# Reading > Religious Texts >  Evolution vs. Creation

## Adelheid

I would like to know how many people here believe in either the evolution or creation view, and how many who don't know what to believe. I'm trying to post a poll in this thread, and as this the first time I'm doing it, I'm not sure if it comes out right, so bear with me this time, okay?  :Tongue:

----------


## Dyrwen

You accept a theory as fact or your reject it as fact. Believing in something is about opinion, whereas acceptance of something is about knowledge. 

I can believe that I can fly, but that doesn't make it true. I can reject the knowledge that tells me that I cannot fly and therefore still make my belief reasonable. If I accept the knowledge that I cannot fly but still believe I can fly anyway, I'm unreasonably believing in something. 

Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself. Personally speaking, the whole "vs" idea of evolution against creation is absurd because the argument comes down to Biblical truth as being capable of being interpretted as scientific truth or the dismissal of such truths as merely literature that is more philosophy than scientific fact. 

A bit of a long-winded reply, but I do find it more succint to get the basics out of the way early. heh

----------


## simon

Evolution seems plausible, but how did evolution start, would that not need a creation of some kind?

----------


## Dyrwen

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only has to do with how life evolved over time to become what it is today. 

Biology and astronomy take over when it comes to how it all began. It all began with a "bang"  which eventually led to the creation of planets through elements getting together in clumps and once the heat cooled down at a certain point land was created, eventually gases created certain amounts of liquid, which was probably triggered by asteroids with ice on them. Eventually abiogenesis took place, wherein amino acids started the protein filled life of the first type of life, in simple bacteria, however this is considered somewhat improbable by most, we don't know what the odds of life are outside of exactly 1, since we exist here now.. Over time, about 4.5 billion years, they evolved into something more in different ways.

There's a run down of the basics, with sources, so you can pick up what you will and interpret it how you like in time. It all comes back to the big bang, when you say "creation", but that's a whole other discussion. This thread is supposed to be about evolution, which in my opinion, is pretty damned factual and researched.

----------


## Scheherazade

Ditto.
Out of sheer curiousity, Dyrwen, why aren't you voting in the poll if you have such strong opinions on the subject?

----------


## Dyrwen

Because it's just a poll and my position is already pretty clear as it is. I like to think of it as educating a voting populous, or something. I could also say that I'm perhaps not voting so that if by some stretch of the imagination I'm proven incorrect in all that I know is correct, I'll be able to vote my opinion on the matter accurately then. heh

I don't know, guess I'm more stubborn than anything. Personally I don't see creationism as much of a choice when it comes to "versus" evolution, since it isn't even in the same league. One is about the creation of everything, the other is about the evolution of life after it existed. They've nothing to do with eachother, outside of the fact that creationists seem to enjoy proding at evolution because it is somehow a threat to their beliefs when it doesn't even involve the origin of life until one continues asking the "why" question throughout about science. 

Hopefully that made some sense. I'll vote if it'll please the court, heh, but it just feels a little better to explain myself adequately than be another number in the poll pigeonholled in a position.

----------


## Scheherazade

*checks the poll results*
huh-uh...
I find it interesting that many of us on here will talk and discuss things till subjects are exhausted and more but will not commit ourselves into certain things... Won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times.  :Wink:

----------


## Stanislaw

I think there should be a bit of column a and b response.

----------


## amuse

i believe in both theories. like creation already happening, and evolution catching up to it, if that makes sense.  :Confused:  ok that sounds strange, lol. but there isn't a both category.  :Wink:

----------


## Stanislaw

Yeah creationism is primarily my belief, but I believe that perhaps evolution was a tool, and the Bibal does not really contradict the evolutionist theory...

so in brief: God did it!

----------


## Jester

hmm.... I've seen too much evidence to believe that humans were created around six thousand years ago and a great flood around four thousand years ago.

I once had this discussion with a freind of mine who ended up giveing me these videos of this evengalist preacher citing sources for eveidence in creation... his first problem was that he assumed that humans evolved from rocks and are in some ways related to alligators... the only way we are is that we both breathe oxygen and we have the same four base paris in our DNA... Other of his theories, I could find flaws in them at only tenth grade but people none the less listen to it. I would not be surprised to learn that Adam and Eve were real humans once upon a time and that they once lived in a garden and were then banished from it to live admist all the others human... (but thats just me saying that anything is possible but I for one acknowledge evolution as a fact)

The diests believe that god created the universe and then let it run on its own, this would give rise to both creation (a little) and evolution... scientists have actually recreated the atmoshpere and the conditions which they believed inhabited early earth and with sparks of electricity created the most minor forms of single celled base organisms (this experiment, i do not know the details of, forgotten it but know it has been done) and there are mitochondria and chloroplast DNA which seems to indicate that these seperate cell organnelles fused withother organelles to create cells liek we have them today. What I have said here is just the basis of a long list of cellular, molecular, theoretical, and many other forms of evolution.

----------


## subterranean

I haven't decide my stand on this issue.

----------


## Stanislaw

jester is correct, scientist have reproduced some of the conditions...but this doesn't leed to an anti creationist theory. Now if we say that the bibal is a metaphor, or parable, to explain ideas to people, people of old would not be able to comprehend ideas of evolution etc. Now in the Bibal it states that Adam was created out of the earth, God used the Earth to build Adam, now it is concievable that clay in early earth was an important factor in the scientific origins of life. the clay acts as a sponge inwhich to hold all of the needed 'ingriediants' together. Now it also sais that Eve came from Adam, ie, single cell division. So in conclusion the Bibal does not really dispute evolutionist theories.

----------


## Adelheid

Well, then, are you trying to say that if I left a tub of water, for example as it was, that I would get a fish/ shark etc. in it if I wait for billions of years??! Sounds pretty incredible if you ask me.  :Brow:  Everything wouldn't be able to fit together nicely as it is now, if there was no God who made it, isn't it? 

And, if you look at it this way, the Bible, (which I know is the Word of God) has so many prophecies that have clearly been fulfilled so far- every single one of them. Wouldn't creation (God making everything for HIS sole pleasure) be true too? Considering, if you DO bother to look, there are heapsss of evidence to show that it did?

By the way, science *cannot* PROVE anything. The only limitations of science are that it cannot prove anything, is NOT 100% reliable, and must conform to a scientific method. A scientist may come up with a theory, that "explains" evolution, while in the next moment, another scientist might come up with a counter-example, that contradicted the scientific experiment. Of course, we CAN use science to observe, and thus form conclusions, but what I'm trying to say is that even science is NOT 100% reliable, so it doesn't PROVE anything.

----------


## Adelheid

In reply to Stanislaw, I found a commentary by Adam Clarke which you might like to read: (it's for Genesis 2:7)

"Gen 2:7 - 
God formed man of the dust - In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body and soul distinctly, and separately created; the body out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself. Does not this strongly mark that the soul and body are not the same thing? The body derives its origin from the earth, or as עפר aphar implies, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; נשמת חיים nishmath chaiyim, the breath of Lives, i.e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding."
-E-Sword v.6.5.0

The english Bible as we have it today was translated from either Aramic or Hebrew (for the old testament) for the new, it was Greek. If you study the languages, and do a word study on the word, the exact meaning of the word in either Aramic or Hebrew, could most probably not be phrased into english. (It's a bit like that for the New testament/Greek, so mightn't it be so also for the old testament?)

Also, about the time period? God did fashion man out of the dust of the earth, but what of the time issue? According to evolution, wouldn't it need to take ages? And God formed Adam in one day- day 6. Th Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that was in it in 6 days. And, after EVERY single day, God said that His creation was good. Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?

----------


## Taliesin

> Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?


We really would like to you to explain. Why do you think that things done in in shorter time are better?

----------


## Dyrwen

> Well, then, are you trying to say that if I left a tub of water, for example as it was, that I would get a fish/ shark etc. in it if I wait for billions of years??!


Technically speaking, it took a few billion years just to get microorganisms to evolve from the primordial soup, but once they were out there, everything else was able to come about later on. So if you want a straight answer, which I know you do, you won't get a shark or fish. You might get some microorganisms, eventually some sort of underwater creature which may or may not look like a fish depending on what you put in the water. It certainly would be a new species entirely, since there wouldn't be any reproduction going on with anything else beforehand. 

If you really want to understand how life began that way, I suggest reading this lovely little explanation called "From Soup to Cells" by the Berkeley science department. It's quite expansive and gives you all the evidence of theory that you need.




> Sounds pretty incredible if you ask me.   Everything wouldn't be able to fit together nicely as it is now, if there was no God who made it, isn't it?


First off, that sentence was barely intelligible. Secondly, there's a lot of evidence right now that this world didn't need some God making it to become as complex as it is. Furthermore, if you're going to go into the theology realm, I can always just ask "What made God?" seeing as he's pretty complex, too. Of course, I'm pretty sure I know what your response to that will be, seeing as it doesn't take a genius to use circular logic.




> And, if you look at it this way, the Bible, (which I know is the Word of God) has so many prophecies that have clearly been fulfilled so far- every single one of them. Wouldn't creation (God making everything for HIS sole pleasure) be true too? Considering, if you DO bother to look, there are heapsss of evidence to show that it did?


I'm not getting into a Biblical debate with you because it isn't my peroggative and there are plenty of others who do that for a living, but as far as your prophecy stuff goes, I'd say that they haven't been fulfilled and have been past due for quite some time. But whatever, I'm not here to fight Bible scripture with you, though  a friend of mine took some time once to delve into the matter. 

I've looked around and have been for the past 4-5 years for evidence of God, or at least something half-assedly true about creationism. Hell, the flood alone is proven false by how sedimentary rocks work in the grand canyon. There's already fossil evidence of dinosaurs, billion year old bacteria, hominids evolving over time in various ways. Tell you what, I've been looking around for years and haven't found any evidence, perhaps you'd be kind enough to display some of it so that I might be proven wrong or at least can analyze it myself? That's not too much to ask I hope. 




> By the way, science *cannot* PROVE anything. The only limitations of science are that it cannot prove anything, is NOT 100% reliable, and must conform to a scientific method. A scientist may come up with a theory, that "explains" evolution, while in the next moment, another scientist might come up with a counter-example, that contradicted the scientific experiment. Of course, we CAN use science to observe, and thus form conclusions, but what I'm trying to say is that even science is NOT 100% reliable, so it doesn't PROVE anything.


Nothing is provable (seeing as we might not even exist and could be in a dream world without knowing it, etc), but I follow that which is possible beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence for evolution is strikingly overwhelming and the lack of evidence of any gods is as such as well, considering I do not believe the Bible is anything but literature. 

I never said science can prove evolution is correct, but I did say that it is pretty well documented that it occurs and the evidence shows it so well that a good deal of the world accepts it as fact. 55% of scientists believe that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in the process. Also, 97% of the world doesn't believe that the Earth was created in six days purely because the evidence suggests 4.5 billion years ago is much more reasonable a time, even if there was a God involved. 

The point is: Evolution has a lot of documented evidence for it, much more than the contrary evidence, and is therefore regarded as factual theory more so than just some humdrum explanation for the way things are. Show some evidence of creationism not directly quoted from the Bible and maybe you'll make more of a case for it.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Also, about the time period? God did fashion man out of the dust of the earth, but what of the time issue? According to evolution, wouldn't it need to take ages? And God formed Adam in one day- day 6. Th Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that was in it in 6 days. And, after EVERY single day, God said that His creation was good. Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?


It is perhaps a figurative way to describe the events, another metaphor that must be examined and contemplated to reveal the truth.
There are also less 'scientific' theories for the concept of evolution, such as Only God is perfect enough to creat a person directly, and that Evolution was the work of Satan. Now that could explain why there were other groups on the earth when Adam and Eve arrived.

----------


## Monica

At our religion classes (how to call in English such a subject? If trsanslated directly from Polish it's religion, but I don't really know if it's correct) our priest always told us that creation and evolution don't exclude each other because science and religion belong to a different category. Like in Thomas Aquinas: the difference between faith and knowledge.

----------


## Dyrwen

Indeed Monica, you're quite correct. 

Faith is of a category of beliefs. Knowledge is of a category of sciences. Science means, from Latin at least, "having knowledge". Faith comes from the Latin of, "to trust". So in simple definitive terms, one can quite easily follow both. Science is about the systematic organization of knowledge in evolution's case, but creationism is more a matter of faith in the Bible, that is, unless there's scientific evidence out there to back up creationism, in which case it'd get to play ball alongside the sciences instead of just the religious studies.

----------


## Jester

Dyrwen, several posts back you said exactly what i was going to say, thanks, couldn't have said it better....

About the bath tub thing though, a couple of ver specific elements are needed like phosphuros and then electricity is needed, 

stan i could see where you were going with the eve from adam thing, but eve was created from adam's rib, and at that point in time when the bible was written down, as it was written down, they would have no knowledge of these things (unless God filled thier head with doctorates that spent lifetimes trying to achieve their knowledge and a couple thousand years to get as far as they did) then metaphors as good as they sound, just don't seem plausible enough...

Adelhied, I'd like you to know that you may "KNOW" that GOd's word is in the bible, but many scientist out there KNOW that something else is going on besides God and htye feel the same way about science as you do about GOD

as Dyrwen said, nothing is can be prooven to a hundred percent becuase we rely on our senses to acknowledge reality therefore we may think we know something and it oculd be a lie... (think Matrix, that movie freaked me out becuase it brought rise to the fact that that could be our world, and we aren't really alive!)

----------


## baddad

My feelings on spirituality have been expressed here before, so this particular post may seem a little........different....or maybe just irrational......

Evolution does not neccessarily preclude a God. A god does not neccessarily preclude evolution.

----------


## amuse

:Smile:  i like how you put that - i just figured god created both.

----------


## mono

> Evolution does not neccessarily preclude a God. A god does not neccessarily preclude evolution.





> i like how you put that - i just figured god created both.


I could not have explained my opinion better, nor in less words.

----------


## amuse

> Also, about the time period? God did fashion man out of the dust of the earth, but what of the time issue? According to evolution, wouldn't it need to take ages? And God formed Adam in one day- day 6. Th Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that was in it in 6 days. And, after EVERY single day, God said that His creation was good. Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?


first of all, i'm not a christian, _but_ i have read a lot of stuff re: the bible, like in my late teens, and "day" is actually kind of ambiguous. who's to say that god's days are in the same time frame as those here on planet: earth, galaxy: milky way?  :Wink:  it really depends how you look at "time" to decide what's "good" and what isn't.

----------


## Stanislaw

The Babylonian Enuma Elish offers an interesting take on religious thoughts, it almost follows an evolutionary aproach.

it is worth skimming through!

----------


## Adelheid

> At our religion classes (how to call in English such a subject? If trsanslated directly from Polish it's religion, but I don't really know if it's correct) our priest always told us that creation and evolution don't exclude each other because science and religion belong to a different category. Like in Thomas Aquinas: the difference between faith and knowledge.


Shouldn't Science be supporting your faith? If Creation or evolution for that matter really DID happen, shouldn't there be scientific evidence?

----------


## Adelheid

> We really would like to you to explain. Why do you think that things done in in shorter time are better?



I'm sorry, I should have explained myself a little bit better.  :Biggrin:  What I was trying to say is that man (or creation for that matter) was created in six days. At the end of every day God always said it was good. If it did take that long to create a man, plant or animal, (millions or billions of years) the creation wouldn't have been even half completed in a day! Thus it wouldn't quite have been perfect yet, would it? That's what I meant, I think.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Molko

Hmm...I do believe in God and I believe that God created the universe, but I also believe in the theory of evolution. I dont take the bible's story of creation literally, i.e. the world etc. was made in 6 days. As the bible has been translated from numerous languages (aramaic to greek to engish) and sometimes there is no equivalent meaning for a specific word, perhaps the word days could have really meant a long period of time (say, a thousand years). Usually, words can get lost or changed in translation. Sorry, I dont know if I properly articulated what I wanted to say  :Smile:

----------


## Adelheid

That's alright, I understand you.  :Biggrin:  I too sometimes find it hard to express myself properly, unlike some people. Anyway, just out from curiousity, I think, why wouldn't you take the Bible literally? I know that somewhere in the Bible it did say that a thousand years is as one day to God, as one day is as a thousand years to God. But obviously, Moses he writer of the book of Genesis could have only gotten the creation information from God. He was a close man with God. Wouldn't God have passed the truth to Moses? So that WE could understand it? Sometimes I think that the problem is that we try to figure things out too much. The truth might be infront of us!  :Biggrin:  Sorry, on offense- it happens to everybody, isn't it? 

Anyway, going back to the point, God would have given Moses the truth to record, as the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie. That's the only inpossible thing that God can't do. So, anyhow, that was the point I was trying to make hope u understand me too!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Molko

Yes, it is impossible for God to lie. God in essence is a perfect being, and hence cannot make a mistake and therefore lie. However, you do have to take into account the fact that the bible has been translated into many different languages and often words get lost in translation. Man is not perfect and has the propensity to error...so, how do you know that a 'mistake' or poor translation of texts didnt occur while the bible was made and translated? The first testament was translated from the Hewbrew to the Greek, then to the English. In my view (and i appologise in advance if this causes any offence, because i dont intend to offend any one) you can only take something to be the literal word of God if what was said remains unchanged. Because of translation, the essence of what was said remains the same, but it wont be literally word for word with the original.

