The sentiments in this article about and by Richard Leakey, pretty much sum up my own thoughts on the subject matter; the mounting evidence will turn into a flood of acceptance and the deniers won't have anything left to stand on except some of the intransigent ignorance they already display. Then they will be openly ridiculed for not accepting the reality of life and our amazing lineage.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/05/28/f-richard-leakey-evolution.html

I saw that too. It was nice, but the discussion on reddit reminded me that we already have a giant pile of evidence for most major scientific theories (like evolution). The issue is that fundies do not simply feel there is insufficient evidence. They start with the assumption that the Bible is literally true. No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise, because their views are not based on evidence.

That said, the idea that the dissemination of the evidence might wake up otherwise apathetic people to vehemently oppose efforts like those seen in the US to oppose the teaching of science in public school is realistic, and I'm optimistic about that.

Escutcheon wrote:

The sentiments in this article about and by Richard Leakey, pretty much sum up my own thoughts on the subject matter; the mounting evidence will turn into a flood of acceptance and the deniers won't have anything left to stand on except some of the intransigent ignorance they already display. Then they will be openly ridiculed for not accepting the reality of life and our amazing lineage. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/05/28/f-richard-leakey-evolution.html

You are presuming that sceptics would be swayed by (even more) scientific proof.
I doubt that.

Do you know what a lady with a Ph.D said about dinosours?

"Satan spread the bones through the world to lead humans into confusion and doubt."
But well, who cares if it's utterly stupid. It's still a valid argument.

ab559950 wrote:

Escutcheon wrote: The sentiments in this article about and by Richard Leakey, pretty much sum up my own thoughts on the subject matter; the mounting evidence will turn into a flood of acceptance and the deniers won't have anything left to stand on except some of the intransigent ignorance they already display. Then they will be openly ridiculed for not accepting the reality of life and our amazing lineage. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/05/28/f-richard-leakey-evolution.html You are presuming that sceptics would be swayed by (even more) scientific proof. I doubt that.

How many people once doubted that the Earth was spherical, that the Earth revolved around the Sun, that the Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe? One day evolution will be accepted as readily as gravity or electromagnetism. Science must become as important in our lives though as is language, because it's the language of advancement. By the time everyone leaves school, they should have a solid understanding of the sciences. I wish now that I would have had a firmer grounding in science before I left school. I had a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, physics and fair grounding in mathematics, but it wasn't enough.

"flowing energy organizes matter"

Yeah, I don't see some people being convinced by evidence, either. In order to be convinced you have to first be able to question the assumption that you are right. For some it takes a while, for some it never happens.

Ghbvft6 wrote:

Do you know what a lady with a Ph.D said about dinosours? "Satan spread the bones through the world to lead humans into confusion and doubt." But well, who cares if it's utterly stupid. It's still a valid argument.

That's not a valid argument though. Valid arguments are fact based. That is supposition and rather misguided supposition at that even based on my limited understanding of what religions teach about angels and Satan in particular.

You know, I hate to say it but having a valid PhD at the end of your name does not denote infallibility. So what was her PhD in? Certainly not archeology I'm guessing. People can have PhD's in language, history, sociology, music, etc., but that doesn't always make their opinions valid in all areas.

I disagree, they will always have a leg to stand on, and this is why...

http://youtu.be/vWzhBuMrsZU

Bad guess. Her PhD was in this very archeology, forgot to mention that earlier, sorry.
It just shows how worthless has degrees became recently OR how ludicrous even educated Christians can be.

There's nothing wrong with this argument. We can't prove that it isn't real, can we? It's just that it's as unfalsifiable as the question concerning the existence of a god. We can ridicule it taking into consideration the possibility rate, but we can't completely deny it.

Escutcheon wrote:

That's not a valid argument though. Valid arguments are fact based. That is supposition and rather misguided supposition at that even based on my limited understanding of what religions teach about angels and Satan in particular. You know, I hate to say it but having a valid PhD at the end of your name does not denote infallibility. So what was her PhD in? Certainly not archeology I'm guessing. People can have PhD's in language, history, sociology, music, etc., but that doesn't always make their opinions valid in all areas.

And of course, there already are Christians who accepted evolution. I don't know how exactly they are explaining it, but just saying that the God had guided it does the work.
So no worries. This kind of religion won't even budge over something as insignificant as that

Dolorosa wrote:

I disagree, they will always have a leg to stand on, and this is why... http://youtu.be/vWzhBuMrsZU

your link leads to nothing...was that the point?