[Kizzy]

Thinking of the current situation in the UK the neo liberal ethos that we are all governed by, if you compartmentalise the actions and the ideology how do they measure in comparison to Christian or religious teachings...
Could we hand on heart say that judging by the actions that as a country our government currently exhibits a Christian ethos?

[kirklancaster]

The word 'ignorant' is like a bullet - in itself it may be harmless, but once loaded into a gun with other words; namely; 'Stupid' and 'Insane', then 'it' and 'they' become potentially wounding. Once that gun is pointed at a group of innocent people for no other reason than that they legitimately disagree with your opinion, and the trigger is pulled, then such an action can only be deemed as unjustifiable and 'offensive'.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists - experts in such fields as; Molecular Evolution, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Bioengineering, Biomechanics, Microbiology, Entomology, Molecular Biology , Anatomy & Cell Biology , Botany, Bacterial Genetics ,Protein Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Combustion, Bioprocess Engineering etc. etc.

Specially notable scientists Include:

1945 Nobel Prize winning scientist Ernst Chain.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun
William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)

Along with hundreds of millions of 'lay people', Dorkins branded all these eminent, highly intellectual, extensively knowledgeable scientists as; "Ignorant, stupid or insane", and it is beyond dispute that he was being arrogant, unfair, and wholly offensive when he did so, and beyond dispute that he attacked these notables for no other reason that they DARED to disagree with his extreme, close-minded views.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The word 'ignorant' is like a bullet - in itself it may be harmless, but once loaded into a gun with other words; namely; 'Stupid' and 'Insane', then 'it' and 'they' become potentially wounding. Once that gun is pointed at a group of innocent people for no other reason than that they legitimately disagree with your opinion, and the trigger is pulled, then such an action can only be deemed as unjustifiable and 'offensive'.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists - experts in such fields as; Molecular Evolution, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Bioengineering, Biomechanics, Microbiology, Entomology, Molecular Biology , Anatomy & Cell Biology , Botany, Bacterial Genetics ,Protein Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Combustion, Bioprocess Engineering etc. etc.

Specially notable scientists Include:

1945 Nobel Prize winning scientist Ernst Chain.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun
William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)

Along with hundreds of millions of 'lay people', Dorkins branded all these eminent, highly intellectual, extensively knowledgeable scientists as; "Ignorant, stupid or insane", and it is beyond dispute that he was being arrogant, unfair, and wholly offensive when he did so, and beyond dispute that he attacked these notables for no other reason that they DARED to disagree with his extreme, close-minded views.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists -


?

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The word 'ignorant' is like a bullet - in itself it may be harmless, but once loaded into a gun with other words; namely; 'Stupid' and 'Insane', then 'it' and 'they' become potentially wounding. Once that gun is pointed at a group of innocent people for no other reason than that they legitimately disagree with your opinion, and the trigger is pulled, then such an action can only be deemed as unjustifiable and 'offensive'.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists - experts in such fields as; Molecular Evolution, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Bioengineering, Biomechanics, Microbiology, Entomology, Molecular Biology , Anatomy & Cell Biology , Botany, Bacterial Genetics ,Protein Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Combustion, Bioprocess Engineering etc. etc.

Specially notable scientists Include:

1945 Nobel Prize winning scientist Ernst Chain.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun
William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)

Along with hundreds of millions of 'lay people', Dorkins branded all these eminent, highly intellectual, extensively knowledgeable scientists as; "Ignorant, stupid or insane", and it is beyond dispute that he was being arrogant, unfair, and wholly offensive when he did so, and beyond dispute that he attacked these notables for no other reason that they DARED to disagree with his extreme, close-minded views.

Totally agree Kirk........and if you study the so called Theory of Evolution there are gaps, vast gaps that cannot be bridged where the theory cannot account for the changes from one species to another.

The "missing link" is probably the most famous ie how did we get here from apes ? why are there still apes ? But the jump from ape to Cro Magnon man is not explained by the Theory of evolution.

Don't get me wrong I do believe the theory helps us understand how we have come about but I still think the final blueprint when known will have some major differences from this theory.

How arrogant of Mr Dawkins to claim it is 100% proof........rubbish, it is still only a theory and as stated has many holes in it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Totally agree Kirk........and if you study the so called Theory of Evolution there are gaps, vast gaps that cannot be bridged where the theory cannot account for the changes from one species to another.

The "missing link" is probably the most famous ie how did we get here from apes ? why are there still apes ? But the jump from ape to Cro Magnon man is not explained by the Theory of evolution.

Don't get me wrong I do believe the theory helps us understand how we have come about but I still think the final blueprint when known will have some major differences from this theory.

How arrogant of Mr Dawkins to claim it is 100% proof........rubbish, it is still only a theory and as stated has many holes in it.

[Nedusa]

:

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

:hmph

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

:

:hmph

Sorry Nedusa I should have added


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Sorry Nedusa I should have added


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

That's all right L.T...........thanks for the narrative...interesting.