----------


## Adelheid

That is very true, and I agree with you heartily. I myself studied that for some of the greek words or Aramic or hebrew in the case of the old testament, there may not be an exact word in English to replace it. That is why (and this I also learnt) that we should go back to the original language and dig deeper into the meaning of the passage that you wish to find out more about. I have done this for the new testament, and the result I got was so different from what you would normally understand from just reading the verse in plain English. Take for example the verse in Matthew- one of Jesus' sayings, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall ingerit the Kingdom of God." Well, you would imagine that Jesus was saying about those who give in easily, timid, etc. That is what the wourd meek means in the dictionary. However, this is not what Jesus actually meant!! The word in Greek which was poorly substituted for meek actually meant one with a strong will, but who yields his/her rights! Now, who would have thought of that! I certainly didn't!!! :-) But then look at Moses as an example he was not what you would call a meek man- after all he murdered an Egyptian out from anger (which shows he has to be strong in the first place!), and also out from anger struck a rock to which he was supposed to speak to. But God called Him a meek man, because he managed to control the strength of His anger or rights or whatever. I do hope you get me.  :Nod:

----------


## baddad

...Yeah, but I think the key word here is 'interpretation'. We can all read the same book and yet each of us reaches a different 'interpretation'. I think the idea of any religious tome is to give a general direction of the intent, but to interpret any Rel. text literally is at best dangerous. The world has moved on in many ways, and one would think a 'God' would have understood the concept of time and delivered his message in a general thesis that would therefore be timeless in texture..........

----------


## Adelheid

The TRUTH is everlasting. It is timeless. Whatever God wrote is the truth. God is truth...

----------


## Miss Darcy

God is truth...I like that. It sounds good. But what are you referring to God writing? Surely not the Bible, that was written by men as an interpretation of his message...

----------


## Adelheid

Well, Let's just put it as God used men to write the Bible for Him. In reality though, the work was God's. He gave them the words to put down, inspired them, gave them visions, in which He told them what to write, and what not to write (the book Revelation). Look at the gospels. Out of all these books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only Luke had a proper education. We know he is a doctor. The rest were fishermen! Fishermen do not have and education. So, really, the Bible is the work of God, put together by God. The ending is perfect. He wrote the last book Himself, really, because He told His disciple John exactly what to write. See how He ends:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David; the Bright and Morning Star." The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" He who hears, let him say, "Come!" He who is thirsty, let him come. He who desires, let him take the water of life freely. I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book. If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. He who testifies these things says, "Yes, I come quickly." Amen! Yes, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all the saints. Amen." Revelation 22:16-21

For some Bibles, they use the colour Red to highlight the Words which Jesus said.

----------


## Miss Darcy

Used men? I'm sorry, but how? And why? Why use men, why not simply do it himself, or better still, why not ingrain it into every human's brain so there would be no need for any religious texts? Then there would be no need for Hell, or not for the atheists at any rate.

But there are obvious discrepancies in the Bible and all those texts, if God didn't mean to trick us by having them written, of course. The age of the world by the Bible is some thousands of years. But in actuality the world is over 4 BILLION years old. 

And so God created the world....but he didn't, the Earth was created in just the same way as every other planet in the Universe. When the Sun was young, the leftovers from its (purely scientific) making spiralled around it, and clustered together to become the planets. The leftovers that didn't become planets became asteroids and planetoids.

Ah, also Adam and Eve, though I know this is the wrong board, there *were* what we call "mitochondrial Adam and Eve." We are all related; we share the same 10 000th great grandmother. She lived some 150 000 years ago (before the world was created, according to the Bible). As to Adam, he never even met Eve - they lived 85, 000 years apart. They weren't even the first couple, there were many other people around their time (though they didn't even share that time). These two are simply our common ancestors, the other lot were mixed in as well. For more info, go to BBC - Science and Genes - Adam & Eve or simply Google "Mitochondrial Adam and Eve". 

What proof have we for the existence of Jesus? And who is Jesus in relation to God? Not his son; or how could Mary be a virgin? In any case, you can't have a kid without sacrificing virginity, or at least, I think there wasn't much IVF during their time.  :Wink: 

I remember when I was little, I stopped believing in Santa Claus and fairies and stuff like that very early, at about six or seven, and one Christmas I was staying at my relatives' place. I was talking to my cousin, who was about six years or so older than me, and was completely shocked that she still believed in Santa Claus. She also believed/s in God, which I also could not understand.

But back to the subject: do you believe in evolution+creation or just creation? 

Anyway, must be off!  :Smile: 

Miss Darcy

P.S. (Though this certainly should not be in the P.S.) I never saw the use of praying. Things are the way they're meant to be, even if there was a god. But if there was a use to praying, does he hear it? I mean, come on, some secret whispering is never gonna go far. If you want him to hear you, you have to go outside and YELL. Am I not correct?

----------


## Adelheid

Dear Miss Darcy,

First off, I must say that God's ways are higher, and deeper than our ways. I will not pretend to know everything. But I will try to answer some of the questions you ask the best I can, okay?

You asked "Used men? I'm sorry, but how? And why? Why use men, why not simply do it himself, or better still, why not ingrain it into every human's brain so there would be no need for any religious texts? Then there would be no need for Hell, or not for the atheists at any rate." God made man each with their own will. He wanted them to make their own decisions, to be able to decide for themselves. That is why no one can force you to do anything beyond your own will. Remember, the Bible says that we were made in the image of God. (However, that does not mean that we are God.)

The second thing you mentioned was about the age of the world. Since no man was there at the "beginning" of the world, to see how it created, why not trust God who was there? He is omnipresent and omniscient. He was always there. Our human mind cannot fathom it. We weren't made with the capacity to know everything. Only God knows everything, that's why He is God. We only know a tiniest fraction of what God chooses to reveal to us. Even the most learned men know nowhere near one tenth of everything. That being so, how would you know that the world is 4 billion years old? Science is basically the "instrument" used to observe things. Whatever it says cannot be totally right. However, we do know that God NEVER lies. The Bible is the inspired word of God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instuction unto righteousness. Since God is truth, we know that His word, whatever He says is true too. Why should He lie about the age of the world? It is because men choose (out of their own free will that God gave them), to disregard the truth, that they find out various other means of explaining the things that was already stated as the truth. Of course, men can't ignore the world around us, that God made, so they would come out with theories such as evolution, and would try to use science to back up their hypothesis. Of course, some part of science might seem to back it up, but obviously, that won't hold up.

You ask what proof we have of Jesus. We have the "proof" of the eye-witnesses who wrote part of the Bible- Jesus Disciples. Think about it now, would a group of barely known, uneducated fishermen gang up with a doctor to come up with such a story : a man who came down into the world as a baby, called the Son of God? What would you then say about the miracles? 

Also, the Bible says nothing is too hard for God. We will never understand about the virgin birth of our Lord, until God chooses to reveal it to us. 

I never believed in Santa Claus, simply because there isn't one, and again, men used that to try and erase the timeless story of the birth of Christ. Christmas isn't about Santa Claus, it's about the birth of Jesus. Just as easter isn't about bunnies or easter eggs, its to remember the day when Jesus rose from the dead, and conquered death.

As to what I believe, I believe that every word of God is true and pure, that it is the Word of God. That it is the Truth. Therefore, nothing false could be found in it. So, I believe that God and God only created the world in 6 human days. And that the world is only thousands of years old. About 6-7 thousand, I think.

God hears all our prayers. Why don't you try? Sometimes, though, if GOd doesn't want us to have the particular thing we pray for He won't give it, because it's not good for us. God, in His love and mercy, wouldn't give His children bad things. There's this verse in the Bible that says something like this: 

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matthew 7:8-11

Or, if He says, "wait." THen of course the request won't come immediately. But whatever God does is for your good. It may seem like evil, but God meant it for Good. Ever readthe story of Joseph and His brothers? If not, it's a good story of how Joseph'd brother's meant him harm, but God used the situation to the whole nation's good. It's found in Genesis 37-50 (exclude chapter 38 if you don't want to read that.)

But thank you for all your questions. They are all straightforward, and I know you mean every single one of them. I tried to give you some of the answers. But if you want to know more, I would suggest getting a copy of the Bible.

P.S. Whew! This is probably the longest reply I've ever written! I hope you weren't tired of me!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Miss Darcy

Dear Adelheid,

No, surprisingly for me, especially considering the topic, I honestly didn't get tired of your reply. It was rather *checks herself* interesting.  :Smile:  (To be frank, I was going to say "amusing", but then you see it's not _all_ amusing and I also realised that would sound pretty mean. So I apologise for almost saying that...)

I'll do my best to answer your answers without offending you (and trust I will succeed; trust in my headstrong, atheist way  :Wink:  ).




> God made man each with their own will. He wanted them to make their own decisions, to be able to decide for themselves. That is why no one can force you to do anything beyond your own will.


They all say that, but I always wondered - why? (Possibly the most wondered question in philosophy) Why would a god LET THEM go to Hell, as a consequence of these free wills, that he himself gave them, and he himself (indirectly at least) shaped and cultivated? You surely must agree that man is only a product of his environment, and it is this environment which determines whether he is "good" or "evil", honest or dishonest. It also determines if he is stubborn, or yielding. The stubborn - off they go to Hell, at least in this particular case. (They can't help being stubborn, though, they are merely brought up to it.) The yielding - take up God and pray and believe, go to Heaven, and enjoy the wonders of afterlife.

I'm headed to Hell beyond return. But I don't really worry about it, firstly, I don't believe it exists, I believe all human suffering that is necessary to make humans better and cure them of vice occurs here on solid earth, and secondly, I believe that even if it DID exist, it wouldn't be half as bad as religion makes it sound. God must have put it in that way to scare people into being good, obedient little lambs. But in reality it would be - well you see I have QUITE a different picture of Hell. It's mostly shaped by Czech fairy tales (filmed versions, real people, very good, enjoyable movies, and though mostly intended for children not babyish!). You see, they usually don't involve God (Z Pekla Stesti 2 is a rare example...hehe God and Satan are played by the same actor!) but they sometimes do the Devil (I refrain from calling him Satan as - well - the Devil is a lot nicer). The Czech version of Hell is a whole lot of devils with one ultimate leader (er...Satan...). They are not always bad. They cure the world of bad people. They cure the bad people of their badness. And the devils are very clever - devils - and they're actually very nice, apart from wanting to get a few blood signatures in exchange for, say, gold, etc. You can get out of the pact with the devil if he doesn't give you three wishes and make them happen. Well, this is off topic, but never mind. It's basically a hot, red, hollow cave-place underground, with a lot of fire, and pots where they boil the naughty souls.  :Biggrin:  Hehe, I love Hell. Sorry. I really do. I think devils in general would make much better company than those stuck-up archangels in Heaven. That's me, personally, anyway. They have such a good sense of humour. Sometimes you get a chance before you get put into pots, and if the devil sees you're actually a good person (good persons in Hell? I ask you! But this is the Christian God view, mixed up with MY view of Hell), or an amusing person, you can make friends with him. *Smiles angelically* I think Hell would be a lot more fun than Heaven would.

Secondly, I wouldn't believe too inherently in all the doctrines, even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired, and not (forgive me), merely a joke a few guys put together ages ago to see who would be insane enough to believe in it. Exaggeration, but you get my drift. Think for yourself. Reason! 

Why would God make the world in 7 (did you say 6?) days anyway. He couldn't, there's too much stuff for making it in seven days. On the other hand, if he's so powerful why would he not simply make it all in one day. And by "the world" are we speaking of planet Earth? If so, I repeat, that was made along with the other planets, and not for any specific purpose; if we're speaking of the spiritual world, well, maybe. But the solid world was certainly not made by a metaphysical entity. If we're speaking of the Earth - then by what are we measuring days? Because, as you know, a day is one complete rotation of the Earth - how can you measure time in days before the Earth was even created? 

And we have EVIDENCE, yes, evidence, of creatures who lived millions of years ago; this is proof, not faith. Science, yes, only measures, only observes, and puts things together using measurement, observation, and reasoning. But there is at least grounds for belief, not simply books, but actual fossils. And it also makes sense! 

The riddle of Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

(So it's not just me asking these questions)

And there's a quote:




> I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts.


Which comes across to me as very funny and very true. There are many quotes, we could be quoting forever, you the Bible and Genesis, me various atheists, scientists and spiritual leaders from around the world, but well, let's stick to our own opinions as much as we can. But just this once, do you mind if I... :Biggrin: ...thanks.




> If God made the Earth, then why do we want to go to heaven?


-Which I also think is a pretty clever argument. Yep. We atheists sure are clever devils.  :Wink: 




> "It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get incinerated by lighting bolts" - Calvin & Hobbes


Hehe, I like this one, makes me chuckle. This is why I ask if God can hear you when you pray. And is he almighty? What has he done to prove he exists?




> We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. - Isaac Bickerstaff


(Fine, fine, that's Jonathan Swift's pseudonym. You know, there was this guy who wrote almanacs during the time he was alive, and challenged people to make predictions as good as his [the guy's]. Well, Jonathan said that [on a certain date, at a certain hour] the guy would die of fever; later, he published his "triumphant results". The other guy loudly argued back that he was still alive, but no one believed him, because his name was already on the Death Register. He got over it, after a while: at least he didn't have to pay his taxes.  :Biggrin: )




> Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps. Proverbs 14:15





> There is no god greater than truth. -Mahatma Gandhi





> I am an atheist, thank God. (Also known as Thank God I'm an atheist. Cool oxymoron, very applicable.) - Luois Bunuel, French film-maker





> For God showed us His own love in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8


"While we were yet sinners"? Great God! Then what d'you suppose we are now!!!




> Jesus said:
> 
> Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
> -- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)


I find that really, and I mean REALLY, scary.




> The Fig Tree Enigma
> 
> The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree ... has withered!"
> -- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21 (NIV)
> 
> 
> Points to remember
> 
> Jesus was hungry.
> ...


*Chuckles to herself at this one*

Well, there's a myriad more, but I think I've bored you (and amused myself) quite enough for the present moment.  :Wink: 

We could be arguing forever about this.... :Biggrin: 
But it's fun. I'll get the Devil to install a Windows XP on his computer when I'm in Hell, then if you can manage to persuade God to do the same thing in Heaven, we can continue arguing into infinity.  :Biggrin: 

Very respectfully,

Miss Darcy
(Feeling rather cheeky at this very moment; please forgive me. But do answer my question about if God is almighty. I'm very curious as to your answer.)

----------


## subterranean

> Posted by *Darcy*: surely must agree that man is only a product of his environment, and it is this environment which determines whether he is "good" or "evil", honest or dishonest.


Then why they were some monks/preacher/priest/other religious leaders/ who spend most of their lives at ceminary/temple/other religious places, become child molesters? I read often about this; A priest sodomized a little boy, A teacher in Islamic bording school molested his student






> Posted by *Darcy*: Secondly, I wouldn't believe too inherently in all the doctrines, even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired, and not (forgive me), merely a joke a few guys put together ages ago to see who would be insane enough to believe in it. Exaggeration, but you get my drift. Think for yourself. Reason!



If you don't believe in the doctrines/teachings/the bible, then you wouldn't call yourself a Christian





> Posted by *Darcy*: Why would God make the world in 7 (did you say 6?) days anyway. He couldn't, there's too much stuff for making it in seven days.


Please do not (always) take those words written in "holy" texts literary. Further, there's a verse in Bible which said that God's time is not the same as man's. I'm not defending the Bible since I don't have any interest for that, but IMO never took these kind of scriptures literary.

----------


## Miss Darcy

> Then why they were some monks/preacher/priest/other religious leaders/ who spend most of their lives at ceminary/temple/other religious places, become child molesters? I read often about this; A priest sodomized a little boy, A teacher in Islamic bording school molested his student.


Well don't ask me. I know they're pretty crazy sometimes.





> If you don't believe in the doctrines/teachings/the bible, then you wouldn't call yourself a Christian


I certainly don't. I'm an atheist! *Chuckles*




> Please do not (always) take those words written in "holy" texts literary. Further, there's a verse in Bible which said that God's time is not the same as man's. I'm not defending the Bible since I don't have any interest for that, but IMO never took these kind of scriptures literary.


I don't believe a word of it, certainly don't take them literally! But you see, Christians might, and that's where the problems start...

Check out my "10 commandments" post if you're not very Christian. I just hope it won't be reported as a "bad post"; there was a bit in it (quoting the 10 commandments) which had a word now deemed...blasphemous.  :Wink: 

Anyway.

Miss Darcy

----------


## subterranean

> Well don't ask me. I know they're pretty crazy sometimes.


Well I wanted to ask you since you were the one who gave that comment. Please refer to your words that I quoted.







> I certainly don't. I'm an atheist! *Chuckles*


I was reffering to your words : "....even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired..."

If you don't believe them, why would you need to say "even if I was Christian..."





> I don't believe a word of it, certainly don't take them literally! But you see, Christians might, and that's where the problems start...


Say, when you read novels/poems, do you always take the words in those novel/poems literally?
Holy texts are like that, no matter you believe them to be true or not...

----------


## Miss Darcy

*Chuckles to herself* I'm in love with Mark Twain. I don't know if I should quote him or not here, but if you'd like to hear it, it's very amusing. Note that this is Mark Twain's view and not mine.  :Biggrin: 




> Please refer to your words that I quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Darcy
> 
> ...surely must agree that man is only a product of his environment, and it is this environment which determines whether he is "good" or "evil", honest or dishonest.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

I think it's a backfire of that environment. You know, all this angelicity (new word :Wink: ), and sort of....repressed badness...Also, they might have had a violent childhood? *Shrugs* But I wasn't talking about religious people...just people in general.




> I was reffering to your words : "....even if I was Christian. You can't believe them, I mean, on what grounds can you be sure it's really God-inspired..."
> 
> If you don't believe them, why would you need to say "even if I was Christian..."


I merely meant to imply that, being something of a nonconformist, even if I was Christian, I'm sure I wouldn't believe the accepted doctrines. I think, knowing myself, I'd make up my own story about God, I'd make God female, for one  :Wink: , and also fit it together with my understanding of the Universe. So it would almost be a different religion - I suppose I couldn't call myself Christian, in this case, anyway.




