tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post116584699030412107..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Does Science Invalidate Religious Faith?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166206280001835202006-12-15T13:11:00.000-05:002006-12-15T13:11:00.000-05:00rich - catholics follow the catholic magesterium. ...rich - catholics follow the catholic magesterium. Whenever you speak to a catholic they will quote to you the catholic catechism. That's why catholics got crushed by the reformation. I don't consider catholics to be Christians. They'er synergist and the against Sola Scripture and Sola Fide. There's a big difference between catholicism and reformed Christianity. Yet you don't seem to understand the differences and make claims based on nothing but your immagination.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166036118668916002006-12-13T13:55:00.000-05:002006-12-13T13:55:00.000-05:00tommy that depends on who you're talking about. So...tommy that depends on who you're talking about. Some people have very hairy limbs and it keeps them warm. So your arguement isn't scientific according to medical science and is illogical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166035564174173462006-12-13T13:46:00.000-05:002006-12-13T13:46:00.000-05:00Yeah, try going outside next time in the cold (pri...Yeah, try going outside next time in the cold (private area of course) and see how well that body hair of yours keeps you warm Neo.<BR/><BR/>And I wasn't talking about eyelashes or the hair on your head, I was talking about the hair on your limbs.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166033033244386512006-12-13T13:03:00.000-05:002006-12-13T13:03:00.000-05:00According to Medical Science -The hair on our head...According to Medical Science -<BR/><BR/>The hair on our heads isn't just there for looks. It keeps us warm by preserving heat. The hair in the nose, ears, and around the eyes protects these sensitive areas from dust and other small particles. Eyebrows and eyelashes protect eyes by decreasing the amount of light and particles that go into them. The fine hair that covers the body provides warmth and protects the skin. Hair also cushions the body against injury.<BR/><BR/>Human hair consists of the hair shaft, which projects from the skin's surface, and the root, a soft thickened bulb at the base of the hair embedded in the skin. The root ends in the hair bulb, which sits in a sac-like pit in the skin called the follicle, from which the hair grows.<BR/><BR/>At the bottom of the follicle is the papilla, where hair growth actually takes place. The papilla contains an artery that nourishes the root of the hair. As cells multiply and produce keratin to harden the structure, they're pushed up the follicle and through the skin's surface as a shaft of hair. Each hair has three layers: the medulla at the center, which is soft; the cortex, which surrounds the medulla and is the main part of the hair; and the cuticle, the hard outer layer that protects the shaft.<BR/><BR/>Hair grows by forming new cells at the base of the root. These cells multiply to form a rod of tissue in the skin. The rods of cells move upward through the skin as new cells form beneath them. As they move up, they're cut off from their supply of nourishment and start to form a hard protein called keratin in a process called keratinization. As this process occurs, the hair cells die. The dead cells and keratin form the shaft of the hair.<BR/><BR/>Each hair grows about ¼ inch (about 6 millimeters) every month and keeps on growing for up to 6 years. The hair then falls out and another grows in its place. The length of a person's hair depends on the length of the growing phase of the follicle. Follicles are active for 2 to 6 years; they rest for about 3 months after that. A person becomes bald if the scalp follicles become inactive and no longer produce new hair. Thick hair grows out of large follicles; narrow follicles produce thin hair.<BR/><BR/>The color of a person's hair is determined by the amount and distribution of melanin in the cortex of each hair (the same melanin that's found in the epidermis). Hair also contains a yellow-red pigment; people who have blonde or red hair have only a small amount of melanin in their hair. Hair becomes gray when people age because pigment no longer forms.<BR/><BR/>Obviously you have nothing since you choose to make such absurd statements. If that's the best you got and that's what you put faith in it's sad you call yourself open minded. You show you're decieved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166031861971977452006-12-13T12:44:00.000-05:002006-12-13T12:44:00.000-05:00Neo, I will ask you the same question I asked Thom...Neo, I will ask you the same question I asked Thomas. If God made us, then why did God give us useless body hair? And furthermore, why would God design mammals so that some lived on land and some lived in the water?