The Co-existence of Science and Theology

12/18/2007 08:30:12 PM · #1226

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
This snide remark comes in the wake of your using vestigal legs to define something as unnatural when replying to a post on the claims of homosexuals that their activities are "natural".

I didn't say vestigal legs were unnatural (another wild interpretation). I posted several examples of natural things with no apparent survival benefit to demonstrate the pointlessness of your question. The snide remark was an in-kind reply to your questioning of the blindingly obvious... how could they NOT be natural?

You are equating appendages with actions. You are arguing that an appendage (even one that is not common) is natural, as it grew in a "natural" way. That is NOT what you were arguing earlier. Earlier you were arguing actions/behavior was "natural" or normal. Specifically, that animals exhibit homosexual behavior as witnessed by researchers, and more specifically you referenced Black Swans and bonono (sp) chimpanzees as examples of this natural/normal behavior = actions. NOT apendages. Actions. Normal, natural actions. You then spouted off about my inability to provide alternate positions of explaination, which I provided. 2 in fact. Both with original links available.

Lastly you derogatorily attacked scripture as depending on interpretations, yet the very examples you cite in the animal world to prove homosexual behavior is natural/normal, relies on interpretation. Even the very researchers whose writings were part of a brief filed in Texas courts on behalf of homosexuality, stated for the record that it was interpretation.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/18/2007 08:33:31 PM · #1227

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Even one from the National Geographic that was not against their position, but merely concluded it was an interpretation of behavior. The same kind of interpretation that scalvert says is detrimental in scripture, but now when applied to animal behavior is suddenly proof positive that homosexuality is "natural/normal".

Religion relies on varying interpretations to suit a particular result. While it may be true that observers have interpreted the same-sex pairing of black swans and penguins as homosexual, you didn't (perhaps couldn't) offer a plausible interpretation that would negate that conclusion.

Sure I did. I posted 2 separate explainations from 2 separate researchers.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/18/2007 09:28:25 PM · #1228

Originally posted by Flash:

You are equating appendages with actions. You are arguing that an appendage (even one that is not common) is natural, as it grew in a "natural" way.

I was disputing your inference that every single natural trait must itself promote survival of the species (that's not true). Vestigal legs are features of snakes and whales that serve no purpose on their own. So is hair color in humans. If you prefer behavior (you didn't specify that before), we could go with a dog chasing its tail or the earlier study of monkeys refusing food when they sense an unfair situation.

PS- neither of the links you posted offer an explanation for the behavior observed in penguins, bonobos or some of the other animals in that link (which I suspect you didn't read). Among the observed behavior: "Male Drosophila melanogaster flies bearing two copies of a mutant allele in the fruitless gene court and attempt to mate exclusively with other males." I suppose that's interpretation, too?

Message edited by author 2007-12-18 21:52:43.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

12/18/2007 09:31:30 PM · #1229

Originally posted by Flash:

How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring?

Darwinizing sexual ambivalence: a new evolutionary hypothesis of male homosexuality

Authors: De Block A.; Adriaens P.

Source: Philosophical Psychology, Volume 17, Number 1, March 2004 , pp. 59-76(18)

Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Abstract:
At first sight, homosexuality has little to do with reproduction. Nevertheless, many neo-Darwinian theoreticians think that human homosexuality may have had a procreative value, since it enabled the close kin of homosexuals to have more viable offspring than individuals lacking the support of homosexual siblings. In this article, however, we will defend an alternative hypothesis--originally put forward by Freud in "A phylogenetic phantasy"--namely that homosexuality evolved as a means to strengthen social bonds. Consequently, from an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality and heterosexuality have entirely distinct origins: there is no continuum from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Indeed, the natural history we propose shows that the intensity of the homosexual inclination has little or no predictive value with regard to the intensity of heterosexual tendencies. In fact, this may be a sound Darwinian way to understand sexual ambivalence. But if sexual ambivalence is a biological datum, one has to conclude that psychodynamic mechanisms are often needed in order to explain exclusive heterosexuality or exclusive homosexuality.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

12/19/2007 06:41:20 AM · #1230

Originally posted by Flash:

Robert - this is not about "natural selection". This is about a claim in defense of homosexuals that their behavior is "natural". It is within the natural order of things. It is "normal". It is then argued that the animal kingdom has examples of behavior (scalvert has tried this repeatedly) that exhibit this "natural" behavior. Since it is "natural/normal" in the animal world and we evolved from animals, then it is natural/normal for humans to be homosexual.