> Say, when you read novels/poems, do you always take the words in those novel/poems literally?
> Holy texts are like that, no matter you believe them to be true or not...


Not if they're hyperbole or metaphor or figurative. But you see, apparently the Holy Texts are "the Word of God" and everything inside them is true - not figurative, not hyperbole, not metaphor, just simple truth. Am I right?

This is interesting....

Miss Darcy

----------


## Molko

I know that a lot of people believe in the big bang theory, but if you think about it, what started the big bang? Matter cannot just combust by itself. Furthermore, where did that matter come from? It cannot appear by itself from no where....

----------


## Miss Darcy

I see you have not heard the Big Crunch theory. This explains the presence of the matter that exploded in the first place.

We all know (I hope) that the universe is expanding. Expanding at an ever-increasing rate. Scientists are not sure if there is enough dark matter (for there is certainly not enough matter in itself...From memory, the bulk of the galaxies consists of only 30% of the universe's matter...) to stop the universe from expanding forever.

If the universe continues expanding forever, then that is the "Blackout" (or that's my dubbing, anyway) theory; the galaxies will drift further and further apart, until eventually, the sky will be a vast, black darkness with no stars visible anywhere.

The "Big Crunch" theory has it that if there is enough matter (IF there is enough matter) in the Universe, the expansion will slow down and it will implode, until all that is left is a supremely dense, fiery ball. The Big Crunch theory fits nicely because it implies an infinite creation/apocalypse cycle. So basically, the universe recycles itself, and so explaining your question.

The Big Bang Theory is based on Einstein's mathematical equations from his General Theory of Relativity. The TOR (Theory of Relativity) has been proved countless times since Einstein published it. Furthermore, you have proof of the Big Bang right in your house. Turn on the television, and get to a channel that is all grey and fuzzy. This interference that you see now was created at the beginning of space and time - at the beginning of the Universe - some 13.7 billion years ago. This interference is particles left over from the Big Bang. Every time you take a glass of water, you are drinking matter that was created near the beginning of the Universe's history. We ourselves are starchildren. Literally. The matter inside us once belonged to the matter in a star.

Well. I didn't give you many examples, but that's just because I'm doing it from memory and am tired. I can find you some if you want a more scientific than colloquial interpretation.

Miss Darcy

P.S. *Contentedly* This is getting intrestinger and intrestinger.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Molko

Yes, but what created matter? An electron cannot simply appear, nor can atoms. They must originate somewhere. And btw, mathematicians have not been able to 'find out' exactly what happened at the time of the big bang. They have only been able to find out 0.54 (or something like that) of a second before the bang happened. This is because after this number, the equation ends with infinite as a result. Mathematicians are still to calculate exactly what happened at the time of the bang  :Smile:

----------


## Dyrwen

To answer your question "What created matter?" simply: Nothing did. Matter, in a universal sense always existed because nothing can exist but our univese, as far as we know. Time itself was the central "cause" of the big bang because before the big bang--there was no "before" and therefore the question of "how did it bang" is just that "time began." You can't do work on the universe when time isn't active, so if time becomes active and the universe as a compacted mass is there, it will explode into the universe as we know it today. Maybe its just me, but I find this explanation more reasonable than "God made it" because it only begs the question of what made God and if we're just going to say God was always there, it seems only reasonable (Occam's Razor-style) that the universe might as well have just always been there instead of mucking up our understanding of the universe with gods.

To answer your question not so simply: I just did a bit of work about the topic with my physics teacher this past week, so I'll give a rundown of what I came up with below.

The universe at the moment of "bang" is constrained by a few separate laws, even though technically speaking the laws may or may not have any relevance on the universe as a whole at such high energies as the point of "creation" it is generally understood that if these things are equivelant then it will work out:

Basically speaking, due to part of Relativity theory ((GM/r)=c^2), quantum mechanics [uncertainty principle] ((Mc^2)t)=h/2pi) and also from another part of relativity theory based purely on the speed of light (r=ct) to make sense of space time, quantum gravity requires that all three of these equations hold simultaneously. Using the accepted values of G(gravitational constant), c(speed of light, which is constant), and h(Planck's constant) one finds that:

M(mass of the universe) = 2.2x10^-8kq
r(size of the universe) = 1.6x10^-35m
t(time the bang could possibly occur) = 5.3 x10^-44s

These are basically just Planck's mass, distance and time, which dictate the limit that each of these properties can be at, for if time were any smaller then the amount wouldn't make any sense in terms of any other equation you try to make. 

A consequence of this picture of space and time is that the smallest unit of space is Planck's length (1.6x10^-35m), since any distance smaller than that, which was taken up by a Planck's mass would be too unstable and therefore coming and going out of existence all the time. According to this picture, the universe at a quantum level, such as when the big bang occurred, is chaotic to say the least, and comes into existence at a length of time equal to Planck's time. Distances or times less than these lengths would be meaningless because they would not be time or distance-like, but instead particle-like. 

_Summary of Thoughts on Principle_

In the beginning, time was at 5.3 x10^-44s [aka, unit t] (15 billion years ago) and the universe was condensed and static because nothing could move so long as time equaled that. Everything was at an extremely small state compacted and trapped inside a ball of space smaller than anything possible. This was possible because time was not allowing the laws of physics to work their usual reasonable actions on space. At the big bang, time "began", which made time excell to a higher unit of speed, which removed the tension of the universe's condensed state because it was allowed to move more freely. It began ultimately without cause because at time unit t, no laws worked properly, so causality is no longer of any use to reasoning why the acts of times start occurred. i.e. The "why" the universe exists needs no "why" because this analysis gives a "how" that, I believe, explains well enough why such a bang would occur, while I do confess that it doesn't say "why" it began at that moment per se, I can at least explain why it would've began in the first place because of the how.

At high energy levels, such as when time was at unit t, and the universe was condensed in a high energy state, physical laws and the forces of nature break down and/or combine. When time is at t the laws remain stagnant and shortly thereafter time sped up into its normal state, the laws began to have an impact and individual power. The uncertainty of time's predictability is cause enough for the big bang's existence and the start of time, seeing as time does not need a reason to start or stop and can do so at anytime without anyone noticing, which is allowable through quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle. Just as time can slow down when objects move closer to the speed of light, it has the capability of stopping completely. The plane of space-time breaks down just as all physical laws do at time when it is at zero state. 

Time is the root of "cause" for big bang phenomena and exists more naturally than any dimension of space, as the spatial realm itself doesnt hamper it, although the size of space and time remains limited to a point, if Planck's constants still apply. 

_Overview of laws and time idea:_ 
If laws aren't working, time = zero.
If laws are working, time = one.
Causality and Newton's 3rd law break down and the supposed "1st cause" isn't necessary at the point of "creation".

_How space works into the equation of time itself:_ 
1) Space-Time can exist only when time exists alongside it. (A)
2) The laws of space exist only when time is active. (B)
3) If time doesn't exist [in the sense that nothing can move out of its tense state] then space can exist without the cause of physical laws. (A, B)

If space-time is reduced to a state wherein time is at t, then space itself can only exist at a state wherein time's stoppage allows nothing to occur. Therefore it is possible for space to bang into existence, so long as time is the central cause of its creation.

----------


## Molko

Wow, you explain things better than my physics teacher  :Biggrin:

----------


## atiguhya padma

Miss Darcy,

I must say I do like the way you think. 

Have you ever wondered why it is that Christians don't pray for God and the Devil to be mates again? I mean it would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it?

And, God being omniscient, it comes as a surprise that he even created the angel that become Satan, doesn't it?

Furthermore, I'm convinced Hell would be much more fun than heaven. Im sure the best sex happens in Hell, for instance.

I too agree with the argument about us being products of our environement. In answer to SubT, in the case of sexual abuse amongst men in robes, that too is an environmental factor: I mean all that repressed sexuality, and the psychological effects that abuse has upon the victim, then of course its no wonder that sexual abuse is well-documented amongst the clergy.

AP

----------


## Dyrwen

> Wow, you explain things better than my physics teacher


Thanks. It helps that I'm not too keen on mathematics, so I tend to absorb a lot of the theory more efficiently. I've spent a lot of time on the big bang though, so probably just experience in the field. 

Not to mention my physics teacher is awesome. heh

Edit: I worked out the equations just tonight as well and it turns out that, if I'm looking at the situation correctly, all three (relativity, quantum, more relativity) equation sets do work together at that point in time, so it seems fesible to believe that this idea is physicall sound in terms of the science involved.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts. >

I love this quote from MD's post. I have suspected for some time that Christians are fakes. This seems to succinctly state that suspicion.

----------


## subterranean

> Not if they're hyperbole or metaphor or figurative. But you see, apparently the Holy Texts are "the Word of God" and everything inside them is true - not figurative, not hyperbole, not metaphor, just simple truth. Am I right?
> 
> This is interesting....
> 
> Miss Darcy


I suppose there are many methapors and figurative sentences in the Bible or Ghita or Qoran.. :Rolleyes: 
Point is in a way, holy texts are just like other literature REGARDLESS you believe them as words of God or not..

----------


## amuse

mm...i think after a point books should be thrown away (like when they're not doing anyone any good). to quote a beloved spiritual teacher of mine, "truth is not contained in any one book; it is contained in the heart." i mean, there's only so much that reading's gonna do for you. look at the puritans in the in the 1600's, slavery, and later manifest destiny in the u.s. and a whole bunch of things all over the globe. it really takes living, not reading.

----------


## baddad

This thread has contains a poll designed to elicit personal opinions as to the origin of mankind. Several options are available to choose from, and although polls are the least scientific method of gathering data, we can at least see what visitors to this site hold as a personal belief: Evolution, Creationism, Not Sure What to think, None Of The Above....

My question is this; 8.7 % of those polled have chosen "None Of The Above." How can this be an option? What theory is espoused by these 8.7% who have chosen this ballot? *Wonders if the 8.7% solution will reply*

----------


## Yorkie

Americans' acceptance of 'Creationism' has been making the news here in the UK. According to recent reports, education authorities in one state (can't remember which, but I presume in the Bible belt) have banned the teaching of evolution and instead have replaced it with 'creationism as a fact'. Is this true or just typical media sensationalism?

----------


## Dyrwen

> Americans' acceptance of 'Creationism' has been making the news here in the UK. According to recent reports, education authorities in one state (can't remember which, but I presume in the Bible belt) have banned the teaching of evolution and instead have replaced it with 'creationism as a fact'. Is this true or just typical media sensationalism?


Creationism hasn't "replaced" evolution in schools, but some educators and groups are trying to get it taught alongside evolution as an alternative to scientific fact. They believe it is a matter of equal tolerance of each side of the issue and feel that each should get their own allotted teaching time. However, those attempting to do this are only trying to get the Judeo-Christian version of creationism taught, rather than all creationism stories as valid alternative views, which therein lies the issue that makes their cause so damned wrong. 

They did put stickers on biology books that said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" in Georgia and a few places in Tennessee, but the stickers in Georgia were ruled unconstitutional. Personally I'd be fine with them teaching it alongside evolution, seeing as the only evidence for creation is told in one solitary book full of stories, whereas all the evidence for evolution is told in epirical fossil structures, experiment, etc. If anything it'd hurt those fighting for creationism in the schools, seeing as they wouldn't have much to back up their cause outside of outright religious preaching, which would subsequently be ruled unconstitutional to do in public schools. 

So yes, it is sensationalism, but over here it's more of a "Oh these poor Christians are being oppressed by science in schools and are children are being force-fed facts instead of being taught thought." It's absurd to me, and I'm glad to you as well, but it apparently has some fuel to be fired in the US that isn't going away anytime soon. So long as adherence to belief over reasoned knowledge is thought of as noble, the issue will continue to arise.

----------


## Adelheid

> I see you have not heard the Big Crunch theory. This explains the presence of the matter that exploded in the first place.


If you ask me (this is my personal opinion, which I'm NOT forcing on anybody) this Big Bang or Crunch theory is simply ridiculous. Right, let's put it in this light.

Suppose you were baking a cake. You'd have to measure all the ingredients first, and mix them together in the specific way that the recipe says. But if looking at the evolutionary way, there happened to be abit of flour on the counter, when a bucket of water happened to fall, thus mixing the 2 together, and then the sugar appeared and mixed itself.... It wouldn't even turn out to be a cake!!! It would be some soppy mess! 

How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it. how much effort at designing has been put into it. No explosion could have created the beautiful "round" world as it is. The universe and the galaxies, and the other planets. No big bang through time would have been able to make the planets run so smoothly for thousands of years. Think about it. No evolution could have formed all the genes and cells and chromosome that make a life. It is impossible!!! Not one in infinity would it ever make somthing like man (or animals or plants, for that matter). No, God had to have planned, and created each of us uniquely and perfectly as we are. Evolution would never have formed all the intricately designed vein of each individual leaf, etc.

In the natural law, when left to themselves, things would degenerate, not become better!!! Imagine if I left the soppy mess on the floor, and transported myself through time for billions of years, it would NEVER become a piece of cake!! Instead, you would find the house gone!!! (Due to natural decay, etc.) If YOU went away for a holiday, you wouldn't expect to find your house all new and sparkling when you came back!! NO! You would expect to find dust and maybe abit of cobwebs around the house. (And that is only for a few days!!!) What would a billion years do to your house?!??  :FRlol: 

Think seriously about it.  :Nod:

----------


## Dyrwen

First off, I always find it quite intriguing that theists have trouble believing that the universe acts this way out of natural capability yet have no trouble believing that some all powerful being can act without limits whenever it wants without any evidence but a good hunch (seeing as you can never show evidence of something supernatural, so long as you exist in the natural realm). And Darcy, my apologies for replying to what he addressed to you, I couldn't help myself.




> How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it. how much effort at designing has been put into it. No explosion could have created the beautiful "round" world as it is.


Sheesh, bad analogy. Gravity's waves and the cyclical motion that results in it, moving along with centrifugal force of their masses would nearly always end up wittling a planet down to a "round" shape. Seeing as when it was first forming, it was a liquid hot molten mass, which guess what, was made round by its rotation. Neat eh? Try spinning water around inside a bottle and see the cyclical motion it makes when you do it, if that water were to harden into ice as you moved it, it'd be quite circular, or at least round. That's just natural law. Strike 1.




> The universe and the galaxies, and the other planets. No big bang through time would have been able to make the planets run so smoothly for thousands of years.


First of all, considering the Big Bang is an accepted theory right now, I'd say that there's adequate evidence in reality alone that everything has run smoothly for thousands, even billions, of years without the outside influence of a deity. The way gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces act together make the methodology of the big bang and our universe as a whole work beautifully. It doesn't run smoothly, in a sense, either. It blows up in supernovae all the time, has planets destroyed by gamma ray bursts, asteroids, and just plain destabilized forces, not to mention the way that black holes are at the center of most galaxies, therefore making an inherent stupidity to any designer's concept of a smooth running universe, seeing as it would suck in and destroy most everything in time, even though it'd equal out eventually. Strike 2, perhaps.




> Think about it. No evolution could have formed all the genes and cells and chromosome that make a life. It is impossible!!! Not one in infinity would it ever make somthing like man (or animals or plants, for that matter). No, God had to have planned, and created each of us uniquely and perfectly as we are. Evolution would never have formed all the intricately designed vein of each individual leaf, etc.


Impossible? It's already happened, you're just not willing to believe it. Take the Miller/Urey experiment back in the 1950s. They put inorganic matter inside a test tube, let it sit, hit it with short lightening bursts (such as to simulate the Earth when it was 4 billion years old) and got 15% of the inorganic matter to turn into organic matter, as well as 2% into amino acids (the building blocks of life) in one week's time. Imagine how much progress could occur in that system with a billion years to evolve in. Amino acids is a base compound of RNA and DNA, so however complex and impossible you feel it is to occur, these experiments alone show your presumptions as quite absurd. Strike 3, take a seat. 




> In the natural law, when left to themselves, things would degenerate, not become better!!! Imagine if I left the soppy mess on the floor, and transported myself through time for billions of years, it would NEVER become a piece of cake!! Instead, you would find the house gone!!! (Due to natural decay, etc.) If YOU went away for a holiday, you wouldn't expect to find your house all new and sparkling when you came back!! NO! You would expect to find dust and maybe abit of cobwebs around the house. (And that is only for a few days!!!) What would a billion years do to your house?!??


I do enjoy how people equate evolution with dumping inorganic crap around your house and letting it sit to see if any aliens form. Natural decay, sure, but if your house was still powered and gave electricity sporatically throughout your house you'd have some complex organisms in that house when you returned. They'd be mostly microscopic, but probably enough of them there to be visible. Chaos doesn't necessarily imply the lack of order or design. Just because the sun explodes eventually doesn't mean that it is outlandish to believe that it still works now. It will explode, possibly fall back onto itself, create a white dwarf, possibly compact further and create a black hole, thereby distorting space itself and taking in everything around it. Order can arise from disorder just as disorder can arise from order. 

The addition of a god to the equation of how the universe works only further complicates life itself. The universe is complex and incomprehensible, but we've enough comprehension so far to explain things to a reasonable degree. Personally I think you're just unwilling to accept the fact that science is pretty good at explaining the basics and would rather make the basics (big bang, evolution, even how planets form) into something more compact and faith-based. It's fine to believe what you will about how the world works, but reasonably speaking, if an explanation is valid, experimented and observed as correct to the point where its damned near impossible to prove it wrong, to not believe it out of simplicity alone seems a bit absurd.

Then again, faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary in some cases, so I can't assume you're one to take the position of reason alone. God isn't meant to be understood, as Christians usually say, so I certainly don't assume any extremely reasonable solution to the world's problems would change their minds one bit about whether or not God did it.