<BR/><BR/>The fossil record and the preponderance of the evidence make it clear that humans and apes derived from a common ancestor, and that our ancestors had more body hair that was thick enough to offer protection from the cold. Over the millenia, through natural selection, our body hair diminished to the extent that it is now vestigial. And the fact that there are mammals that live on land and mammals that live in water means that land and sea mammals have a common ancestor, as demonstrated by the fossil record.<BR/><BR/>Stop confining your mental universe to a "holy" book put together by Hewbrew priests 2,500 years ago.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166030264683949162006-12-13T12:17:00.000-05:002006-12-13T12:17:00.000-05:00Martin it's interesting how you really tare into p...Martin it's interesting how you really tare into people and tell them that the evidence is out there. If you really had any evidence for evolution you could easily post a lot of facts on evolution instead of threatening to punch someone in the face. Your behavior only helps to strengthen the case for Christianity. Since thomas4881 did post a lot of evidence real fast that is logical and you coulden't refute it. The best you could do is threaten to punch that guys face in and call him a lot of filthy words. Is that what you call being "open minded". If so it's a lot better to be closed minded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166030117203341482006-12-13T12:15:00.000-05:002006-12-13T12:15:00.000-05:00rich: Christians believe that Jesus offers the onl...rich: Christians believe that Jesus offers the only path to salvation, and that it is only possible because of him.<BR/><BR/>Rich that's weird since you think Mormons, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventist, Baptist, Jehova's witness are all Christians. Yet none of them believe the same way.<BR/><BR/>Rich the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ will ACCEPT YOU! You DON'T accept Jesus Christ. Faith is gift of God given by God's grace to who God chooses to give it. Every person in the Bible who was CHOSEN by God was never given the choice to be Justified. Justified people such as the Hebrews were given a choice to be obedient and seperated from sin. You should know what you're talking about before stating what you think the Bible teaches. You presumptions show you don't know what the Bible teaches very well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165979481376794682006-12-12T22:11:00.000-05:002006-12-12T22:11:00.000-05:00Tommy, haven’t you heard? God works in mysteriou...Tommy, haven’t you heard? God works in mysterious ways! <BR/><BR/>-Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But don’t worry. Even though my own book tells me I cannot hope to understand, I KNOW the right things to think and the correct way to worship. And that vast majority out there that belongs to different sects and different religions, and all those untold billions who lived and worshiped multiple gods or the sun or whatever before my group came along were all wrong. I have to go stick my head back into the sand now. Bye!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165974220345509662006-12-12T20:43:00.000-05:002006-12-12T20:43:00.000-05:00Thomas, why would God create a vast and infinite u...Thomas, why would God create a vast and infinite universe and then act as the personal tribal deity to a confederation of semi-nomadic tribes living in a small patch of hardscrabble land in the Middle East? Does that make any sense to you?<BR/><BR/>With respect to evolution, why would God make humans with body hair? The hair on our limbs do not provide us with any protection from the cold and is essentially useless. If we were created by an intelligent designer, why would that designer give us useless body hair? Ever think about that?Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165967660566422132006-12-12T18:54:00.000-05:002006-12-12T18:54:00.000-05:00Thomas, you're an assclown who is simply making a ...Thomas, you're an assclown who is simply making a flaming fool of himself. In response to this statement:<BR/><BR/><I>Your claim that every single leading Biologist has proven evolution isn't a fact. Not every single scientist is an evolutionist. Not to mention science itself isn't infallable. Also, those scientist woulden't all be in agreement with eachother on how evolution happens to occur. So you put your faith that those scientist are right when they all don't agree. They'er fallable, they haven't proven evolution happens. If evolution happened in the magnitude claimed it would easily be proveable and observed. The issue is you put faith in their literature. You put faith in fallable literature written by a few fallable authors with bad reaserch.