This argument is patently false. I have posted examples of why this is false, namely quoting both, their very own advocates and opposing researchers views. I have provided links to the original articles, etc. Even one from the National Geographic that was not against their position, but merely concluded it was an interpretation of behavior. The same kind of interpretation that scalvert says is detrimental in scripture, but now when applied to animal behavior is suddenly proof positive that homosexuality is "natural/normal".

Flash, it is quite hard to follow your argument. It seems to me that you (1) don't believe in evolution (or at the very least, have a very loose grasp on what the theory is) and (2) believe that homsexuality is a conscious choice rather than a biological imperative for some people and (3) believe that homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so. This talk of what is "natural" is a red herring.

It is quite clear in life that people are homosexual. If you listen to people who are gay, then it is quite clear that it is not a choice but a biological imperative (whether that is genetic, womb environmental or upbringing environmental). I suspect that because of your beliefs you do not have many openly gay friends. You will therefore have to take it on trust that I have talked to lots of gay people about this and I am not lying.

Given that gay people do exist and do not get to choose when to be homosexual and when to be heterosexual (no matter what you *want* to believe), this is something that evolutionary theory can accomodate (but it is not arrogant enough to be able to give all of the answers yet because the reasons are complicated and varied and hard to prove beyond all doubt). The existence of homosexuality does not refute the theory of evolution, and evolutionary theory does not preclude the existence of gay people.

The one thing that the existence of homosexual people might disprove is the validity of the bible. It is inconsistent for god to be perfect and make people in his own image, and for some of them to be gay, and simultaneously for god to abhor homosexuality as sinful. I know that this won't be what you want to hear - and I am sure that you have developed rationalisations that mean that you can mentally ignore this inconvenient truth. But it makes your argument rather unconvincing to me (and I am sure to others).

Originally posted by Flash:

It saddens me that you are having difficulty following my reasoning here, as I give your posts considerable weight. I stand by my positions and posts.

When people you respect and/or those with a degree of sympathy for your general position disagree with you, that might be a good time to rethink and consider whether you may be wrong.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/19/2007 09:50:51 AM · #1231

Matthew - in my opinion you have made some very good points in you post above. Due to the time it takes me to answer some of these - i get timed out. Therefore I will be updating/editing this post for the next hour or so. Please reply then.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It saddens me that you are having difficulty following my reasoning here, as I give your posts considerable weight. I stand by my positions and posts.

When people you respect and/or those with a degree of sympathy for your general position disagree with you, that might be a good time to rethink and consider whether you may be wrong.
I actually agree with this. One reason I rehashed the series of argumentation - so that Robert could confirm that he still maintained his position or as often happens, he "rewrites" what I'm trying to say in a way that actually says what I was trying to say, and then we either agree or disagree at that point

Flash, it is quite hard to follow your argument. It seems to me that you (1) don't believe in evolution (or at the very least, have a very loose grasp on what the theory is) and (2) believe that homsexuality is a conscious choice rather than a biological imperative for some people and (3) believe that homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so. This talk of what is "natural" is a red herring.
I agree here as well, except for the "natural" being a red herring. To understand the term "natural" in context, one needs to reference the original questionHow do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring? and review scalvert's reply which posted a link referencing animal behavior as evidence of why it is "normal"/"natural" in humans. I then researched the topic on animal homosexual behavior and discovered that it is common for those advocating homosexuality as "natural" to use the animal studies as reference/proof of their positions. Then I discovered a couple of articles - one that disagreed and one (National Geographic) that did not disagree but stated it was open to interpretation. Both articles stated it was an "interpretation" of animal behavior and even the researchers who were used in a Texas court breif as proof positive that homosexual behavior in animals is evidedence for that in humans - even they went on record as stating it was an "interpretation". From this evidence of multiple sources regarding this conclusion as an "interpretation", I then challenged scalvert to defend the use of interpretation in this instance when he used interpretation of scripture as evidence of its illigitmacy. If it is no good for scripture, then it cannot be used as evidence in proving "normalcy" or naturalness link between animals and humans. scalvert then posted that normal was a condition of ones enviornment - which led to his 18th century slavery example. His position being that "normal" is defined by ones enviornment or the rules/laws of the day. I then countered with several links to which demonstrated that slavery was alive and within our enviornment today. If slavery was accepted as "normal" in the 18th century as scalvert claims due to the enviornment, then why is it not "normal" today when the evidence for slavery is detailed in multiple publications as part of every nation and social strata. Thus his arguments that homosexual behavior is "normal" or "natural" has not been proven.