----------


## Adelheid

I love this quote:

" We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which men tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the ever shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles."  :FRlol:

----------


## Dyrwen

Scientific theory evolves to be more accurate over time.
Religious faith evolves to be more acceptable to different people over time.

I've a few quotes as well, which are shown in the quote thread, but I'll display them again here. To your quote's ideas of ignorance as being science's true purpose: _"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge." -Elbert Hubbard_. It is only after you stop trying to explain the world as it is that you ever truly become ignorant. Understanding is an evolving process.

To the concept of the Bible truly meaning anything over time, I give you this quote: _"If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain." - Carol McGrath, a Native American_. The acceptance of the natural realm as accurate is the first step to being able to stop and describe how it works. 

By the way, good job not responding to any of my analysis of your follying judgements about how science, or even the world, works. I do what I can to reply with my own opinion on subjects in kind to at least see if I can defend them, I'd appreciate it if at least some attempt to volley a return defense was waged instead of running to shove your head into the sand through wise men's words.

----------


## subterranean

IMO Adelheid and Dyrwen shoud meet..They would have a great discussion together  :Nod:

----------


## Molko

I absolutely love science, but there is a lot of supernatural stuff that science cannot explain. I've had some weird experiences, which prove to me that there must be something out there, there must be another realm aside from this one. I've had a lot of ghostly encounters and so have other family members of mine. How can science explain that? To a certain degree, science can explain what we know very well. But it's what we don't know that's the question...

----------


## Scheherazade

We know what we know because science has explained it to us.

----------


## subterranean

I think there are science and knowledge..And knowledge may not be scientific but still it can tell us about the things we know now...

----------


## Molko

But the thing with science is that theories are constantly changing. In a few years time, the cell theory (for example) can be modified and refined, as well as other theories. Look at the many changes made to the atomic theory

----------


## atiguhya padma

Therein lies its value. It can be updated, upgraded.

----------


## Dyrwen

Well, some folks prefer absolutes to absolutely relatives. Upgrading makes people feel unsure, so they might feel they'd have to change their minds too much in time, rather than be safe and secure in a single belief that doesn't ever _have_ to change.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Molko,

You say your experiences prove to you that there must be something out there. Weird experiences, or any experiences for that matter, don't prove anything about external reality, I'm afraid.

----------


## Molko

My family and I have lived in a haunted house once, and each family member had something happen to them. Science cannot explain that, and I'm not saying anyone else has to believe in ghosts and the supernatural because I've had an experience. What I'm just saying is that there must be something out there beyond science, but for the moment that cannot be proven.  :Smile:  And besides, if science can be ugraded, what we do know is therefore not definate, only an inference

----------


## Molko

Because if we knew the definate truth, why do we keep seeking to refine what we know?

----------


## subterranean

But isn't continuous development/ivention/improvement the main purpose of science? If people stop challenging, then where's the progress?




> Well, some folks prefer absolutes to absolutely relatives. Upgrading makes people feel unsure, so they might feel they'd have to change their minds too much in time, rather than be safe and secure in a single belief that doesn't ever _have_ to change.

----------


## Dyrwen

> But isn't continuous development/ivention/improvement the main purpose of science? If people stop challenging, then where's the progress?


I used the word "relatives" to imply that everything they study changes over time and they're fine with that. They take on the challenges time dictates to them and rework their ideas. But some people want absolutes and will never accept science's relative concepts, no matter how fullproof some of them are, because the idea that it has changed from something else or is going to change in the future, makes them believe that something must be wrong with it, so they justify a reason not to believe in it, while ignoring their own beliefs as changing with time.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Molko's case is interesting to me, because I have often come across people who form theories based upon experience and then assume that when someone attacks their theory, they are in fact denying the experience. UFO's are a case in point. I have no doubt that the UFO experience is in many cases genuine. I also have no doubt that there are no alien extraterrestrial civilisations that visit us, and that the theories the UFO experiencers put forward are false. Experience does not validate impossible or improbable theories. I think the same can be said for the born-again christian experience.

----------


## Miss Darcy

> And Darcy, my apologies for replying to what he addressed to you, I couldn't help myself.


Not at all, Dyr, you're absolutely welcome to the conversation, it's not limited to be merely between two people. Besides, you argue much more effectively than I do.  :Wink: 

Basically, I second all you say. It's very nice to see that there are some people around who don't believe that God made the world, and for his own amusement, too. I mean, I guess if you look at it from God's point of view, you do have to be a *little* compassionate for him and say, well, perhaps he was a *little* lonely in his *little* infinite plaything of a universe. So maybe I shouldn't be too hard on the poor guy.  :Wink: 

And AP, sorry for not replying before to...




> ...I must say I do like the way you think....


And _I_ must say that I'm very flattered that someone finds some sense in my ideas.  :Smile:  

...I hadn't noticed your message, I somehow managed an oversight and skipped straight to Dyrwen's. Beats me why.




> Have you ever wondered why it is that Christians don't pray for God and the Devil to be mates again? I mean it would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it?


Sure would. I guess they think that God is far too "above" (excuse the pun) the Devil to be friends with him, especially since he (that is, the Devil!  :Biggrin: ) sinned (er, did he? I figure he must have...but I haven't really heard anything concerning why the Devil is the Devil and why exactly he got on bad terms with God, but...I digress...). But, myself, I have much more respect for the idea of the Devil than the idea of God. The Devil is clever, cunning, and crafty, which obviously he has to be for his position. I find I have much more sympathy for him than I do for God. God is simply the monarchal ruler who created the universe for the fun of it and got a bit bored.

Has anybody here read _Paradise Lost_ by John Milton? I haven't, myself, but according to my textbook in it, Satan "depicts God as despotic and unjust in his treatment of Satan. God and his angels, however, reflect the attitudes of an absolute monarch and his court. Satan and his legions of fallen angels support the idea of independence and freedom of will and evokes sympathy in the reader." Might be worth the read.

Now, Adelheid,  :Smile: 




> Suppose you were baking a cake.


I have to agree with Dyrwen that this is a bad analogy. When you think about it, a very bad analogy. Cakes and the universe simply do not mix. They can't be compared, a cake takes someone to make it, and a universe is simply _there_ from the beginning of time and space and exploded. What happened before time and space began is not of our concern, because all we know so far is time and space.




> How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it.


I have to disagree with you there. The Universe being perfect (call we it perfect? It has its imperfections...but they make it perfect as a whole. I think perfection without imperfection is very imperfect.) as it is is simply a matter of pure chance. There are many "histories", as scientists call it, out there (sounds like science fiction but is actually science fact), many different versions of the Universe which never became anything like our own. Not all of them have intelligent life. Some of them do. There is a universe in which everything happens, many different Earth's, many different possibilities. That we fall into this one is simply fate/chance.

Don't know if that made any sense. In general, after seven pm the computer and myself don't combine very well...so if I got anything scientific wrong, don't blame The Universe in a Nutshell, blame my tired brain for twisting and contorting it.

I must be off now. Bye everyone,

Miss Darcy.

----------


## IWilKikU

> Has anybody here read _Paradise Lost_ by John Milton? I haven't, myself, but according to my textbook in it, Satan "depicts God as despotic and unjust in his treatment of Satan. God and his angels, however, reflect the attitudes of an absolute monarch and his court. Satan and his legions of fallen angels support the idea of independence and freedom of will and evokes sympathy in the reader." Might be worth the read.


I am studying _Paradise Lost_ right now, at a Christian University no less, and Milton's sympathies with Satan go far beyond that quick evaluation. I would love to talk more about it but that'll happen in General lit. I'm not forum-savvy enough to figure out how to add a link, so just go to General lit and check it out!  :Biggrin:

----------


## subterranean

Well, shouldn't you continue to look for explanation i/o of stop right there? Please excuse me as I'm not an expert in this kind of issue, but I don't know that there's one time in our universe/galaxies/whatever when "time" didn't exist before..




> ....What happened before time and space began is not of our concern, because all we know so far is time and space.
> 
> 
> Miss Darcy.

----------


## Dyrwen

If something exists outside of our universe, it is near impossible to find it, since we will only be able to find what is in our own universe. If there was no time before the universe "began" then it is literally impossible to even look any farther back in time, since before that point, there was no time at all. Just my guess at what she might've meant, heh.

----------


## IWilKikU

I can't imagine that the big-bang that created the universe and matter also created time. Time seems like one of those things that just is, because its a concept rather than a concrete thing. How could a material bang create a concept?

----------


## Sitaram

Peter Davies, a physicist, wrote a book entitled "God and the New Physics" where he explores ancient ideas in theology, like time, in the context of modern notions of quantum and relativity.

Davies states that Augustine was way ahead of his time, around the 5th century, to stated that God did not wait a vast number of millenia (in duration of time) before creating the world, but rather, time springs into being as part of the act of creation.

Here is just one of many long discussions to be found by google.com

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF3-97Busen.html

Interesting side note: Perhaps not in Davies book, but elsewhere there are discussions of how Kant is simply wrong about his notions of time and space in the light of Quantum and Relativity; ingenious, but wrong.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Sitaram,

Would you care to expand on how Kant is wrong?

AP

----------


## Sitaram

I dont have time to search in google.com, but later I will, there are lots of links there about Kant, time, space, quantum, right, wrong, good, evil.... you will have a lot of fun.

----------


## corpse

i cant believe some people believe the creation myth posed in the bible. not onlyis evolution a proven fact, but there are two creation stories at the start of genesis which would point at oral tradition and therefore it being just a story

----------


## atiguhya padma

Corpse,

You are assuming that believers will be reasonable. History shows that both impossibility and contradiction are no hindrance to them. I've even had a debate with some Christians who will simply answer that God can do anything. He can do the impossible and He can make contradictions truths. Now how can you possibly use reason with such people?

----------


## subterranean

Exactly AP, when a person chooses to believe in particular religion means he/she (whether he/she realize it or not) in a way has become a unreasonable person.

----------


## baddad

> Peter Davies, a physicist, wrote a book entitled "God and the New Physics" where he explores ancient ideas in theology, like time, in the context of modern notions of quantum and relativity.



Wow!! I thought I was (LITERALLY) one of the few people in the world who had read Davies' book, "God and the New Physics!!!!" I own this book, originally bought it second hand for research on a novel I wrote. Never, ever, expected anyone else to have read it. Nor can I understand why anyone would.........but again, WOW! *you learn so much on this forum*

----------


## atiguhya padma

Here is something that might astound you even further baddad. I met Paul Davies at an Open University party here in the UK back in the 80's. He was lecturing at the University of Newcastle back then. I think God and the New Physics had just come out in paperback then. A fascinating guy from what I remember. (I've read the book too!)

AP

----------


## baddad

A.P. I own an old-and-getting-tattered hardcover of the book. And now my world is more complete.....the author and at least two other people have read that book!!!! I mean, it IS obscure isn't it ?

And..............I gotta go with Kiku here (and welcome back iwilkiku).....didn't Stephen Hawkins... *pauses....or was it Einstein* ....say that TIME is only a creation of man, a concept, a ruler, a means of measurement!

----------


## Miss Darcy

Ah! Paul Davies! One of my favourites. I've got his book, "How to Build a Time Machine", among many others, and I find him a very good writer.




> And..............I gotta go with Kiku here (and welcome back iwilkiku).....didn't Stephen Hawkins... *pauses....or was it Einstein* ....say that TIME is only a creation of man, a concept, a ruler, a means of measurement!


I thought *I* said that.  :Biggrin:  But you know, everything is relative, even time; no two persons have exactly the same time. It's not the Newtonian, established background that moves the same for everybody: no, time is relative, "everything is by comparison." Have you heard the one about the person walking down a street in a city, and asking a random person what the time is (seeing he has a watch)?

1st Person: What's the time, please?
2nd Person: I don't know; ask a philosopher, I'm only a scientist.

Hehe. Time, as in physical time, is interweaved with space, if you've heard of spacetime. As you travel through space, you travel through time. The way I understand it, the faster you move, the slower time goes for you in comparison to someone stationary. It won't be a big difference, but only noticeable in nanoseconds, but it still exists. The difference, I mean.

Time is elastic. 

Miss Darcy.

----------


## atiguhya padma

http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/time/mctaggart.html 

http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html 

Two links on McTaggart's concept of the unreality of time. He wrote a book in the 1920's called The Nature of Existence, in which he came up with his argument about time having the A, B and C series nature. Very difficult to summarise his ideas so anybody interested should go to these websites.

----------


## Sitaram

I did a google.com search on "kant is wrong" and came up with 308 hits.

Of course, I in no way mean to imply that Kant IS wrong about anything simply from the number of google.com hits returned. But such a search does uncover a lot of interesting reading; interesting at least for those who are motivated by a genuine intellectual curiosity. 

As I quickly looked over some of this material, one thought in particular struck me. Kant saw refutation as the touchstone of error, and hence Kant labored to construct a philosophy which would be irrefutable. But can we assume that something is unquestionably true simply because it has yet to be refuted? Can we assume that it will never be refuted? Can we know that anything non-trivial is irrefutable? 


The first four links are what I feel are most interesting (and one is written from the point of view of Islam)

Among the remainder of the links, there are some which look like interesting forums where one may post.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF6-02Carter.pdf

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Chapter7.htm

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...re14/L14r.html

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm

===================


http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives...ar00/0065.html

http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14...pic-topic-1842

-start-0.html

http://www.thymos.com/mind/lakoff2.html

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm



http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/p...m/tpm01-19.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...17/ai_59473700

http://radicalacademy.com/adlerbriefing5.htm

http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/005681.shtml

http://www.pabst-publishers.com/Psyc...0/freeman3.htm

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...9176&start=25&

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...9176&start=25&

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgkant.htm

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html

http://www.friesian.com/space.htm


http://www.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/SST/phil2.htm

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...re13/L13r.html

http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~hatfield/phil004gr4.html


http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/PhilosophyToday.htm

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-105218.html

----------


## Scheherazade

Out of curiousity... Sitaram or others who have not voted: There is a poll attached to this thread and you haven't voted... Why/why not? If you are not sure, there is a "Don't know what to think" option as well...

----------


## Sitaram

I did not realize that you anticipated response from everyone. Since you mention me by name, and ask me point blank, I shall certainly give you the courtesy of an answer.

I am personally convinced that evolution is a scientific fact. I am convinced by documentaries which I see on the subject, and what I have heard scientists say.
I am not a scientist myself, nor a mathematician nor a physicist, so I cannot prove such things myself. So, it is pointless for anyone to debate with me personally whether evolution is a scientific fact. I know that certain fundamentalist preachers claim that God greated fossils to TEST the faithfulness of his flock.


I do try not to become embroiled in certain kinds of disputes with certain kinds of people, because I doubt that the dialogue will be profitable.

For example, if I debate with a fundamentalist, of any religion you please, (and I have done so on numerous occasions), we will go around in endless circles, and in the end they will still embrace exactlly the same fundamentalist beliefs.

I suppose there are a few people left in the world who are convinced that the earth is flat. If it is conceivable that such people would use the internet, and if you were to post a poll on "Earth: flat or round?" well, such people would offer endless circles of explanations of why the earth is flat, and how photos from the moon are a subtle conspiracy on the part of the government.

----------


## Scheherazade

I was not anticipating a response from everyone personally but yours was the last post in the thread and I noticed that there were some people, who, despite posting numerous messages, have not voted in favour of one of the options available. As often, curiosity got the better of me.

Thank you for giving me the courtesy of an answer.

----------


## Sitaram

Sometimes, when I am bored, and there is not much forum activity, I read threads I might not normally look at, and if I see something interesting regarding, e.g., time, quantum, Kant, Paul Davies, ... that sort of thing, then I throw in a comment... the business about time coming into being with the big bang was what prompted me to post, but not the creation/evolution issue

I am intrigued by the question "How was Kant wrong, in light of more modern science and thinking", but then... we do not have a philosophy forum per se, and such a topic is certainly not literature, or poetry, or religion texts, though I guess it could go into the chat forum

----------


## IWilKikU

I havn't posted a response because I only recently abjured Christianity and Creationism, I'm sure AP can remember some of our debates from ages past  :Wink: . But I havn't done any research on evolution for myself. So it's not that I "Don't know what to think" as the poll suggests, but that I merely havn't decided yet. In anycase I don't believe in biblical creation, but evolution in the sense that we went from fish to lizards to ... etc... until we became humans (I apologize for my increadibly ignorant and superficial analysis of evolution  :Wink: ) still seems a bit suspicious to me. perhaps in a couple years when I'm a bit more stable in my beliefs I'll dig this thread up and post a reply.

----------


## MungoParks

Where belief begins, there ends the true pursuit of knowledge.

----------


## Violet

The radiometric measuring of the years can be very inaccurate. It is based on an absolute, and not a KNOWN age...thus, scientist will only accept the date which fits their thinking.... after all, all scientists are biased. Could it not be 6000 years, rather than billions of years???

----------


## Dyrwen

Violet, Radiometric dating is quite accurate when it comes to being millions as well as billions of years old. It only becomes inaccurate at thousands of years and really, that's only carbon dating, rather than radiometric, so yes their dating works only for larger dates, but the fact of the matter is: They still are accurate. If the world were only thousands of years old their measurements wouldn't work at all any of the time. 

They work all the time when it comes to measuring the age of the Earth. Quite frankly, there isn't any evidence the world is only thousands of years old, no matter what tests you use. Unless you completley redefine how long a period of time is, there isn't any basis for such an argument. It's completely without basis.