</I><BR/><BR/>There isn't a word in the English language for just how stupid you are. You can't even spell research, yet you think you know more about how science works than people who do.<BR/><BR/>Scientists <I>are</I> fallible, godtard, that is why the practice of <I>peer review</I> exists. Findings are published and then checked independently by other scientists to see if their results can be independently validated. Only when they can be is the research accepted by the scientific community.<BR/><BR/>Being stupider than a bag full of hammers (indeed, I suspect if a bag full of hammers were dropped on your head, you wouldn't feel it), you are ignorant of this process.<BR/><BR/>You declare evolution is based on "bad research", but you're just talking shit. You don't back that claim up (because the research supporting evolution is some of the best in all the sciences), but, naturally, you demand proof of evolution from us. We have, of course, provided it, as has the entire scientific field for the last century and a half. Did you read any of the pages we linked you to? Of course not. And you have the gall to call us dishonest, for which you deserve to be punched in the mouth. Can you name <I><B>one</B></I> of these scientists you say dissents from the mainstream regarding evolution? Can you name a peer-reviewed paper they've published debunking evolution? No you can't. Because those papers don't exist. <BR/><BR/>And Christians wonder why people think they're just so <B>STUPID!</B>Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165961435140735452006-12-12T17:10:00.000-05:002006-12-12T17:10:00.000-05:00John,Either Thomas is a sock puppet or illiterate....John,<BR/><BR/>Either Thomas is a sock puppet or illiterate.<BR/><BR/>Thomas,<BR/><BR/><I>Evolution : Genesis<BR/>1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun<BR/>2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land<BR/><BR/>Daniel the Bible doesen't teach most of that. The Bible says first there was water then dry land. </I><BR/><BR/>You got it bass-ackwards you imbecile. The left-side column is scientific, the right-side column is ancient myth.<BR/><BR/><I>science hasen't proven those things you claim.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure. Just put your hands over your ears and bury your head in the sand and keep waiting on a Magic Man to reappear in the sky.<BR/><BR/><I>You are thinking of evolution. Evolution = science is false.</I><BR/><BR/>Evolution equals 'science is false'? That makes no sense grammatically. Exactly what are you proposing? That "Evolution = false science"?<BR/><BR/>Man, I guess you ought to drive down here and tell all of my colleagues in the biology department that all of their work and findings are false. They'd probably be relieved to know.<BR/><BR/>The pesky damned thing about us scientists, though, is that we're all from Missouri -- we all want you to show us.<BR/><BR/>So...I'll not hold my breath and wait for you to appear on a university campus and go in and correct scientists' research findings. [snickers]<BR/><BR/><I>Science is fallable.</I><BR/><BR/>Human beings make mistakes. So? You think your book was shat from the heavens? Hardly. Your book is the product of retrofitting a lot of textual variations [mistakes] to make a story that lines up with tradition.<BR/><BR/><I>Those are theorys that scientist disagree on.</I><BR/><BR/>'There are'? Is that what you meant?<BR/><BR/>Okay, so in applying this same logic to Christianity, because Christians disagree on theology, does this mean that it's all a load of bull?<BR/><BR/><I>You have to do better than that since it's so easy to be extremely scepticle about the pressumptions put forth by the fallable books you've read that you put faith in.</I><BR/><BR/>Right, right, cause it's really hard to be skeptical about putting faith in books that have flying men, and talking serpents, and boats with all of earth's animals on board, and floating axe heads, and "Joshua's long day" and.....<BR/><BR/>It's so hard to doubt that bunch of nonsense.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165959747197853212006-12-12T16:42:00.000-05:002006-12-12T16:42:00.000-05:00Rich said:Well John, I would like to say that chri...Rich said:<BR/><BR/>Well John, I would like to say that christians don't downplay science, but fact is they are against each other alot. <BR/><BR/>Rich that's entirely untrue. Scientist aren't all in agreement over the things you claim are facts. Science is fallable. You and others here operate with the presupposition that evolution = science. That is entirely untrue and dishonest of you.