A Man/Woman-On-Street Survey I Would Love to See

How are you defining "evolutionary"? And why are you changing the subject? Joe

Do you have any references for testable research on non-evolutionary snake origin theories? timothya

Something that can actually be tested- reproducibility would be a good thing. Joe

what would you read to a sensible explanation of the evolutionary origins of snakes? timothya

timothya- If I want nonsensical BS I will read the "scientific" literature on the evolutionary origins of snakes. Joe

GilDodgen posted this: "Obviously, I’m not quoting exactly, but the entire program was infested with regularly introduced and completely unsubstantiated declarations of the creative powers of “evolution,” with absolutely no evidence or justification, or even what “evolution” means in terms of the mechanisms and probabilities involved." If you want an exegesis on the evolutionary origins of snakes, read the scientific literature. If you want the potted version, watch a reputable TV channel. If you want reinforcement of your intellectual prejudices, buy a dog. timothya

GilDodgen, "Obviously, I’m not quoting exactly, but the entire program was infested with regularly introduced and completely unsubstantiated declarations of the creative powers of “evolution,” with absolutely no evidence or justification, or even what “evolution” means in terms of the mechanisms and probabilities involved." perhaps enforcement of time limit prohibit evidence and explain presentations that are many and long. program become all day long, no? ha ha sergio sergiomendes

timothya, I can tell you. The other night I was watching a TV show about snakes on one of the nature channels. It was absolutely fascinating. Snakes are indeed very interesting creatures. At least every few minutes the narrator made comments like: "Then evolution produced this feature. This other feature was created by evolution because it had a survival advantage. The snake's venom evolved from a less-toxic precursor venom from a previous species." Obviously, I'm not quoting exactly, but the entire program was infested with regularly introduced and completely unsubstantiated declarations of the creative powers of "evolution," with absolutely no evidence or justification, or even what "evolution" means in terms of the mechanisms and probabilities involved. This kind of thing is passed off as "science" on a regular basis in the popular media, when, in fact, it is purely unjustified speculation -- the antithesis of legitimate science. GilDodgen

Blue_Savannah said this: "So many people who believe darwinism is a fact are clueless as to what it really entails….yet they staunchly DEFEND it. Who are these clueless people? How many of them are there that you know of? What does it really entail? Are you just making this up? But of course the OP is absolutely right. timothya

There is indeed a communicative barrier in this conversation about evolution, creation and intelligent design. An attempt to address it can be found here - TEDxLCC - "The Ocean of Courage": Facing the Challenge of Evolution, Creation and Intelligent Design Gregory

I reckon this probably cuts both ways Gil -- people on both sides are ignorant, but will be swayed by their cultural surroundings. Thus saturating the culture with darwinTV will convert the ignorant masses to Darwinism, and ChristianTV will convert the ignorant masses to Churchism. Does Europe live in the former and the USA in the latter? Christian-apologetics.org

Blue_Savannah, "They accept it without question because they are told to by the media and by teachers/professors who were told to accept it without question as well." sad too is belief with no question to eat this, wear that, go here or there from companies to get rich, also filosofía and religion no permitting reason and examination evidence. sergio sergiomendes

Its like Mark Twain once said, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" THEMAYAN

You're absolutely right Gil. So many people who believe darwinism is a fact are clueless as to what it really entails....yet they staunchly DEFEND it. They accept it without question because they are told to by the media and by teachers/professors who were told to accept it without question as well. I can't count the number of times a darwin-defender has cited 'evidence' that has since been refuted (e.g Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, peppered moth, junk dna, etc.) Blue_Savannah

When one looks back at the opinions shared by the 20th century's leading lights -- the following merely being a well-put elucidation of what has been commonly held -- there can be little wonder that so many of the events that the period marked were so irretrievably dismal.

That man is but the product of natural causes; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system; that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. --Bertrand Russell

jstanley01

I'm neither optimist nor pessimist; I'm a realist. However, the fact that Darwinian orthodoxy and indoctrination has actually convinced people with high IQs and Ph.Ds in academe that random errors filtered by natural selection, given enough time, can transform a microbe into Mozart, gives me little hope that rationality or evidence can prevail among such people. My minimally residual optimism comes from the fact that such transparently stupid ideas appear to be held mainly by people who have gone to graduate school, which seems to perform a lobotomy on otherwise perfectly useful brains. I really would be interested to see the results of my proposed survey. I could be completely wrong, and might be pleasantly surprised. GilDodgen

GilDodgen, "Those of us who are involved in this entire discussion (whether ID proponents or academic Darwinists) should recognize that, percentage-wise, almost no one has the faintest idea what we are talking about. Furthermore, they don’t give a damn." is no good lead to discouragement, no? must always express attitude optimistic, yes? for triumph for God in end, yes? sergio sergiomendes