Skeptic Project

This hasn't really been discussed since I showed up, but I wanted to get the CS consenus on these folks. Not simply creationists, but people who actually deny evolution ie. Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron.

Discuss.

Oh, yeah.

Oops.

ITS ONLY A THEEREY

I don't get it. Sure, you can point out a few holes in evolutionary lines and such, but a few holes doesn't mean it's wrong! We can watch evolution in action with various organisms that reproduce stupidly fast, like bacteria, viruses and insects.

They're not as sly as the catholic church, who are now claiming that Darwin was right and that was all in gods plan ofcourse:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Look up Coywolf to see what how canines are adapting to us.

^ Methed?

Why are you always mentally ill?

because I need awesome to cure me, but you keep killing it all!

Even if you don't believe in evolution, you have to admit that most of us "get here" through random chance. For example, some woman around her ovulation time drinks too much alcohol and spends the night with a guy she met at a bar, and voila! she gives birth to a kid nine months later. Given the sloppy, haphazard nature of human reproduction, I don't see where "design" and "purpose" come into play.

Kent Hovind's criminal appeals were handled by a lady named Adrienne Gilbert: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/kent_hovind_is_still_in_jail_a.php</p>

This is Adrienne's father Richard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHQKTWuZJEU&feature=player_embedded

Btw., here's what happened to Richard was sentenced to three years in Federal prison: http://tristatehomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=220337.

//I understand why Darwin an atheist is a threat to people's belief system, but I don't understand why EVERYTHING he is about HAS to be accepted or denied. Maybe he's half right 90% right you could argue that a supreme being's ultimate creation is something that adapts and becomes better over time//

I could be wrong but judging by that statement I'm going to have to question your knowledge of evolution and how Darwin pertains to modern evolutionary theory. It's just the way you refer to Darwin as if nothing has changed in 150 years since Darwin's Discovery.

Evolution is 100% fact, only the mechanisms of evolution are still debated and up for modification.

To put it in a better way than Kepp:

"Theories" in science are still up for tweaking and refinement.

That's why Cell Theory is called Cell Theory.