----------


## mono

> Violet, Radiometric dating is quite accurate when it comes to being millions as well as billions of years old. It only becomes inaccurate at thousands of years and really, that's only carbon dating, rather than radiometric, so yes their dating works only for larger dates, but the fact of the matter is: They still are accurate. If the world were only thousands of years old their measurements wouldn't work at all any of the time. 
> 
> They work all the time when it comes to measuring the age of the Earth. Quite frankly, there isn't any evidence the world is only thousands of years old, no matter what tests you use. Unless you completley redefine how long a period of time is, there isn't any basis for such an argument. It's completely without basis.


Very well explained, Dyrwen. I rarely post in the 'Religious Text' forums, but felt a little confused about the nature of radiometrics. I did a little research, and then found your post.
Thanks.  :Wink:

----------


## atiguhya padma

I think I read somewhere the other day that one of the scientific measuring satellites (the Hubble maybe?) had finally discovered the age of the Universe: 13.7 billion yrs old, give or take 1%.

----------


## Dyrwen

> I think I read somewhere the other day that one of the scientific measuring satellites (the Hubble maybe?) had finally discovered the age of the Universe: 13.7 billion yrs old, give or take 1%.


You are correct in that age. NASA has a spiffy little explanation on that site of everything about the bang, including a picture of the universe itself back then.  :Smile:

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

Goodday,

Please have patience with me because this is my first time, ok. I have not gone the book over, however, over the years of search my self conviction is that human being in this planet is first and foremost an evolved one and then creation took over, then evolution again. We are alien in our own right and a traveling space-specie. Why do you think we travel around our solar system and using the planet earth our spaceship! Thanks for your patience.

----------


## Dyrwen

Heh, not much of a spaceship, considering we travel in an elliptical orbit around the sun only and have been for quite some time. Though you're correct in that sense, the Earth is a "spaceship" wherein the entire planet's species are inhabiting. Not sure what you mean by the whole evolved-created-evolved thing, but perhaps you'll expand on that. Suppose you might be a raelian or other alien-created-us subscriber, though I'd need your clarification on that much.

----------


## Adelheid

This is getting worse! *sigh* From monkeys to spaceships....  :Brow:  

God created this world with age. Could he not have put fossils and all the other stuff under land as well? When he created Adam an Eve, he created them full grown. Same for the sun, moons, stars and animals and trees and plants. It's only the 2nd generation that started young. Perhaps that could be the reason why "science contadicts" the Bible. Science claims that the earth is billions of years old. God made the world with age. So far, the same level. But even though God made the world with age, the world planet and universe itself is only thousands of years old. Shouldn't the earth evolve even more if it did evolve in the first place? Yet we see that the earth hasn't changed a bit, since the beginning of the world (beisde of course, the occurances of natural disasters). What if the world "evolved" itself into wrong? it could go crashing into all the other planets? But no, God created the universe, and has kept it in perfect time since.

Here's an article I found:




> Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").
> 
> No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.
> 
> Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
> 
> The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).
> 
> The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.
> ...

----------


## atiguhya padma

Adelheid,

Somebody hundreds of years ago, wrote a primitive account of how the Universe and everything in it began. You seem to be asking us to accept this account rather than the much-updated account given us by science, an account I might add that has plenty of experimental evidence to support it. 

So should we really believe some old anonymously written document of what was then current thinking? or should we accept scientific current thinking?

You can use imagination to support any account of the origin of the Universe, and build into that account plenty of unsupportable ideas. Bertrand Russell pointed out your very argument back in the first half of the 20th C. He also added the curious fact that religious people only seem to use this inventive reasoning when they talk about the Universe's origins. How come they don't use the same reasoning for whenever a car comes round the corner (maybe God just put it and its driver there at that very moment with the appearance of continuity through time); or whenever someone enters the room; or meeting up with a friend (after all God could have tampered with your memories). See, it makes the world a rather confusing place to use that inventive reasoning. And because those who promote it with regard to the origins of the Universe, do not seem to use it in everyday life, their arguments don't seem to have much force upon the rest of us.

----------


## Adelheid

> How come they don't use the same reasoning for whenever a car comes round the corner (maybe God just put it and its driver there at that very moment with the appearance of continuity through time); or whenever someone enters the room; or meeting up with a friend (after all God could have tampered with your memories). See, it makes the world a rather confusing place to use that inventive reasoning. And because those who promote it with regard to the origins of the Universe, do not seem to use it in everyday life, their arguments don't seem to have much force upon the rest of us.


That is untrue. I believe that everything happens for a reason. God Himself decided that that particular thing should happen, in a certain way. In the same way that God made the universe, He does everything for a reason. Everything happens because of HIM-God

----------


## atiguhya padma

Everything you say above can be applied to everything else, the car coming around the corner, someone entering the room, a meeting with a friend etc. They can all have reasons. They could all be created right now with historical evidence woven into their very fabric. Your argument supports God creating a false history to all of creation AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHETHER 4004BC OR YESTERDAY OR 10 SECONDS AGO. The fact that we cannot know the reasons behind God's doing this at any time is neither here nor there.

----------


## Taliesin

> The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory


Untrue.
This belief is not contrary with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While life is a decrease in entropy, still, at that time when life has existed and evolved, the total rise of entropy in universe has been much greater, outweighing the small decrease in entropy of life.

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

Hi Dyrwen,
I am glad that you have regarded the planet earth a spaceship, that makes two of us in the same thinking. In response to your query, I would like to refer you to the book "The 12th Planet". It is intriquing to note that creationist and evolutionist could have come to same conclusion and settle their despute.

Some says the earth is 14 billion years old, others 12 billion. Whatever it is, you will note that activities relating to human existence only developed in the last thousands of years (if my memory serves me right about 200,000 years) and fast tracked in development very recently.

The billion of years that past was a force of evolution, in the very recent time something created the human specie, as we see it now in ourselves, from the available evolved specie/being during that period(some sort of cloning in our modern world). From thereon, we evolved as we go on evolving from hereon.

It is sci-fiction, but do you think alien from outer space more advance than our civilization created us from their own image from the recent past?

----------


## Molko

I'm just wondering Hilarion Zerrud, with your beliefs, are they part of a religion? And how did you come to believe it? Im just curious to know, because I have never heard of a belief like that before  :Smile:

----------


## Stanislaw

Ai, it 'tis possible that aliens did create Earth, but whom created the Aliens?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dyrwen

> Hi Dyrwen,
> I am glad that you have regarded the planet earth a spaceship, that makes two of us in the same thinking. In response to your query, I would like to refer you to the book "The 12th Planet". It is intriquing to note that creationist and evolutionist could have come to same conclusion and settle their despute.


Thanks for the headsup on the book, I'll look into it.




> Some says the earth is 14 billion years old, others 12 billion. Whatever it is, you will note that activities relating to human existence only developed in the last thousands of years (if my memory serves me right about 200,000 years) and fast tracked in development very recently.


The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe is 13.5-15billion years old. I see your thoughts on why human beings have only evolved and thought as they do this recently as being useful, though personally I feel that it has taken as long as it has because we've been evolving from lesser lifeforms since then and becoming more cognitive. 




> It is sci-fiction, but do you think alien from outer space more advance than our civilization created us from their own image from the recent past?


It is quite possible that aliens are able to go creating us in their image and reasonably more probable than the existence of a god doing the same, considering a lifeform in this universe doing the act of creation of mankind is more probable than a supernatural form of power from outside of our universe. I can't rule out the alien possibility, just as I can't rule out any other, though personally I prefer my own explanations more so, of course. Heh. When we get some evidence that aliens dropped down and cloned us from themselves, or when the prior human beings that had evolved are shown to somehow not be a different evolutionary pattern from homo sapiens, then I guess we'll have some insight into that. Hopefully someone'll come up with something, since conflicting evidence is always interesting to test.

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

yes. 4.5 billion years. however if we consider the atom/particles that started the earth in its initial creation(big bang), can we safely say that earth is the same primordial matter with the universe?

what advanced discoveries in our modern age are actually retracing advances in the forgoten past. this is according to the book i referred you. learn how cloning of "adam" was perfomed as detailed in ancient writing long long long before the existence of the bible. then judge for your self.

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

Extra terrestrial beings did not create earth, neither our solar system nor universe. However, there are free-thinker individuals who would like to believe that superior beings from outer space created the first "adam".

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

hi molko,
because you are a friend i will share with you my spirit. religion: yes, I believe in the "Force" that created the universe. Some call him God, other Father or Allah, science would sometimes call it ENERGY. He is a Supernatural Being yet nobody sees or touches him. Belief: Religion is a belief when nurtured will become your faith. I have expressed myself in my belief.

----------


## Miss Darcy

Hey guys,

I can't say as much as I would like to say, because saying anything at the moment takes time, and time is...money.  :Wink: 

Just a few comments (not that you want to hear them but oh well):

I don't get why you don't like the spaceship analogy, Adelheid. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, any more than there is with man being evolved from more primordial forms of life. And, unlike evolution, it does not challenge belief in God. What's wrong with God creating a planet which moves, for heaven's sake? The only thing I can see is that there is no mention of any of this, no mention of black holes, millions of suns, big bangs, and other astronomical subjects in the Bible. But in that the Bible is wrong - the Earth orbits around the sun. The sun moves around the centre of the Milky Way. The Milky Way moves around the Universe. And the Universe...well that is as far as our knowledge can go. Until we figure out a way to get through a wormhole (two-ended black hole) without being spaghettified in the process and find another Universe.




> That is untrue. I believe that everything happens for a reason. God Himself decided that that particular thing should happen, in a certain way. In the same way that God made the universe, He does everything for a reason. Everything happens because of HIM-God.


Another thing I find fascinating. How can God control what happens and at the same time let free will exist?

And a final comment, Zerrud, I find the idea of aliens creating life likewise fascinating. But I don't think there's need for aliens to come and create life...I find the theory (not really a theory?) of *us* coming from outer space more plausible. You know, comet lands, primitive cell in comet, primitive cell reproduces, etc. I'm not saying I believe in it - I don't. I haven't really done much thinking about where life itself - i.e. the very first living cells - has come from, but here's my two minutes of thinking about it: viruses can't really be classified as "alive", and yet they *are*. They are somewhere in between living and non-living. Therefore in some such state the first life may have been born, gradually tearing away from the world of the non-living.

That's my two cents for now. *Rattles donations box* Any other givers?

 :Biggrin: 

Miss Darcy

----------


## Dyrwen

> yes. 4.5 billion years. however if we consider the atom/particles that started the earth in its initial creation(big bang), can we safely say that earth is the same primordial matter with the universe?
> 
> what advanced discoveries in our modern age are actually retracing advances in the forgoten past. this is according to the book i referred you. learn how cloning of "adam" was perfomed as detailed in ancient writing long long long before the existence of the bible. then judge for your self.


The same matter, in a sense, yes. All the atoms of this universe are all 15 bya because we are all made of the same things from the past, in a sense. I am the same carbon atoms that popped into existence back then, though there is only 4% of the entire universe that is actually made out of atoms. The rest is 23% Cold Dark Matter and 73% Dark Energy, so that means that over 96% of the universe is undetectable in the laboratory. 

Personally I don't believe in an "Adam" of any sort, cloned or not, though I'll see what your book is about eventually. I find it more possible for the primordial building blocks of life on Earth to have helped life become what it is today over 4 billion years ago through abiogenesis of a sort. The RNA, DNA, amino acids started the chain reaction that began life on this planet, to me and many others. I think we've been evolving since then and don't really find the work of an alien race much needed, but we've each got our own ideas on that idea so far. 




> hi molko,
> because you are a friend i will share with you my spirit. religion: yes, I believe in the "Force" that created the universe. Some call him God, other Father or Allah, science would sometimes call it ENERGY. He is a Supernatural Being yet nobody sees or touches him. Belief: Religion is a belief when nurtured will become your faith. I have expressed myself in my belief.


I happen to hate, well not hate but dislike a lot, the idea that some folks put forth of "energy" being the same type of force some describe as gods. A god is a supernatural being with conscious power, as far as I'm aware that's what most people define it as, and it isn't some natural force that merely exists to make the matter be balanced. We can detect energy and we can find energies in this world and others, yet the only way people are detecting "God" or "Allah" etc, is to believe in it, not to find it through scientific means. The energy that science detects and adheres to knowing about is rarely, if ever, the same type of energy new age types and religious folks of the world are believing in. 

Not to say what you believe is wrong, but it is not correct in a scientific sense or in a way that would make the energy of this universe correct. Study more relativity, less religion, and it makes a little more sense as to why I would contest such an idea about energy in the universe.

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

[QUOTE=Miss Darcy]Hey guys,


I don't get why you don't like the spaceship analogy, Adelheid. There's And a final comment, Zerrud, I find the idea of aliens creating life likewise fascinating. But I don't think there's need for aliens to come and create life...I find the theory (not really a theory?) of *us* coming from outer space more plausible. You know, comet lands, primitive cell in comet, primitive cell reproduces, etc. I'm not saying I believe in it - I don't. I haven't really done much thinking about where life itself - i.e. the very first living cells - has come from, but here's my two minutes of thinking about it: viruses can't really be classified as "alive", and yet they *are*. They are somewhere in between living and non-living. Therefore in some such state the first life may have been born, gradually tearing away from the world of the non-living.

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

Miss Darcy, you're a fine creature...aeons ago the universe had undergone a tumultous begining, however, this was also a way of finding order among the titans. Very gradually, immesureably, stars, planets, galaxies, milkyways were formed. However, harmony was never in their midst because gravitional influence and finding their path were their forever concern. In the aeons past, our solar system together with the revolving planets were formed undergoing this evolution of creation. The Earth as we know now was not yet created then.... and then the earth was created....Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud. I'll come back later.

----------


## Molko

Thank you for sharing you beliefs, Hilarion Zerrud. I find them fascinating  :Smile:

----------


## Miss Darcy

I'm flattered that I'm a fine creature, and have no problem with humans or any life being created by aliens. As long as we don't have to worship them as gods, they're fine by me. It's a thought-provoking...what should I call it...idea? Well it's thought-provoking. But I wonder, what purpose did the aliens have in creating...life? Man? Did they create merely the first living cells in their laboratories or was it more complex than that - did they plant man on Earth? Because the latter conclusion would clash with evolution, and if we're trying to be scientific...are we?...that wouldn't be too good.

I'd be interested to hear more about this alien-creation hypothesis.  :Smile: 

Darcy.

----------


## faith

Why is there no such alternative as both? Evolution and creation. God created the evolution is pretty much what I believe I think...

----------


## Scheherazade

Thought you might find this interesting:

*In his weekly opinion column, Brian Walden considers the gap between science and religion - and what this might mean for the future of humankind.*  
Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, wrote something recently that chilled me to the bone. 

Sir Martin is the winner of the Michael Faraday Prize awarded annually by the Royal Society for excellence in communicating scientific ideas in lay terms. In my case he did almost too good a job. 

He pointed out that though the idea of evolution is well-known, the vast potential for further evolution isn't yet part of our common culture. He then gave an example. He said: "It will not be humans who witness the demise of the Sun six billion years hence; it will be entities as different from us as we are from bacteria." 

It may well be that this vision of the future leaves you unmoved. After all, six billion years is an almost unimaginable length of time. On top of that, the death of the Sun isn't going to be a jolly business and I suppose that if we're able to summon up any feeling on the matter it ought to be gratitude that there aren't going to be any humans around to suffer when it happens. 
These seem sensible arguments and ought to console me - but they don't. This is Easter and I can't help contrasting the Christian promise of my youth with what science expects to happen. 

Bashfulness 

There's a long established British tradition that in general conversation religion isn't discussed. The great Whig essayist, Joseph Addison, writing in the early 18th Century said: "We have in England a particular bashfulness in every thing that regards religion." That was in an age when belief in God was well-nigh universal. If it wasn't thought to be tactful then, it must be far worse now, in a secular age when Christian belief has declined and other religions are widely practiced. 

But it's for that very reason that I think we ought to talk to each other more about the central mystery of life. Widespread agnosticism and the place in society of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism ought to mean that the climate of opinion is tolerant. Nor do we need to be expert to discuss science and religion, providing we have the humility to learn. 

Like many others, I eventually accepted the scientific explanation of the origin and destiny of mankind. But, also like many others, I have no hostility to religion and, in particular, no contempt for Christian faith; quite the contrary. Indeed, at Easter, I confess plainly that I miss the consolations of Christianity. 

I had a Pakistani friend, who died after a long illness. As he weakened physically, the subject he most wanted to discuss was the reconciliation of Islam and science. After a time, worried that he might be distressed, I said, very foolishly, that perhaps he could be at peace because Islam involved faith and he was a believer, whereas science operated in a different dimension collecting data, experimenting and seeking to confirm knowledge. 

This distinction made him angry. "Have you the slightest idea how close we are to the end of humanity?" he asked. "I'm a scientist and I'm afraid. Only from the morality inside us can we learn restraint and that morality must come from religion." 

Unpleasant surprise 

I admit I thought he was exaggerating, but I listened and went away and consulted one of the works he'd suggested. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover exactly what my friend was talking about. It wasn't possible nuclear accident, or climate change, but the hypothetical threat posed by technological advances in genetics, robotics and nanotechnology. 

Genetics; in that we might intentionally or accidentally create a plague; robotics, where we shall be able to download human consciousness into machines and nanotechnology where a nano-machine might turn the biosphere into dust in a matter of days. 

Having heard a fair amount of doom-mongering in my time I'm resistant to it and disinclined to believe that the worst will happen. Nevertheless, lacking the scientific knowledge to judge whether there was a real threat, I asked some of those who did know. 

They were amused by my ignorance, but confirmed that without proper constraints the technology is a distant threat. Then somebody told me that not only was I not up to speed scientifically, but that some philosophers, well aware of the scientific facts, were discussing their moral implications. So nothing that I'm saying has the least originality, but neither is it freakish. 