The evolution part of the debate centers on the original question as it relates to procreation. Dr. Achoo most closely addressed this area. It was presented that sisters of homosexuals had a higher rate of producing children and somehow that might support homosexual activity in the context of procreation, however that argument is far form over. The bottom line is that procreation has to occur in order for a species to evolve. If all members are homosexual, then no procreation/evolution can occurr. Thus, my position that homosexuality is not normal/natural.

This is as much as I have time for now. It does present my positions in the sequence that they arose.

Message edited by author 2007-12-19 11:10:04.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/19/2007 11:10:46 AM · #1232

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:

Robert - there is no silliness intended. I simply, very simply, want those who claim that homosexuality is a natural act, to explain how that promotes evolution? It doesn't. Therefore, homosexuality is not "natural". It might be a fact that some are dispositioned to it. It might be observable as a behavior in some animals. But to argue it is "natural", requires evidence other than the interpretations presented thus far. I might accept interpretations in some instances, primarily when I have multiple sources interpreting the same data the same way, but that is not the case here. Not yet at least.

Flash, I love ya but this is ridiculous. There's NO interpretation of "natural selection" that says "if a trait doesn't help us breed it will be lost"...

R.

My problem with what you're saying, from a logical point of view, is this:

I simply, very simply, want those who claim that homosexuality is a natural act, to explain how that promotes evolution?

What I am trying to say is that nothing in the theory of evolution (or natural selection) requires that every trait of an individual/species be directed towards survival of that species, that it "promote evolution". Indeed, to even use the phrase "promotes evolution" shows a misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works.

Evolution, to the extent that it exists (and I am specifically NOT arguing that evolution disproves the existence of God, because I don't think it does), just happens. It doesn't need "promoting", it's just a fact.

If you meant to be saying something like:

I simply, very simply, want those who claim that homosexuality is a natural act, to explain how that promotes survival of the species?

... then that makes much more sense as a question. But I'd respond to that, also, that there's nothing in the theory that says all individual traits have to be survival-oriented. Indeed, in medicine alone we can find any number of inherited traits that are counter-survival and yet persist. The Doc knows more about these and their mechanisms than I do...

Hope this helps clear it up for you.

R.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/19/2007 11:14:07 AM · #1233

Originally posted by Flash:

The evolution part of the debate centers on the original question as it relates to procreation. Dr. Achoo most closely addressed this area. It was presented that sisters of homosexuals had a higher rate of producing children and somehow that might support homosexual activity in the context of procreation, however that argument is far form over. The bottom line is that procreation has to occur in order for a species to evolve. If all members are homosexual, then no procreation/evolution can occurr. Thus, my position that homosexuality is not normal/natural.

This is as much as I have time for now. It does present my positions in the sequence that they arose.

But in the animal kingdom we have examples of species with complex, highly-evolved societies, such as bees, where the vast majority of individuals are neuters, never reproduce at all. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

R.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/19/2007 11:16:29 AM · #1234

Originally posted by Flash:

If all members are homosexual, then no procreation/evolution can occurr. Thus, my position that homosexuality is not normal/natural. [/b]

I know you said this post was a work in progress - but perhaps you might want to rethink this step. This seems to be a fairly big problem in the reasoning. The second statement doesn't follow from the first.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/19/2007 11:26:29 AM · #1235

To Robert/Gordon,

Matthew had it pretty close when he stated above that I have a loose grasp on the theory of evolution. To me, a species cannot evolve, if off spring are not produced. For man to evolve from fish/animals over millions of years, then many many events of producing offspring had to occur. That would be the "normal" or "natural" event. That would be the species plan for survival. If all members were of the same sex or engaged only in same sex activity, then no offspring would be produced and no millions of years worth of evolution could take place, as the species would die out in on generation. Thus - if procreation is required for a species to survive, then by default that would define "normal". Therfore, same sex activity that would kill off a species (due to no offspring) would be not normal.

This is so absolutely clear to me. I wish I had other words to explain it.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/19/2007 11:29:03 AM · #1236

Originally posted by Flash:

If all members are homosexual, then no procreation/evolution can occurr. Thus, my position that homosexuality is not normal/natural.

To illustrate the absurdity of this logic: If all members are male then no procreation/evolution can occur, therefore being male is not normal/natural. Fortunately, not all members are male... or homosexual.

PS- Before you start with the "behavior" thing again... you're trying to claim that homosexuality isn't normal on evolutionary grounds... genetics. Genes are physical characteristics, just like being male or having red hair.

Message edited by author 2007-12-19 11:41:39.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/19/2007 11:36:18 AM · #1237

Originally posted by Flash:

Again, you need to look at honeybees. Hardly any of them procreate, as individuals.

