doszply really thinks, he's two clever by half, and that makes him a . . .

So let me see if I got this right. I will pinch my nose and pretend I'm a christian fundamentalist:

"Sirs, your exhibit offers compelling evidence against my argument. Therefore, I demand you do the right thing and bury your evidence, as god gave me the right to deceive the public, whereas I grant myself the god-given right to deny your right to present nature's own evidence to the public".

"Televangelists, on TV (which uses quantum mechanic principles), using satellite communications, have assured me science is wrong".

All religions have ever brought us are inequality, war and lynchings.

There are new points being made in this debate on a regular basis but they are being made in laboratories, more than on political discussion boards.

For instance, a team of scientists recently reported a successful attempt to back engineer a primitive mouse, by recombining two modern genes that developed by splitting off from an earlier gene. There by creating a mouse with a more primitive brain structure than is found in any modern mouse. Serious points in the evolutionary side of the debate.

The fantasy dependent group, stuck with a modern interpretation of things written before science existed, must ignore and hide the evidence, because they have nothing new to say.

So it is true to say the fundies have nothing new to add to the debate but that is not at all true for the evolutionists.

The debate will end when the religionists quit pretending that they have any knowledge regarding the physical universe.

Kory, if the fundamentalist view were truth, there would be no evidence to hide. Would there?

The need to hide the evidence, once again demonstrates the falsehood and irrationality of the fundamentalist position.

This inability to deal with concrete reality and the sneaky dishonest responses to physical evidence, reflect very badly on all of your self serving beliefs.

I've got an idea. We could hide the evangelicals God. Oh that's right it's already well hidden, in fact there is no evidence at all that it even exists.

They seek him here. They seek him there. Those Christies seek him everywhere. Is he in Heaven? Or is he in Hell? That damned elusive Emmanuel.

Ah... 'Creation Science' - methodology

1: Form views. 2: Do not scrutinise views. 3: When views are falsified, hide the evidence.

"If you pulled your heads out of your respective rears and opened your eyes, you would realize as I did that faith and science don’t contradict but rather complement each other."

No. Or rather 'necessarily, not necessarily'. If religion is taken to be expressing propositions at all - that is to say, if the propositions aren't just all a matter of cooing and ooing - then those propositions are subject to falsification. The physical ones bound up with christianity have been falsified ages ago, but that's just cause physics advanced more suddenly and more quickly than most other fields of learning. We have now falsified the biology of the bible, and this is only just (apparently!) starting to seep through to the general public.

But we have also falsified the ethics of the bible - neither the ethical systems or the metaphysics they are based on are utilised by anyone doing serious work in the field of ethics, because they have long been known to be incoherent. We are on the verge - or seem to be - of a comprehensive, physicalist understanding of the mental which - if achieved - reveals as one of it's self-evident inferences the impossibility or at least absurdity of a transcendental mind. 'God' does not exist, and never did. You may not have noticed but we haven't been using the political or jurisprudential views expressed in the old testament since the late middle ages.

For 'religion' to retain any semblance of cohesion it must either drop its claim to truth, in which case it is irrelevant; or it must drop its claim to be making propositions, in which case it is just emotive noise; or it must drop all the propositions which are demonstrably false - there is no invisible mind acting through force of will at a distance outside of space and time, human beings were not created - specially or otherwise, there are no such things as 'souls' as conceived in the bible, people do not walk on water nor do they get ressurected from the dead, there is no afterlife, an act which does not harm a person be it oneself or another directly or indirectly cannot be wrong and is inelligible for punishment and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Open you eyes. Your religion is cant and superstition and mind-rubbish you imbibed as an infant. Join us in reality.

What I am sick and tired of is the idea that there are actually "both sides" of this issue. There are NOT always two sides to an issue, particularly to the "issue" of whether or not evidence of earlier hominid forms ACTUALLY EXIST. In this case, there is only reality and those denying it. Religion seems to function in society as an excuse to get away with what would otherwise be considered insane. If a bunch of people ran down the street in the middle of a clear sunny day claimin that the sky is really black, they would be considered insane (if it was not the case that they were suddenly stricken blind). But throw 'god' into the equation and suddently they have a legitimate "argument" thus creating "two sides" to an otherwise undeniable truth. Bush claimed that god told him to go to war with Iraq. Had he claimed that his invisible friend Bob told him to go to war, he'd find himeslf in a straight jacket. But no, since its god we're talking about, something perhaps more elusive and unprovable than an imaginary friend, it is acceptable.

I have nothing against spirituality. But dogmatism to this degree is so horrible.

I felt compelled to comment on your post because while reading it, I was struck with a (hopefully) irrational image that religious zealots would one day go so far as to destroy such evidence as Leakey's amazing colleciton of homonid remains. It wouldn't make it go away, this past we grasp at. Anyway, I hope something like that never happens.

I'm so tired of the evolution argument. (sigh)

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060810evorank.html

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower. Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say. “American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.