Human life 

A growing number of people believe that we need a fresh dialogue between science and religion. I mean religion in its widest sense - a belief in the value of human life. Apparently the direction of scientific progress means that we have to make moral judgements about what's permissible and what isn't. We need a moral consensus. 

Most emphatically, I don't mean that we need to create a sort of blancmange morality that wobbles about, containing a bit of God, a bit of physics, a dash of Catholicism plus a smattering of Buddhism and a few sprigs of well-meaning atheism. That kind of ethical coalition wouldn't survive, and we need something that will. What we all need is to acknowledge our interdependency. 

The hostility between science and religion stemmed from the 18th Century Enlightenment when science was forced to contradict some of the assertions of the Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church about the history of humanity. 

Political liberals had their own quarrel with the Catholic Church, regarding it as a reactionary influence in politics and wanting it separated from a secular state. So the liberals joined the argument on the side of science and we got what became the familiar division of liberal thought and science against religion, though naturally individual liberals and scientists were sometimes believers. 

This classic alliance between science and liberal thought in which the opinions of both are mutually reinforced, or the classic opposition between religion and scientific progress no longer operates across the board. 

Indeed the present abortion quarrel in Britain is a striking example of a new pattern. Professor Stuart Campbell took photographs of foetuses at between 12 and 24 weeks' gestation and he admits that it never entered his head that the pictures would touch off a national debate. But the photographs were taken by a new technique showing foetuses younger that 24 weeks looking far more developed than had previously been accepted. 

The photographs changed some people's minds about late abortion, including Professor Campbell's. He now thinks that "24 weeks if the baby is healthy is too late". The wider significance of this episode is that the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, finds that science has done something which helps the Church and not necessarily liberal opinion. 

Tolerance 

Of course Professor Campbell doesn't share the Church's view on abortion. He supports abortion, but not as late as 24 weeks, pointing out that "science has moved on". So has the relationship between science and religion in my opinion. It would be sloppy thinking to claim there are no tensions and ridiculous to suppose that a common agreement can be arrived at. 

There can be no agreement, but there can be tolerance. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, leading a secular party in an increasingly secular society, on Tuesday asked Britain's churches to play a bigger role in national life. 

Not just Tony Blair, but many contemporary politicians, want society to get what help it can from both science and religion. 

Now, in a spirit of tolerance can I do justice to the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, who alarmed me by predicting a future species as superior to humans as we are to bacteria? Well Sir Martin has a dedication to humanity and shares Albert Einstein's view that we need a perspective that's global, humanistic and long term. He can't be expected to share the scientifically illiterate prejudices of somebody like me. 

Anyway Sir Martin doesn't rule out a place for humanity. He thinks spaceships launched from Earth might spawn new oases of life elsewhere. You see the interdependent, tolerant world doesn't have to be intellectually dull.

*
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4387563.stm)*

----------


## atiguhya padma

Interesting. Thanks Scheher. I would just like to point out, that should Brian Walden go back to reading Aristotle and Plato, in conjunction with Cicero's commentary on religion and maybe Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, he might realise that we certainly don't need ethics to come out of religion, despite what his friend might have said.

Regarding abortion, this, I feel is a subject that will never be resolved. It certainly doesn't help that the vast majority of the politicians and legislators discussing this subject will never experience pregnancy.

----------


## Hilarion Zerrud

Sorry, I am late. Miss Darcy, I would like to address your interest but then to enlighten you, I have to go back from the time beyond.. beyond..beyond. And to continue from where I started.... Engraved in the seven tablets of stones were the phases/stages of creation describing our solar system dated(carbon) 10,000 years ago.

..When earth was not yet in creation, Nine planets was revolving around our sun. From nowhere another massive planet get caught in our solar system that started the chaos. The planet Tiamat, in direct path of the new comer was split in to halves and thrown off its path. The injured half of Tiamat and one satilite became the Earth and the moon...

At this point, it will be a scientific and religious discussion in view of:
.. there was a record on earth of this cosmic proportion long before the Bible was writen.
.. our solar system were identified long before our Science could.
.. who could possibly transmit this knowledge to the people on earth in the forgoten past.

I'll be back..

----------


## Stanislaw

Are you refeering to the enuma elish of the babylonian creation legend...Where tiamat is the mother goddes, she is chaotic, and one of a newer God, Marduk slays her, and divides her into the heavens and the earth.

Those Tablets were written in 12 B.C. (a few years after the old testament was being started)

The seven tablets are barely 2000 years old, let alone 10000.




> .... Engraved in the seven tablets of stones were the phases/stages of creation describing our solar system dated(carbon) 10,000 years ago.
> 
> ..When earth was not yet in creation, Nine planets was revolving around our sun. From nowhere another massive planet get caught in our solar system that started the chaos. The planet Tiamat, in direct path of the new comer was split in to halves and thrown off its path. The injured half of Tiamat and one satilite became the Earth and the moon...
> 
> At this point, it will be a scientific and religious discussion in view of:
> .. there was a record on earth of this cosmic proportion long before the Bible was writen.
> .. our solar system were identified long before our Science could.
> .. who could possibly transmit this knowledge to the people on earth in the forgoten past.

----------


## baddad

.... 10000 year old..........alien tablets..............earth not yet in creation.........????

My geology/earth-history knowledge has gotta be WAY out of whack.......why are not more people aware of this turn of events. 

Stanislaw: you never cease to amaze. Your correlation is a beautiful thing!!!!

----------


## Adelheid

> Why is there no such alternative as both? Evolution and creation. God created the evolution is pretty much what I believe I think...


Dear Faith,

There cannot be both. Creation is something which is made by God. Evolution believes that it formed itself. How can you be made by God, and form yourself? When God created everything, He said it was perfect (since He is truth, He doesn't lie) thus, it would be impossible for anything to become _better_ by evolving. It is already perfect, remember?

Adelheid

----------


## Stanislaw

http://www.curiouscharacters.com/Cha...atics/bow1.jpg 

Thank you Baddad!  :Nod:  (closest thing to a bow) lol

----------


## Molko

Ive been doing some reading lately, and stumbled across the anthropic principle. This principle basically goes along the lines of: if the formation and evolution of the universe had been performed with slightly varying results, a universe in which life as we know it could not exist. 

I found this principle interesting because it gives rise to the idea that the universe is exquisitely tuned, almost as if to accomodate us... Makes you think, doesnt it?  :Smile: 

Im wondering if anyone else knows much about this principle and is willing to elaborate on it. thanx  :Banana:

----------


## i_rock_poems

My gosh how can you believe that evolution created this world. How can you say there is no god? HOw can you be that ignorant. What created evolution? HOw did we begin? HOw can you say theese things. Have you read the bible? Have you been to a church that worships Jesus?

Edited by Logos to remove swear word. Please refrain from using them.

----------


## Dyrwen

i_rock_poems, not to be a jerk, but you really need to start saying more than your usual sentences in threads. It isn't productive. Make a clear thought, not an outburst. 

And to clear up the random jolt of energy that you spat at the screen: Evolution "made" life evolve. It doesn't say what originally created, or started life on Earth or in the universe. People say there is no god because they usually find no evidence of any gods, or have no reason to believe in one. Nothing "created" evolution, since it is a natural process. Ask yourself what "created" god to get an idea as to how this works. We "began" as amino acids and RNA molecules billions of years ago. Most folks here have read some of the Bible, yes, and seems a lot also believe it's more literature than fact. I've been to a church that worships Jesus, big deal, make a point or stop asking questions, heh. 

This has been a brief reply to every question in that rockpost, whew.

----------


## IWilKikU

> My gosh how can you believe that evolution created this world. How can you say there is no god? HOw can you be that ignorant. What created evolution? HOw did we begin? HOw can you say theese things. Have you read the bible? Have you been to a church that worships Jesus?


For how we can believe that evolution created the world, see uncountable posts in other threads in religious texts by Atiguya Padma and Dyrwin.

For how we can say there is no God, see Bertrand Russell's _The Case against God_, or _Why I am an Athiest_, or have a parusal on Dyrwin's athiest forum. You'll find that the great philosopher and many PhDs etc... are NOT ignorant. I spent 21 years of my life in a church that worships Jesus and refused to seriously consider (even for the sake of arguement) ANY other viewpoint and called people *****es who didn't believe the way they did. You sound like you'd fit right in there. And I have read and studied the Bible in Church schools from kindergarden to my fourth year of University. No one wants to year posts that consist of 'gee you sure are dumb.' If you have an intellecual arguable point, feel free to express it and we'll have a nice civil debate, otherwise find a Christian sheep forum where no one will question things you feel are important.

PS to Dyrwin, why don't you have a link to your forum anymore?

----------


## Dyrwen

> PS to Dyrwin, why don't you have a link to your forum anymore?


You mean Internet Infidels forum, or Atheist Network? I barely frequent either anymore, so I don't link to them as such.

----------


## subterranean

Dyr, want to thank you for the DNA/RNA link you posted some time ago...forgot in which thread. But I find it very usefull for personal refference  :Smile:

----------


## baddad

> Ive been doing some reading lately, and stumbled across the anthropic principle. This principle basically goes along the lines of: if the formation and evolution of the universe had been performed with slightly varying results, a universe in which life as we know it could not exist. 
> 
> I found this principle interesting because it gives rise to the idea that the universe is exquisitely tuned, almost as if to accomodate us... Makes you think, doesnt it? 
> 
> Im wondering if anyone else knows much about this principle and is willing to elaborate on it. thanx


 No magic or mystery here. Life will out. A toxic swamp will support some forms of life. The arctic supports some forms of life. Extremely salty seawater supports some forms of life. A niche in a rocky canyon wall will support some kinds of life. Dry desert tundra will support some sorts of life. Undersea thermal vents spewing a myriad of chemicals and at depths and pressures that boggle the mind support some forms of life. A petrie dish improperly cleaned before being put into storage will blossom and support life.....

And yes, with any slight vatiation in conditions any of these biospheres would probably not support the types of life that now exist there, but 'life will out', something else would adapt to the place, and thrive, and so on.....

Any of these conditions may exist elswhere in the universe as well, not just on earth. And there are probably many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine, and may have not yet, or maybe never will, discover here on earth. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe we are the intended beneficiaries of some fantastic design. 'Life Will Out' . It is hubris to assume we are the pinacle of existence or the sole reason for the universe's existence. The Anthropic Principle makes for a neat little package of speculation, and thats always fun, but.........IMHO...... *sticks out tongue and makes dismissive blowing noises*... ( :

----------


## IWilKikU

Here's a question about evolution, Why are the other planets, or ARE the other planets in the solar system absent of even the RNA molecules that built life? Especially after baddads comment that 'there are many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine'. Seems like if the most nasty remote climates of earth could support some sort of microscopic life, then someplace like Mars, which even has frozen water reserves, should be able to as well. Is there any evidence of extra terrestrial living microbes?

----------


## Dyrwen

> Here's a question about evolution, Why are the other planets, or ARE the other planets in the solar system absent of even the RNA molecules that built life? Especially after baddads comment that 'there are many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine'. Seems like if the most nasty remote climates of earth could support some sort of microscopic life, then someplace like Mars, which even has frozen water reserves, should be able to as well. Is there any evidence of extra terrestrial living microbes?


The Viking Probe on Mars disputedly found microbe structures that appear to be fossilized bacteria, if I recall correctly. For the most part, we haven't found life outside our planet because 1. We haven't checked out many of the planets around us with rovers (only Mars and a few moons, some probes have hit other planets though in one spot) 2. It appears that any other life in our solar system would be microscopic, and you can imagine how difficult it is to find such life on the surface of a planet with a satelite. And if you want, 3. Because we may be the only life in this solar system that is alive at this time because we have an atmosphere stable enough, etc. 

There is seemingly water underneath the ice of Europa (a moon of Jupiter) as well as supposedly some ice at the equator of Mars. NASA continues to expect life to be found there, since water was our key to life, though its quite possible life around the universe could exist without water--We've just no precedent, I suppose. For the most part, other planets are absent of RNA probably because they lacked water, and water + electricity + minerals would be what would create amino acids, which would eventually start up RNA existence, if I remember right. 

Hopefully that answered well enough.

----------


## Scheherazade

An article from BBC's website. If you go to the link at the bottom, you can read other people's views on the issue and post your own as well.

Would you Adam and Eve it? 
By Stephen Tomkins 
Author 

A teachers' union has said it is alarmed by an increase in lessons which teach that Adam and Eve was the literal truth, rather the fable which science believes it to be. The rise in creationism is not just an American phenomenon. 

For many British people, belief in a six-day creation seems to be one of those incomprehensibly American quirks, like beef jerky and pledging allegiance to the flag. But a large and growing number of British Christians are defying Darwinist orthodoxy in favour of creationism - the belief that Adam and Eve are the mother and father of humanity. 

They are less outspoken than in the US, where a new $25m museum of creationism is being built in Kentucky, but they quietly number hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. 

Dr Monty White tours churches throughout the UK, teaching "the biblical view" that the universe is about 6,000 years old. 

"People believe in evolution because they choose to do so," he says. "There is not a shred of real evidence for the evolution of life on earth." 

Though he argues his case scientifically, it is fundamentally a religious commitment, a matter of faith in the Bible. 

"Evolution is not compatible with Christianity," he insists. "Genesis tells us that death only came into the world because of Adam's sin. There was no death before then, and you can't have evolution without death." 

There is a creationist museum in Portsmouth called Genesis Expo, run by the Creation Science Movement (CSM). Children can play with Boris the dinosaur and learn why evolution is scientifically impossible. 

'Brainwashing' 

Where do Boris and his fellow dinosaurs fit into this worldview? 

Many were killed off in Noah's flood and became fossils. Others hung around to scare our ancestors who called them dragons. Bill Cooper, a council member of CSM, argues the 8th Century poem Beowulf records a genuine encounter with a Tyrannosaurus Rex. 

The chairman, Dr David Rosevear, says even non-Christian visitors often accept their claims, "in spite of the brainwashing they get from the media". 

"Typically," he says, in a statement that would make arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins' blood run cold, "a mother will bring her children round in the holidays and say to me 'Yes, that's pretty much what I always felt'." 

How common are such beliefs among UK Christians? 

Monty White feels he is in a growing minority, David Rosevear in a clear majority. More objectively, the Evangelical Alliance has polled its members, which number about a million. 

One-third of those surveyed believe Adam and Eve were created within six days of the start of the universe. Of the other two-thirds, some would accept evolution while others see Adam and Eve being created after six "ages" of creation, rather than six literal days. 

Reverend William Gardner of Devonshire Drive Baptist Church in Greenwich is one minister who endorses the creationist view. He says the world was created in six days, several thousand years ago, and he teaches this in church. 

Is evolution incompatible with Christianity? "Yes," he says, "because ultimately evolution simply dismisses God." 

He feels frustrated that the scientific evidence is not treated more seriously. "So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation, when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there." 

Most apologists for creationism share this frustration. One of CSM's leaflets rallies support for teaching creation in schools: "The hard-nosed humanism of evolutionism has become entrenched in the British educational system and in society at large. We need your dedicated support to topple it!" 

Dr White is less gung-ho, but is saddened and mystified by schools' refusal to set Genesis alongside Darwin. In his university career, there was often open and heated debate on the subject, so why not in the classroom? "I simply don't understand what the problem is. Why can't evolution be criticised in schools?" 

Bucking the trend 

On the other side of the desk, Mel is 16 and goes to an Anglican church in Leeds. She respects people who don't take Genesis literally, but no one has yet convinced her that evolution is more than a theory. 

"People think you're nuts if you don't believe in evolution," she says. "But maybe in 100 years there'll be some new discovery, and people living then will think that everyone today was nuts to believe we evolved from monkeys." 

How, at this already sufficiently awkward age, does it feel to be so out of step with the world around you? 

"If you're a Christian, you have to go against the flow on all kinds of things - sex, smoking and getting drunk. Evolution isn't a big deal really. It doesn't come up a lot." 

*
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm)*

----------


## Dyrwen

> Many were killed off in Noah's flood and became fossils. Others hung around to scare our ancestors who called them dragons. Bill Cooper, a council member of CSM, argues the 8th Century poem Beowulf records a genuine encounter with a Tyrannosaurus Rex.


This is too funny to me.. First they had to have faith in the Bible, a book of literature, now this guy also has faith in a different piece of literature, Beowulf, which wasn't even written by the "word of God", or inspired for that matter. It was a pretty Norse-related story, if I remember correctly, so quite interesting for him to even mention the book around Christianity. Just pathetic though, putting his faith in blatant fiction. At least he picked a great story to believe in.




> "People think you're nuts if you don't believe in evolution," she says. "But maybe in 100 years there'll be some new discovery, and people living then will think that everyone today was nuts to believe we evolved from monkeys."


If someone could dispell the myth that we came from monkeys, perhaps there'd be less ignorant people believing that evolution is preposterous. For those of you unaware and not reading the whole thread, we came from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes. Picture a tree of genetic drift, when it branches off humans are on one branch, apes on another, and monkeys on another. There was a common trunk, or species, we all came from.

----------


## baddad

> Here's a question about evolution, Why are the other planets, or ARE the other planets in the solar system absent of even the RNA molecules that built life? Especially after baddads comment that 'there are many forms of life adapted to living conditions we could not begin to imagine'. Seems like if the most nasty remote climates of earth could support some sort of microscopic life, then someplace like Mars, which even has frozen water reserves, should be able to as well. Is there any evidence of extra terrestrial living microbes?



To answer the last, no. But........ IMHO.........looking at Mars, or the moon, or every planet and moon in OUR solar system, or even examing our entire galaxy (one of billions, each containing billions of stars) and finding little evidence of life, and thereby claiming life does not exist anywhere but on earth, is akin to looking in you desk drawer for you car keys, and upon not finding them there, claiming that obviously your keys are not to be found anywhere inside your house. 