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165959627069518042006-12-12T16:40:00.000-05:002006-12-12T16:40:00.000-05:00daniel - science hasen't proven those things you c...daniel - science hasen't proven those things you claim. You are thinking of evolution. Evolution = science is false. Science is fallable. Those are theorys that scientist disagree on. You have to do better than that since it's so easy to be extremely scepticle about the pressumptions put forth by the fallable books you've read that you put faith in.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165959472331423102006-12-12T16:37:00.000-05:002006-12-12T16:37:00.000-05:00daniel said:Evolution : Genesis1) Sun before earth...daniel said:<BR/><BR/>Evolution : Genesis<BR/>1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun<BR/>2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land<BR/><BR/>Daniel the Bible doesen't teach most of that. The Bible says first there was water then dry land. <BR/><BR/>Genesis 1:9 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.<BR/><BR/>So your entire list of things isn't what the Bible says in Genesis 1.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165956342961038762006-12-12T15:45:00.000-05:002006-12-12T15:45:00.000-05:00PS: Light and heat aren't always the same thing. ...PS: Light and heat aren't always the same thing. Without the sun the earth would be close to 3K, not to mention the fact that light has to come from SOMEWHEREnsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165956279409878472006-12-12T15:44:00.000-05:002006-12-12T15:44:00.000-05:00thomas,if only you'd kept reading: 14 And God said...thomas,<BR/><BR/>if only you'd kept reading:<BR/><I> 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you call Answers in Genesis "anti-christian"? "fallable...bad research"? See here:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp" REL="nofollow">AiG</A><BR/><BR/>You said you think there is no problem for creationism vs. evolution...all of the following have been shown as wrong.<BR/><BR/>Evolution : Genesis<BR/>1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun<BR/>2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land<BR/>3) Atmosphere before sea : Sea before atmosphere<BR/>4) Sun before light on earth : Light on earth before sun<BR/>5) Stars before earth : Earth before stars<BR/>6) Earth at same time as planets : Earth before other planets<BR/>7) Sea creatures before land plants : Land plants before sea creatures<BR/>8) Earthworms before starfish : Starfish before earthworms<BR/>9) Land animals before trees : Trees before land animals<BR/>10) Death before man : Man before death<BR/>11) Thorns and thistles before man : Man before thorns and thistles<BR/>12) TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) : Man before TB pathogens and cancer<BR/>13) Reptiles before birds : Birds before reptiles<BR/>14) Land mammals before whales : Whales before land animals<BR/>15) Simple plants before fruit trees : Fruit trees before other plants*<BR/>16) Insects before mammals : Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”*<BR/>17) Land mammals before bats : Bats before land animals<BR/>18) Dinosaurs before birds : Birds before dinosaurs<BR/>19) Insects before flowering plants : Flowering plants before insects<BR/>20) Sun before plants : Plants before sun<BR/>21) Dinosaurs before dolphins : Dolphins before dinosaurs<BR/>22) Land reptiles before pterosaurs : Pterosaurs before land reptiles<BR/>23) Land insects before flying insects : Flying insects before land insectsnsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165950993158060832006-12-12T14:16:00.000-05:002006-12-12T14:16:00.000-05:00Daniel, yes! As people become more informed about ...Daniel, yes! As people become more informed about science they are less superstitious. The fact that there are still a great many superstitious people in our world merely means that people are uninformed about science. <BR/><BR/>To say as many Christians must say, that educated people in the West are just as superstitious as the ancients is simply ridiculous, even granting that there are psychics and tea leaf readers. But let's say they are right, then what? We have gullible superstitious people both then and now. The point is that even educated Christians today are not gullible or superstitious in comparison with ancient people. There was divination, mandrake plants, listening to (as far as they would know) self-proclaimed prophets, consulting magicians, dreams, casting lots, blessings & curses, worshipping on mountain tops, "multitudes" of people sitting in front of the Pool of Siloam for the stirring of the waters, or in accepting demon possession if their daughter was sick. And if they would not believe in the people who practice and believe these things TODAY, then they too are one of the people I would call modern and educated. The problem is that they just don't see the connection between the basis for ancient beliefs, which they would've rejected, and the fact that they believe the Bible, because the Bible was written in that very era. <BR/><BR/>Dots connect the.