What Shannon said in the previous post is absolutely correct; your logic in this statement is fundamentally unsound.

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/19/2007 11:36:44 AM · #1238

Originally posted by Flash:

This is so absolutely clear to me. I wish I had other words to explain it.

It's clear to you because you are thinking in absolutes, black and white, yes/no. There's nothing on the planet that is so simple, not least the condition of sexuality, human or otherwise. Listen to what others are saying. You don't even need an open mind, you just need to actually hear the refutations and digest the facts.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/19/2007 12:07:37 PM · #1239

Originally posted by Flash:

You are correct in that if all sexual activity were homosexual, a species would eventually die off since there would be no new members to offset the dying members.

However, the reproductive requirement to sustain a population is only that enough births are required to offset the number of deaths. As it is, the human species is growing far faster and is at little risk of dying off.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

12/19/2007 12:32:31 PM · #1240

Originally posted by Flash:

I agree here as well, except for the "natural" being a red herring.

Flash, the question you are asking makes no sense. These things happen. The fact is that there are homosexual people. There are also appear to be homosexual animals, which suggests that this prediliction occurs in nature, not exclusively within the realm of conscious higher reasoning of humans - but that will probably always be subject to a level of doubt because you cannot interview an animal to find for certain.

Originally posted by Flash:

If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? ...If all members are homosexual, then no procreation/evolution can occurr. Thus, my position that homosexuality is not normal/natural.

You are absolutely right in one sense - a species where every member was homosexual would not survive. No one is claiming that all humans are homosexual though.

Genetic theory is not as straightforward as you suppose. There are recessive and active genes, and combinations of them have effects that are too complex for us yet to understand. So your most basic of assumptions - that the "gay" gene cnnot ever be passed on is fundamentally flawed: if it exists then it can always be passed on at the very least as a recessive gene - like colour blindness (not an evolutionary advantage, but a genetic trait that persists and in fact one that I enjoy).

I/DrAchoo have given you one possible answer as to why the occasional occurrence of homosexuality may be an evolutionary advantage - but to assume that only evolutionary advantages survive within a community is wrong for the reasons that lots of people have given you.

I have recently been reminded of another evolutionary remnant - I broke my coccyx the other day - my tail bone. It hurts - and believing that we were created without the history of having had tails would not make it any less painful...

Originally posted by Flash:

If it is no good for scripture, then it cannot be used as evidence in proving "normalcy" or naturalness link between animals and humans. ... Thus his arguments that homosexual behavior is "normal" or "natural" has not been proven.

It is right that there should be different levels of proof required for different statements. On the one hand, say that gay people appear to be biologically different. This can be observed, gay people can be interviewed, and tests can be run.

On the other hand, say that there is an invisible, all powerful being withi infinite knowledge and who is everywhere all of the time, who is undetectable and has never been witnessed to do anything - then yes, expect people to be a bit more skeptical.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

12/19/2007 02:13:19 PM · #1241

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You are correct in that if all sexual activity were homosexual, a species would eventually die off since there would be no new members to offset the dying members.

Spazmo99 has the clearest understanding of my position.

I have participated with ernest in this debate. It is time for me to exit it for a while. Clearly the concensus (even from those I admire), is that I have strayed off course or at the very least failed to make my point(s) with any percieved valuable argument.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 16:04:00.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/19/2007 02:20:09 PM · #1242

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You are correct in that if all sexual activity were homosexual, a species would eventually die off since there would be no new members to offset the dying members.

Spazmo99 has the clearest understanding of my position.

I have participated with ernest in this debate. I appreciate ALL the commentary for and against. It is time for me to exit. I look forward to the next topic in the New Year.

Well I don't think that anyone would disagree with you: if a whole species were suddenly to become homosexual, that would be problematic.

You have just demonstrated the kind of blindness to challenging concepts that reinforces all my preconceptions of the religious response to demonstrable and contrary fact:

Ah well. At least maybe you will be satisfied with your lot in this life in expectation of more in the next, and so be more easily governed as a consequence.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/21/2007 04:01:06 PM · #1243

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You are correct in that if all sexual activity were homosexual, a species would eventually die off since there would be no new members to offset the dying members.

Spazmo99 has the clearest understanding of my position.

I have participated with earnest in this debate. It is time for me to exit it.

You left out the other part of my post:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

However, the reproductive requirement to sustain a population is only that enough births are required to offset the number of deaths. As it is, the human species is growing far faster and is at little risk of dying off.