The Universe is vast beyond comprehension. Our solar system is such a tiny fraction of the whole as to be inconsequential as a laboratory for exploration and discovery of the true nature of the entire universe. I think that life has a habit of flourishing anywhere there happens to be even the slightest possibility of survival. LIfe Will Out. To rule out the possibility of life, in whatever form, existing somewhere else in the vast cosmos, seems a little premature, and at least egocentric, if not a blatant example of the ignorance of humanity........ but thats just me........

----------


## Miss Darcy

Hear, hear!

Life outside our planet certainly exists. There is simply no question. Intelligent life, too, perhaps. Our universe is suitable for intelligent life - we ourselves are the proof (er, that's if we call ourselves "intelligent"...which, considering some of the species' actions, sometimes seems rather doubtful). And it is so unimaginably large, as baddad says - perhaps even infinite - that it would be absolutely pathetic to think that we're the only ones in it.

It's like saying that only one grain of sand on a long, long beach has a complex structure when magnified.

Must go, sorry about the strange analogy, I couldn't think of anything better,

Darcy.

----------


## frozenlight

the belief that we are the only intelligent life form in this infinite universe is just another proof of egocentrism, self-sufficiency and narrow-mindedness that most fellow humans don't lack a bit. but hey, if god didn't mention any aliens in the bible, than there is absolutely, positively, undoubtedly no such thing... right?  :Biggrin:  

by the way, i vote for evolution. and all the archeological discoveries in the last century are backing me up.

----------


## Dumpweed

Big bang theory, something from nothing. I find that hard to swallow
Coming from goo, crawling out of water, evolving from monkeys. Not as hard to swallow but not going down very well. Billions of years, think of the implications of billions, I don't think this is a number any person could comprehend. As far as someone trying to claim they know what happened billions of years ago, that would take faith and faith is best left out of science. I'll take my chances and follow my own intuitons. That's my 2 cents.

----------


## Dumpweed

> If someone could dispell the myth that we came from monkeys, perhaps there'd be less ignorant people believing that evolution is preposterous. For those of you unaware and not reading the whole thread, we came from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes.


Is someone thinking we came from monkeys as appose to someone thinking we and monkeys come from a common source really gonna make or break your case. Seems like a minor technicality to me

----------


## Dyrwen

It is an issue when those same ignorant people say: "Why are there still monkeys around then?" And yes, I've heard plenty of people say that, so a breakdown of how it really works does make some sense in terms of breaking the case.

----------


## Miss Darcy

Firstly, welcome to the Forum, Dumpweed, and secondly...just to comment...(anyone who has read anything I've written before is in a pretty good position of guessing what's coming! - "Just to comment..." from me basically means "just to expatiate on the subject...")




> Big bang theory, something from nothing. I find that hard to swallow.


Well if you find the Big Bang theory - which is very systematically constructed, and what's more, proven by observational evidence and relevant to the expansion rate of the universe as well as the amount of Lithium and neutrinos - hard to swallow...then I'm sure that you must find the idea of God goes the wrong way much more. 

Okay, firstly, the universe did *not* come from nowhere - it has always been here. I say always, because the word "always" _always_ has something to do with time. Put it this way, the universe has been here ever since time existed, and as to what happened "before" time existed is acting very trivially. Before time existed, there was no time. As time was born in the Big Bang along with space what happened before then, when there was absolutely nothing...is an impossible question. It defies logic.

And to me, so does this whole God thing. I understand you have trouble with the Big Bang Theory because you find it difficult to imagine something coming from nothing. Well so do we. Where did God come from? Was he created by a _greater_ god and given his own universe to rule over? Did he then create man and woman, and then write them a book to make sure they never stopped believing in him, in fear of the possibility that they might start worshipping the greater god instead of him? Or did God just come from nowhere? Saying that there was no time before God, I think, is just stealing an idea from science. Saying that God has always been here defies logic. Why would he wait for infinity until he created planet Earth? - That's pretending he created it. But we all know that he didn't. It's a fact, creation or no creation. The earth created itself. Or rather, the theory is that the sun formed out of the dust of a nebula, as most stars do, and all the leftovers stuck together and created the planets. The leftovers of the leftovers then formed the asteroids. Which is, I think, a *lot* (no sarcasm!) more credible than some giant, invisible bearded guy taking a whole universe from absolutely nowhere, fashioning one particular pinpoint in perhaps infinite space....and lavishing such care on that particular pinpoint, and all for nothing too, as it seems to me that practically all of us are going to join thingy, whats-his-name...Satan in Hell, leaving poor old God lonely in heaven with only a couple of spare angels to keep him company. So I guess he'll go off and create _another_ pinpoint and go through the process all over again. At any rate, if there was a God, then I reckon our planet would probably be just an experiment. Not a very good one, either, when it comes to us humans. He succeeded much better with the animals.




> Coming from goo, crawling out of water, evolving from monkeys. Not as hard to swallow but not going down very well.


Heh, I wouldn't exactly call it goo. But I have to go now, I'll give you some data on evolution and why it makes sense later, and also go into DNA and how we're all related, even with trees and other animals...how we share some 99.4 % of it with the chimpanzee...anyway...

Darcy

----------


## Dumpweed

Thanks for the welcome.
As far as this forum, evolution vs. creation, I find everyones views very interesting and thought provoking. This forum appealed to me because I've debated the subject with myself for awhile. IMO both sides have a strong argument and I've gone back and forth (I read in an earlier post that creation relies on bashing evolution which is true alot of the time but creation still has a leg to stand on and is a legitimate belief, IMO). I have done my fair share of research and can't say I've read everything or even a fraction but I know the basics, to say the least. In the end I decided to go with what I feel and I suppose that would be written testament. I'm not going to recite facts or quote anyone. I have seen enough debates on this subject to make me sick. Just to defend my belief, not to attack anyone elses, I can swallow the idea of God because religion is built on faith and science on fact (what you can prove). I always felt that evolution and everything it entails took faith to believe. Why I say my 2 cents is because I am just sharing what I believe and not trying to convince anyone else. 

To justify my belief I think that God is infinite and exists outside of time. Which to exist outside of time means no beginning or end. So god did not come from nothing he just simply always has been.

----------


## Dumpweed

> It is an issue when those same ignorant people say: "Why are there still monkeys around then?" And yes, I've heard plenty of people say that, so a breakdown of how it really works does make some sense in terms of breaking the case.


In that context you have a point. I stand corrected.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<I always felt that evolution and everything it entails took faith to believe.>

You can see it happening with fruitflies and bacteria. It doesn't really require faith to believe in it.

<To justify my belief I think that God is infinite and exists outside of time.>

Existence is a concept that applies to both space and time. It seems to me to be a nonsense statement to claim that there is an existence outside time.

----------


## Dumpweed

I am not familiar with fruitflies proving evolution. Are you saying that fruitflies have evolved to become something other then fruitflies? 

Look at our subject matter. Most of it could be passed off as nonsense. I am gonna pull the faith card here. If God created time and space I would assume that he could very well exist outside of it.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Fruitflies show adaptation over generations, one of the postulates of evolution. 

Your last statement is like saying the letter Y created the alphabet.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Existence makes no sense without reference to time or space. If you think it does, maybe you could explain what it means.

----------


## Dyrwen

To feel that God has always been and not the universe is to be an adherent to faith, because one needs faith in God to pull off that kind of belief about the universe, since there's no possible way to reason how God exists from within our universe outside of believing that something else (God) created it.

Whereas the acceptance that the universe has always been here isn't so much to do with faith, as it is a reasonable deduction based on how space and time work insofar as we know it does (as I explained back on Page 4), and remains a reasonable concept so long as we believe that the universe is all there is because there cannot be anything outside of it that we'd ever know about from within our own. 

It isn't a faith thing when it comes to any biological sciences, such as evolution, but I suppose if you care to drop the label on the Big Bang (seeing as it's impossible to ever get a picture of it happening), all the theory with evidence in the universe won't ever make it right or wrong. I personally choose to reside in the concept of knowing something as possible or impossible or not knowing things, rather than believing in them when it comes to things like this, so faith has never been something I could accept for many things and certainly never for a god.

----------


## Stanislaw

*Jesus Wants  Me For A Rainbow!*

 :Biggrin:

----------


## baddad

Yes my friends, Jesus does not want me for a rainbow....


HOOOOeeeeyyyyy!!!!! Yowzer!!! 

Dumpweed!!! A great big welcome to the site. Nice to see a newcomer jump in with both feet, create a little splash and ripple!!! Stick around my friend, I think your gonna fit right in! You might be in for a real tussle in this thread though......

----------


## Miss Darcy

> I am not familiar with fruitflies proving evolution.


You know, Dumpweed, fruit flies can prove a lot more than you might think. Not just evolution. They're often used in scientific testing because their DNA is very similar to ours. In fact, we have a lot in common with the fruit fly. To quote Sharmila Bhattacharya from NASA, "About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues."

But fruit flies or not (almost typed "flute fries"  :Tongue:  ), there is ample evidence for evolution. Not only fossils (has it ever seemed strange to you that there are no dinosaurs in the Bible?), but genetic evidence. Firstly, humans share 99.4 % of their DNA with chimpanzees. According to http://home.att.net/~meditation/chimpsDNA.html, "Tracking mutation rates in the genes, the scientists estimate that the common ancestor of chimps and humans diverged from gorillas about 7 million years ago, and then separated into two species between 5 million and 6 million years ago." I don't see how creationists can ignore such plain facts. Any reliable site will tell you the same. If you search Google for "chimpanzees DNA human 99.4 %" you'll get a few interesting ones. One is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract .

Secondly, it is impossible to dismiss the evidence in fossils. Somewhere on this forum I saw someone's idea that fossils are fakes, which is outrageous - plus untrue. Fossils are *not* fakes - or at least real fossils aren't fakes. Fake fossils are your models you find in shops that are some $60 cheaper than the real thing. But *fossils* aren't fake. Otherwise they're not fossils.

Look at me go! *Shakes head sadly* A whole paragraph and I hardly got a single idea through. But I'll make up for it in the next one.  :Wink: 

Some fossils contain DNA. I find it amazing that _anybody_, even creationists, who indeed should never surprise anyone (no offence there), can ignore such evidence. Both arid and polar environments can preserve DNA, which is usually rapidly broken down after the animal or plant dies. Extracting preserved DNA can be difficult, and though initially scientists hoped to access DNA millions of years old, the more successful attempts have been within the 100, 000 year range. But even this is quite sufficient to prove evolution. Perhaps you have even heard of Jurrasic Park? Though such happenings would be (thankfully) impossible due to the fact that no DNA that old is likely to be intact, it does show a good idea. Cloning any preserved DNA would be very difficult and very unlikely to succeed, at least with modern technologies; however DNA _can_ be extracted from certain fossils which clearly show they were once alive. Long before the Bible was written or God was created.

And then there is adaptation. Adaptation is evolution right before your eyes. That is, evolution leads to adaptation. Species that don't adapt quick enough simply die out. They are forced to change to survive. This is called natural selection, which I'm sure you've heard of. Nowadays many species are becoming extinct because their environments change too quickly for them to adapt to them. For example, the logging of rainforests. It happens too quickly and therefore animals die out. 

A good example of natural selection is the story of the peppered moth. It occurred around the time of the Industrial Revolution. The peppered moth was light in colour, a sort of off-white, speckled brown. In the area of Manchester, England, peppered moths began to be very obvious to their predators. The barks of the trees on which they rested were becoming darker and darker due to the smog of the nearby factories. If the peppered moth had not adapted, it would have died out as birds could now easily spot them. However - it did. In 1848 the first dark peppered moth was sighted. It was a product of natural selection. You can find out more about this here or in any book about evolution.

There's so much evidence around that I've never mentioned it till now - I thought it was too obvious. But you never know...

Miss Darcy

P.S. And by the way, congratulations to Adelheid for starting such a successful thread! Why did it outlive other, similar threads? - Natural selection, my friends, natural selection.  :Biggrin:

----------


## subterranean

A little interuption here. Here's some excerpts of articles, which some or all of you might already know, but I just read this yesterday: 

_"What I think the DNA materials has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together", said Professor Antony Flew, 81, of the University Reading, United Kingdom. "It could be a person in the sense of being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose"._

Article by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God", Associated Press report, Dec, 2004. 

_"Prof. Flew is one of the most renowned atheist of the 20th century...", says the atheist writer Richard Carrier. "So, if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy" _  
"Antony Flew Considers God...Sort of, " www.infidels.org, Dec, 2004.

Further, Prof Flew stated his apology

_" As people have certainly been influence by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done"_

Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, "Sorry, Says Atheist-in-Chief, I do Believe in God After All", Dec 12, 2004.


Comments please....

----------


## Miss Darcy

Comments: To me, religiously speaking, there's nothing sadder than conversion. Whether the person is an atheist or simply of a different religion, it's just sad. Usually converting an atheist would not be easy and would take a *lot*. A good example is Sue from Hardy's _Jude the Obscure_. She was always a strong atheist, but when her children died she was so grief-stricken that nothing was left to her except to turn to faith. She left Jude and went back to her husband. She felt it was a sign from the heavens and became a fervent Christian. The lesson is, she would have never become a Christian if she had not been so wholly overcome by agony.

The conversion of atheists does not mean there is a God any more than the deconversion of Christians means there isn't one. It simply means that the person in question has either undergone emotional turmoil of some kind or that some sort of coincidence/persuasion has been used, though I think there are very few cases from either side where persuasion does any good.

And as to,




> "What I think the DNA materials has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together. It could be a person in the sense of being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose".


My personal opinion is that this professor was so stunned by the diversity of the microcosmic world, so amazed by the intricate workings of DNA, that he decided that something must have created them - which is certainly untrue. With a bit of logic you'll realise that it would take forever and ever for _any_ god, infinite or not, to put together this very intricateness. No human or godly design could ever make this. This is natural phenomenon.

----------


## lhaeber

"If the historical pathway should forever remain hidden, we can still develop bodies of theory and experiment to show how life might realistically have crystallized, rooted, then covered our globe. Yet the caveat: nobody knows." Stuart Kaufman

----------


## baddad

An old saying: There are no atheists in foxholes. Fear makes many a believer. Professor Flew is 81 years old, nearing the end of his earthly existence as a human. I'm not surprised that he is covering all the bases......just in case. And of course, octogenerians are not exactly well known for retaining complete control of their mental faculties. And one more thing.....who asked the question of him? What bias was injected into this report by the source searching for this answer so as to be newsworthy. And where was it reported? What medium? Was it reported in a religious forum type media? Huh? HUh? *whew*

----------


## Miss Darcy

81 years old? Now _that_ begins to make sense. I second Baddad if he doesn't mind me doing so. Though I think it's not a very good atheist that decides to convert at the last minute - just in case. You're right...it must be age.

----------


## subterranean

Just as I expected..the comments I mean..thank you baddad  :Nod: 


And by the way Missus Darcy, hope that it won't happen to you when you grow old..the age thingy.. :Rolleyes: ..

----------


## Dyrwen

Just so the 'no atheist in foxholes' thing is out in the open as well, www.maaf.info proves a point in the right direction there.

I'd agree with the age breeds fear idea as well, since well, what harm is there in it at that point in believing just in case, since by then you're pretty much able to make up your own mind without much interference by others. Death is the one unknown that scares more people than any other, so the need for an afterlife more and more as one approaches the time of death isn't too absurd, albeit hypocritical of one's beliefs.

----------


## Stanislaw

Just to clear things up: not all religious based newspapers twist the facts to support themselves, and going by that thought I wouldn't trust too many secular newspapers either.

----------


## subterranean

Exactly Stan....


So, I think there's a posibillity that one day Dyr and AP change their minds sometime in the future about these evolution and divine being things.... 

But I'm just wondering, is it only cause the age problem???? Seriously, can't you give something better than that???? Or age is the ONLY reason that you can give to explain about the professor's conversion???

I mean the prof was an atheist for almost his entire life, and suddenly the thought of death scares him alot or perhaps suddendly, he experieced some nerves breakdown, then he converted....I mean is that all????

----------


## subterranean

D'oh
This man was an atheist for long years and he's an intellectual, so you think he just suddenly stunned and said..."OH THERE'S A GOD...".....






> My personal opinion is that this professor was so stunned by the diversity of the microcosmic world, so amazed by the intricate workings of DNA, that he decided that something must have created them - which is certainly untrue. With a bit of logic you'll realise that it would take forever and ever for _any_ god, infinite or not, to put together this very intricateness. No human or godly design could ever make this. This is natural phenomenon.

----------


## Stanislaw

maybe he found God through the Grace of God? A revelation.

----------


## baddad

Yeah, ok Stan, Sub, I never meant to imply that secular media were anymore trustworthy than 'specialty' media, and in fact, my post addressed that very issue of 'media bias'. All I'm saying is that someone may have obviously tried to use the Prof. as a progaganda ploy, and in fact as I reread the quotes reportedly made by the prof I note how easy it is to frame a question so as to get a certain slant with the answer. 

And I would never begrudge anyone believing whatever they want, whatever makes them feel good ! It is all good. The Prof has the right to believe whatever he likes, and more power to him!

But really, one's age cannot be discounted as a catalyst, as age is a good reason, if not a driving force, of change to one's perspective. It is not an unlikely occurence (aging=rethinking a position) nor is it a 'simple' solution to a complex question. Time changes us all, waning days occupy the mind with speculation about death, what is it like? will I know I'm dead? do 'I' just stop? At 81 years old a person has already outlived many if not most of your friends, family, perhaps even some of your children. 

Perhaps the Prof. had a revelation. Yes, perhaps.