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165949708786108232006-12-12T13:55:00.000-05:002006-12-12T13:55:00.000-05:00Thomas, that's enough out of you. First get a coll...Thomas, that's enough out of you. First get a college education and then come back to us. You are quite plainly ignorant. You're taking up space that other more informed Christians could be using.<BR/><BR/>No more ignorance. I mean it. You may not think you are ignorant, but you quite plainly are. Don't do it again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165947118636161902006-12-12T13:11:00.001-05:002006-12-12T13:11:00.001-05:00daniel said:Are you serious? You think there's not...daniel said:<BR/><BR/>Are you serious? You think there's nothing wrong with plants being created before the sun and moon and stars? You think that's perfectly "scientific"? Don't think the plants would be...uh...a little cold, here?<BR/><BR/>That sounds more like the evolution account.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165947075671264672006-12-12T13:11:00.000-05:002006-12-12T13:11:00.000-05:00daniel said: Are you serious? You think there's no...daniel said: <BR/><BR/>Are you serious? You think there's nothing wrong with plants being created before the sun and moon and stars? You think that's perfectly "scientific"? Don't think the plants would be...uh...a little cold, here?<BR/><BR/>Genesis 1: 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. <BR/><BR/> 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. <BR/><BR/> 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. <BR/><BR/> 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. <BR/><BR/>I don't see where you got the Idea the creation account said the light was created after the plants? What anti-christian literature you reading? Obviously you're reading some anti-christian literature written by a fallable author with bad reaserch.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165946936184709142006-12-12T13:08:00.000-05:002006-12-12T13:08:00.000-05:00rich said:At first I was a little put off by not b...rich said:At first I was a little put off by not being classified as a christian by Thomas, being Morman.<BR/><BR/>Rich, mormonism started in the 1800s. Why do you think it took 1800+ years for mormonism to rise up claim people were ignorant of God's word for 1800+ years? Oh yeah all the sudden 1800+ years after the Bible was written Joseph Smith found all the secret knowledge that no one ever knew the past 1800+ years. Rich mormons aren't Christians. In orthodox mormonism you don't even believe in the ressurection. Without the ressurection your faith is in vain. It diden't take 1800+ years for Jospeh Smith to come along and enlighten the world on the Bible that exsisted 1800+ years before he was born.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165946720500427062006-12-12T13:05:00.000-05:002006-12-12T13:05:00.000-05:00martin said : Of course, if Thomas really thinks h...martin said : Of course, if Thomas really thinks he knows more about the subject than every single one of the world's leading biologists and geologists, he won't need to read that stuff, will he? <BR/><BR/>Your claim that every single leading Biologist has proven evolution isn't a fact. Not every single scientist is an evolutionist. Not to mention science itself isn't infallable. Also, those scientist woulden't all be in agreement with eachother on how evolution happens to occur. So you put your faith that those scientist are right when they all don't agree. They'er fallable, they haven't proven evolution happens. If evolution happened in the magnitude claimed it would easily be proveable and observed. The issue is you put faith in their literature. You put faith in fallable literature written by a few fallable authors with bad reaserch.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165932842650472982006-12-12T09:14:00.000-05:002006-12-12T09:14:00.000-05:00The creation account doesen't have to be reinterpr...<I>The creation account doesen't have to be reinterpreted because science hasen't proven anything wrong with the account.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you serious? You think there's nothing wrong with plants being created before the sun and moon and stars? You think that's perfectly "scientific"? Don't think the plants would be...uh...a little cold, here?<BR/><BR/><I>The problem is you're working from the evolution = science world view. That isn't honest of you.