What I meant to suggest is that, perhaps, some percentage of homosexuality in a population is indeed normal and poses no risk to the survival of the species.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/22/2007 05:35:03 PM · #1244

Oh, the hubris. Not to mention the spectacularly stupid.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/31/2007 09:08:04 AM · #1245

If you all would be willing to forgive previous transgressions, especially [user]Louis[/user], I'd love to entertain more discussion.....

I found this quote attributed to Einstein: "During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed amoung advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively."

Einstein seemed to be a pretty cool guy; I found multiple thought-provoking quotes of his HERE. He seemed to me to be pretty rooted in reality, humble, and grounded in spite of his aberrant intellect......8>)

On another note, I took that Political Compass Test

Lastly, my experience with gay people has been one of mutual acceptance and co-existence. It never occurred to me that these friends of mine, good and decent people with regular lives, hearts, and minds were anything but natural and normal. I never felt different or threatened by them and they have always been, and will be close and dear friends of mine.

To me, in my heart, head, and belief system, they are no different as human beings......and I certainly do not think of their sexual orientation and the sacrifices they have had to make to the dictates of a fearful society a choice that anyone would willingly make. They are homosexual; I am heterosexual. So?

JBHale

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/01/2008 02:10:03 AM · #1246

Originally posted by Matthew:

You are absolutely right in one sense - a species where every member was homosexual would not survive. No one is claiming that all humans are homosexual though.

I feel like a few people in the all-gay society would take one for the team and go hetero to save mankind.

Message edited by author 2008-01-01 02:10:23.

01/07/2008 01:43:40 PM · #1247

Originally posted by Matthew:

Flash, ... It seems to me that you (1) don't believe in evolution (or at the very least, have a very loose grasp on what the theory is)...

Matthew is very correct in his identifying my grasp of the theory as "very loose". Thus, I have been intrigued to do a bit more study into the matter. However, the more I read on the theory of evolution, the more convinced I become that the arguments and criticizms presented in the previous 50 pages (for me) of this thread, against the conclusions of theology, are even more questionable. For every attack on "unreasonable thinking" and drawing conclusions without facts or evidence, the same appears true for the evolutionist. This is one example of my study. Although a lengthy read, it points to a number of problems with the evolutionist's theories. Regardless, I am satisfied that within the scientific community, one can find a number of "interpretations" of the data, similar in style to those chastized of the "believers".

Therefore, it seems to me at least, that a fair amount of "believing" is going on in both camps. It just depends on what data one is believing in.

edit to add an example of this would be the following from the above linked article:

In later lectures, Richard Leakey rarely made reference to 1470. However, in a PBS documentary in 1990 he stated,

"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving." 10

Please note this: "If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving."

edit to further add:

It is also interesting to consider comments made by the journalist, Mark Davis, who investigated this story on Neanderthals for NOVA.

"Yes, it's fascinating to see how scientists unravel the story of human evolution. But if you venture into this world as a journalist, you must be prepared for the fact that there's a lot more raveling going on than unraveling.
There are many, many arguments in this famously contentious field, not about whether humans evolved, but how. . . I spoke with many Neanderthal experts in the course of making this film, and I found them all to be intelligent, friendly, well-educated people, dedicated to the highest principles of scientific inquiry. I also got the impression that each one thought the last one I talked to was an idiot, if not an actual Neanderthal.

Please note this: "I spoke with many Neanderthal experts in the course of making this film, and I found them all to be intelligent, friendly, well-educated people, dedicated to the highest principles of scientific inquiry. I also got the impression that each one thought the last one I talked to was an idiot..."

I rest my case.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 15:39:29.

MrBradHeisler

Canon PowerShot A520

01/09/2008 10:00:04 AM · #1248

Originally posted by Flash:

Flash, despite the studies you say you have done, you still do not seem to grasp the concept of evolution.

I do think though, you are correct in saying that there is believing on both sides. But you also said it depends on the data one believes in. Christianity, which I think is what youâ��re arguing for, has no data. All Christianity has is the Bible, which cannot be considered data and is only circumstantial evidence.

An Atheist that believes in evolution does so because that is what the facts point to most strongly. If physical, concrete evidence pointed to Christianity, Iâ��m sure the majority, if not all, of the free thinkers would agree and become believers because that is what the facts would point to.

Belief in what facts suggest, that evolution made humans what they are today, and belief in a giant, omniscient being that created everything in six days, are what separate free thinkers, atheists, evolutionists and the lot from the believers.

And I might add that the two quotes you have posted donâ��t represent anything. One scientist saying that humans arrived abruptly and that some Neanderthal experts think most of the other Neanderthal experts are idiots does not prove anything, is not evidence enough to support anything you have said and is certainly not enough to rest this case.