</I><BR/><BR/><B>HONEST</B>? God, you people need to wake up. It's the 21st C, you know. I hate to tell you this, but most scientists don't even know how many people out there think like you do -- most of my friends are ignorant as to how many people still believe in creation myths. They scratch their heads and look deeply frightened as I try to explain that there are people out there who think we're all (scientists generally) a bunch of liars and incompetents.<BR/><BR/><I>martin if you're so sure of evolution why diden't you bother posting any evidence?</I><BR/><BR/>Right, right, no evidence for evolution. None.<BR/><BR/>Just keep living in your bubble of ignorance and delusion. It's pretty common these days. <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/sad-state-of-science.html" REL="nofollow">You're just another statistic</A>:<BR/>Here are some numbers to consider, reported as the % answered correctly (2006 SE, Table 7-10):<BR/><BR/> 1. The center of the Earth is very hot. (True) 78<BR/> 2. All radioactivity is man-made. (False) 73<BR/> 3. It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl. (True) 62<BR/> 4. Lasers work by focusing sound waves. (False) 42<BR/> 5. Electrons are smaller than atoms. (True) 45<BR/> 6. Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. (False) 54<BR/> 7. The universe began with a huge explosion. (True) 35<BR/> 8. The continents have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move. (True) 77<BR/> 9. Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals. (True) 44<BR/> 10. Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? (Earth around the Sun) 71<BR/><BR/>Now, compare these numbers to the 2002 SE report:<BR/><BR/> 1. 70% of American adults do not understand the scientific process;<BR/> 2. Double digit percentage gains in belief of haunted houses, ghosts, communication with the dead, and witches in the past decade;<BR/> 3. U.S. depends heavily on foreign born scientists at all degree levels, as high as 45% in engineering;<BR/> 4. Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread and growing;<BR/> 5. 60% believe some people posses psychic powers or extrasensory perception (ESP);<BR/> 6. 30% believe some reported objects in the sky are really space vehicles from other civilizations;<BR/> 7. 30% read astrology charts at least occasionally in the newspaper;<BR/> 8. 46% did not know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun (1 year);<BR/> 9. 45% thought lasers work by focusing sound waves (they focus light);<BR/> 10. 49% believe antibiotics kill viruses (they kill bacteria);<BR/> 11. 66% don't believe the Big Bang theory widely accepted by scientists;<BR/> 12. 48% believe humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs;<BR/> 13. 47% don't believe in evolution which is widely accepted by scientists;<BR/> 14. 55% couldn't define DNA;<BR/> 15. 78% couldn't define a molecule; (particularly sad to me, a chemist)<BR/> 16. 32% believe in 'Lucky Numbers'.<BR/><BR/>So there's always plenty of superstition to fill in people's heads when knowledge and reason are absent. I don't see religion going away anytime soon, so long as general scientific illiteracy abounds and pervades.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165912066126514922006-12-12T03:27:00.000-05:002006-12-12T03:27:00.000-05:00Bruce, clearly the term "biology class" has never ...Bruce, clearly the term "biology class" has never entered Thomas's vocabulary. Thomas is an especially dense and mule-headed type of creationist, the kind who is <I>completely</I> uneducated in the subject of biological science and yet thinks he's smarter than the experts. If he really were interested in being a fraction less stupid than he is, he could start by picking up any college freshman level biology textbook. Then he could check out the following sources online.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org" REL="nofollow">Talk Origins Archive</A><BR/><A HREF="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php" REL="nofollow">Understanding Evolution</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm" REL="nofollow">American Geological Institute Evolution Primer</A><BR/><BR/>Of course, if Thomas really thinks he knows more about the subject than every single one of the world's leading biologists and geologists, he won't need to read that stuff, will he?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165883794230512842006-12-11T19:36:00.000-05:002006-12-11T19:36:00.000-05:00Bruce that is a straw man. Where is the proof for ...Bruce that is a straw man. Where is the proof for evolution. Since you're so sure that evolution is true it would seem you would willingly throw down a lot of proof real fast.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/12337348235222023630noreply@blogger.com