----------


## subterranean

Agree with you there baddad. I posted that excerpts not with the intention to defend one party, just merely trying to "throw" a discourse..What happened to someone, eventhough that he's a professor, can't be generalized to other people. 




> And I would never begrudge anyone believing whatever they want, whatever makes them feel good ! It is all good. The Prof has the right to believe whatever he likes, and more power to him!.

----------


## Dyrwen

> Exactly Stan....
> 
> 
> So, I think there's a posibillity that one day Dyr and AP change their minds sometime in the future about these evolution and divine being things.... 
> 
> But I'm just wondering, is it only cause the age problem???? Seriously, can't you give something better than that???? Or age is the ONLY reason that you can give to explain about the professor's conversion???
> 
> I mean the prof was an atheist for almost his entire life, and suddenly the thought of death scares him alot or perhaps suddendly, he experieced some nerves breakdown, then he converted....I mean is that all????


Most "recant" stories in the news are just propaganda anyways to further the cause of religion in other people. So that they might stop and think, "See, even I can change someday to find the truth." Or some such idealistic thinking towards such concepts. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but to be fair, you don't hear many stories about people deconverting too often in the mainstream. 

A person's reasons for changing their beliefs about a topic such as gods means only anything to the person in question, very rarely has it anything to do with why I believe or how I will in the future. Many people grow up and lose gods, others gain them. That's life, we all cope with it in different ways.

----------


## Scheherazade

Don't you think this is a two way street? Like an atheist professor 'sees the light', a religious person can also realise that his/her beliefs are not satisfactory anymore and become an atheist/agnostic etc... None of us know how our future expriences will affect us.

----------


## subterranean

Indeed.............




> .. None of us know how our future expriences will affect us.

----------


## Dyrwen

> Don't you think this is a two way street? Like an atheist professor 'sees the light', a religious person can also realise that his/her beliefs are not satisfactory anymore and become an atheist/agnostic etc... None of us know how our future expriences will affect us.


Well, I thought that was assumed, but so be it: Yes it's a two-way street and I didn't meant to imply anything other than that, though I can only comment on what I've seen.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Most "recant" stories in the news are just propaganda anyways to further the cause of religion in other people. So that they might stop and think, "See, even I can change someday to find the truth." Or some such idealistic thinking towards such concepts. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but to be fair, you don't hear many stories about people deconverting too often in the mainstream.


Most news stories in the media have been exceptionaly anti christian. I have seen alot of anti-christian propoganda, I am not sure where this pro christian propoganda that you speak of is.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Just look in the UK press. We constantly get articles, letters and opinion columns defending the existence of religious schools; the incitement to religious hatred bill; the loss of family values due to loss of religion; etc etc.

----------


## Stanislaw

Well, atleast here in Canada, where I am, the newspapers are very anti christian

----------


## atiguhya padma

Maybe they are making up for all those centuries of aggressive persecution of dissent against Christianity :Smile:

----------


## Stanislaw

Maybe they are a bunch of narrow minded loud mouths who persecute one group for no reason other than hatred for that group.  :Mad:

----------


## q0987

If you were a scientist and you wanted to make a new life form, how would you go about it? If you were the life form created, how would you define your existence? Evolution vs creation is a fruitless subject, since the evidence on both sides can point to one side or the other. The one question you should ask your self is; which is more profitable to you? That there is a God who loves you and wants you to be with Him for eternity? or your just a big bag of dirt and when you die you will return to the earth and your existence will end.

----------


## Dyrwen

Bag of dirt. No contest.

Pascal's Wager isn't effective, realize that or just stop talking. 

I don't need a god in my life, whereas using your argument, I would only need a god in an after-life, which may or may not exist. Until you can make a decent reason to believe in a god, while I'm alive, you'll continue to meet resistance over the idea you're presenting. Work on that though, really.

By the way, if you could cite some of that "evidence" presented by creationists that contradicts evolution, I'm sure we'd all find it useful in believing your idea presented, again.

----------


## q0987

For you my friend there is no argument that would persuade you. Your mind is made up. The bible calls this state the state of the walking dead. So enjoy your existance, until you do die. Then when you are in front of the living God, you can tell Him that he doesn't exist.

----------


## Dyrwen

Least you're willing to admit, by mere suggestion, that your mind is made up as well. So I can respect our mutual disagreement, heh. Better not to be persuaded by the mere mouths of men, than face the consequences of an alternate god in the end. Or as a more appropriate wordsmith would say it: 

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

----------


## baddad

> Or as a more appropriate wordsmith would say it: 
> 
> "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787


...IMHO...
Hear, hear! No god could show disfavour towards rational thinking. Organized religions' approach seems to be an appeal to emotion, and not an appeal to human kinds ability to think for themselves. Religious groups prefer to indoctrinate people early in life, the younger the better if the brainwashing is to take a strong hold and last a lifetime. Fear is used as the stick, and an everlasting life of happiness at some undefined point in the future is the carrot. The last thing any church wishes its parishinners to do is think for themselves. What they really want is for you to hand over your free will to them because it is obvious by their reasoning that people cannot be trusted to think for themselves. If there is a God, he would probably be dismayed, at least, with the tactics and irreverent partisan approaches taken by organized religions.

qO978: So spiritual belief (according to one of YOUR posts) is a matter of profitability? And the notion of profitability is tied to either faith (God exists) or scientific fact? I do believe in choosing whatever perspective makes one's life the easiest, as long as it injures no others. But to ignore truth (we ARE of the earth, chemicals, gasses, etc) as so many religions advocate seems to me to be exactly the trouble with organized religion; "ignore truth, believe us".
I think I'll advocate for truth and fact. But hey, that's just me.....

----------


## Miss Darcy

> I think I'll advocate for truth and fact. But hey, that's just me.....


*Vehemently* It is _not_ just you, you've got pretty much every atheist in the world behind you...  :Nod:  

I'm afraid there's so much proof against God that there is absolutely no reason to believe in him. Or her. But I don't think most Christians call God a her...simply for the reason that Christianity is ruthlessly sexist, giving no rights to women...that is, Christianity in its wholeness is merely faith in a book, and therefore we should consider all in this book to be adhered to.

And as to "evidence" for creationism...I'd be extremely interested to hear it. So please don't hold me in suspense for too long. You know what I mean by evidence...logical, credible stuff, not mythology of any kind...though I do love mythology...I digress.  :Biggrin:  And I don't want "miracles", either, because any that have happened in actuality have been merely natural phenomena.

Darcy

P.S. Well, Sub, I've got a great idea. If I change my mind about God, I'll get back to you in 65 years to tell you how and why.  :Wink:  Though I must admit anything can happen, I am even more willing to admit I see absolutely no chance of _that_ happening. And even if it did, I'd only have to read a paragraph or so of Dawkins, or Hawking, or Gribbin, or anyone like that, and I'd easily slip back into atheism with a sigh of relief.

----------


## IWilKikU

> For you my friend there is no argument that would persuade you. Your mind is made up. The bible calls this state the state of the walking dead. So enjoy your existance, until you do die. Then when you are in front of the living God, you can tell Him that he doesn't exist.


Well, not everyone on this forum is uh... 'walking dead'. I was born and raised Christian and have just... 'converted' to atheism. My mind is far from made up and I still search Christianity, Buhddism, non-religious ethics, etc... for direction in how to live my life, and I gotta say, Dyr and AP make a helluva lot more sense to me than Mr. 'I don't want to argue with the walking dead'. Way to spread the Good news q0987!!! Keep us new atheists away from your silly church.

----------


## Scheherazade

Please let's remember to keep the discussions -especially those which relate to sensitive issues such as religion- within the Forum rules and respect each other's views even though we do not agree with them.

----------


## IWilKikU

sorry :ashamed:

----------


## subterranean

Well I think q0987's statement is no better..So no need to feel sorry Kik

----------


## Miranda

Could you give the scriptural reference for this please. I don't recall reading this before. 




> For you my friend there is no argument that would persuade you. Your mind is made up. The bible calls this state the state of the walking dead. So enjoy your existance, until you do die. Then when you are in front of the living God, you can tell Him that he doesn't exist.

----------


## Stanislaw

> ...IMHO...
> Hear, hear! No god could show disfavour towards rational thinking. Organized religions' approach seems to be an appeal to emotion, and not an appeal to human kinds ability to think for themselves. Religious groups prefer to indoctrinate people early in life, the younger the better if the brainwashing is to take a strong hold and last a lifetime. Fear is used as the stick, and an everlasting life of happiness at some undefined point in the future is the carrot. The last thing any church wishes its parishinners to do is think for themselves. What they really want is for you to hand over your free will to them because it is obvious by their reasoning that people cannot be trusted to think for themselves. If there is a God, he would probably be dismayed, at least, with the tactics and irreverent partisan approaches taken by organized religions.


Well, er, ahem... Organized religion isn't about brain washing, it is about worshiping God, and learning of his will for people on Earth. It is not about indoctrination, it is about belief and faith. One doesn't call there home an indoctrination facility, so why should a simple structure that houses the concecrated body of christ an indoctrination facility???

And athiesism has it's "carrots" aswell. A life wher one may do whatever they please because there is no eternal consequance. 




> You know what I mean by evidence...logical, credible stuff, not mythology of any kind...though I do love mythology...I digress. And I don't want "miracles", either, because any that have happened in actuality have been merely natural phenomena.


  :Rolleyes:  well you see there is no concrete proof, THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED FAITH. And mmiracles have happened, infact there are quitew a few, there are the biblical miracles, there are the stigmata miracles, there is the miracle at Guadalupe! So just stating that there are no miracles is tripe, I would like to see your proof that no miracles have occured!




> qO978: So spiritual belief (according to one of YOUR posts) is a matter of profitability? And the notion of profitability is tied to either faith (God exists) or scientific fact? I do believe in choosing whatever perspective makes one's life the easiest, as long as it injures no others. But to ignore truth (we ARE of the earth, chemicals, gasses, etc) as so many religions advocate seems to me to be exactly the trouble with organized religion; "ignore truth, believe us".


Organized religion does not preach to ignore facts, and the bibal states that man is made of the earth, read Genisis for that'ne.
And it is not ignore truth believe us, it is ignore heracy believe God.

----------


## blp

> Well, er, ahem... Organized religion isn't about brain washing, it is about worshiping God, and learning of his will for people on Earth. It is not about indoctrination, it is about belief and faith. One doesn't call there home an indoctrination facility, so why should a simple structure that houses the concecrated body of christ an indoctrination facility???


Wow. You sound a bit brainwashed. Actually, a lot of people do think of the home as a brainwashing facility and see it as the task of becoming an adult to liberate themselves from the received ideas passed on to them by their parents. One of which might be religious belief. 




> And athiesism has it's "carrots" aswell. A life wher one may do whatever they please because there is no eternal consequance.


Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Every action has a consequence - although the idea of heaven is a fantasy of a place where there aren't any and the idea of being forgiven all your sins and going there is a fantasy of the consequences here on earth ultimately not mattering. 






> well you see there is no concrete proof, THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED FAITH. And mmiracles have happened, infact there are quitew a few, there are the biblical miracles, there are the stigmata miracles, there is the miracle at Guadalupe! So just stating that there are no miracles is tripe, I would like to see your proof that no miracles have occured!


Yes. This is why these arguments are so pointless - because the religionists deny the basic terms of argumentation from the outset, stating that through their faith, their going to continue to believe no matter what arguments the rest of us offer. Their faith apparently doesn't extend to faith in the idea of logical argument. And yet they continue to argue. 
You immediately jump from stating that proof doesn't matter to giving proof. This obstinate clinging to something that doesn't make sense is making you incoherent, or preserving your incoherence.

----------


## subterranean

How can you be so sure?




> *Vehemently* It is _not_ P.S. Well, Sub, I've got a great idea. If I change my mind about God, I'll get back to you in 65 years to tell you how and why.  Though I must admit anything can happen, I am even more willing to admit I see absolutely no chance of _that_ happening. And even if it did, I'd only have to read a paragraph or so of Dawkins, or Hawking, or Gribbin, or anyone like that, and I'd easily slip back into atheism with a sigh of relief.

----------


## subterranean

Just a silly question:

Did the ancient man have the same body structure as today's man? I mean did he have same, for example, digestion system, neuron system, blood circulation system, etc???

----------


## Dyrwen

Ancient man, in terms of <10k years ago did have basically the same structure biologically and mentally. They just weren't exposed to the same amount of information to become as full brained, pardon the term, as we have. For the most part, mammals hold the same organs, and only differ depending on diet. Like how hyenas can digest hooves, human teeth are built for omnivorous eating, I'd imagine apes have a certain resistence to certain potencies of citrus depending on their fruit intake.

----------


## subterranean

So Dyr, do you mean that ancient man had less complex systems than ours? I mean for example less complex brain and lung structure? 

Is that mean also that we have systems (respiration, digestion, etc) which already evolve?

----------


## Dyrwen

Well, we're always evolving minimally. If your family are great swimmers more than two generations back, then usually the ability to hold your breath, or even move your muscles in a manner less physically exerting sometimes is created through adaptation. 

I'm saying that we had the same general systems though. Our brains were about as complex, they just weren't able to be used as thoroughly since our understanding of the world was lessened. For the most part, you could say they were as creative as we are since all mankind has that natural portion of our minds, but the difference of biological structures was more than likely just more reliance on physical adaptation over time rather than mental. Anything huge though, like loss of hair or walking on two legs, obviously takes a lot more time.

Like how some folks say their good at math because their parents were, but back in the day one might've been good with a bow, rather than a spear because of where one grew up or how one's family hunted. Hard to say, really, but int terms of skeletal structures, we're pretty sure that a primitive mind was just as capable of all we're capable of today. Even the neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens (which were chro-magnums (sp)) at the time) until we wiped them out. 

Hopefully that answers somewhat of your question.

----------


## Stanislaw

You see, there is no ultimate proof for or against God. There are minor proofs, but for the most part, athiests ignore them.




> Wow. You sound a bit brainwashed. Actually, a lot of people do think of the home as a brainwashing facility and see it as the task of becoming an adult to liberate themselves from the received ideas passed on to them by their parents. One of which might be religious belief. 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Every action has a consequence - although the idea of heaven is a fantasy of a place where there aren't any and the idea of being forgiven all your sins and going there is a fantasy of the consequences here on earth ultimately not mattering. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Bandini

There are countless creation myths the world over - but of course the old testament is the only true story. Of course. God just made all the other ones up to...er...to test us! That's it - to test our faith. That and the dinosaur bones. HELLO!

----------


## Bandini

Scheherazade - "...won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times" Chomsky reckons that's one of the problems with American society - the 'for or against mentality' - that gave rise to 'Americanism/UnAmerican activity' and so on. 

If we just say 'Yes' or 'No', we often learn nothing. Catma not Dogma! 'Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis - the only way to the truth.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Scheherazade - Won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times Chomsky reckons that's one of the problems with American society - the 'for or against mentality' - that gave rise to 'Americanism/UnAmerican activity' and so on. If we just say 'Yes' or 'No', we often learn nothing. Catma not Dogma! 'Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis - the only way to the truth.


Hmm?
.
.

----------


## Molko

> The amount of creationism believers this poll shows scares me, especially seen as though this is a community of intellectuals...


Are you saying that people who believe in creation are stupid? Just curious...

Its just that what you said came across as condescending...

----------


## subterranean

But why women today still having such a hard time and lots of pain when delivering a baby, same as the ancient days...??? Why isn't changed or evolve?
I'm still wondering though...somehow I can't get the idea..Isn't the evolution proceess involves everything...




> Well, we're always evolving minimally. If your family are great swimmers more than two generations back, then usually the ability to hold your breath, or even move your muscles in a manner less physically exerting sometimes is created through adaptation. 
> 
> I'm saying that we had the same general systems though. Our brains were about as complex, they just weren't able to be used as thoroughly since our understanding of the world was lessened. For the most part, you could say they were as creative as we are since all mankind has that natural portion of our minds, but the difference of biological structures was more than likely just more reliance on physical adaptation over time rather than mental. Anything huge though, like loss of hair or walking on two legs, obviously takes a lot more time.
> 
> Like how some folks say their good at math because their parents were, but back in the day one might've been good with a bow, rather than a spear because of where one grew up or how one's family hunted. Hard to say, really, but int terms of skeletal structures, we're pretty sure that a primitive mind was just as capable of all we're capable of today. Even the neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens (which were chro-magnums (sp)) at the time) until we wiped them out. 
> 
> Hopefully that answers somewhat of your question.

----------


## subterranean

Molko...
Do you see that advertisement in his/her sig? I'm assuming s/he implicitly tried to say " join my forum peeps...you"






> Are you saying that people who believe in creation are stupid? Just curious...
> 
> Its just that what you said came across as condescending...

----------


## Bandini

Incka - yea it was satirical. Molko - yes it was condescending. Subterranean - perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage conferred by painful childbirth; it is painful and 'dangerous' so perhaps that is selection. Also, the evolutionary advantages conferred by having a large cranium (and brain) probably override any advantages of pain free child birth. That said, I wouldn't want to go through it myself!

----------


## Bandini

Schez - it was a bit of an unclear post - had a couple of glasses of wine. What I meant to say was, we get much more from making everything a dichotomy. That said, I do think Creationism is utter nonsense. Ahhhh! meant 'not making everything a dichotomy' - wine again I'm afraid.

----------


## Dyrwen

> But why women today still having such a hard time and lots of pain when delivering a baby, same as the ancient days...??? Why isn't changed or evolve?
> I'm still wondering though...somehow I can't get the idea..Isn't the evolution proceess involves everything...


How is a reduction of pain supposed to help in evolution? It's a small hole that pushes out a large object. It has to remain small for a few reasons: 1. So that intercourse can occur with a marginally smaller object that fits, 2. So that if a child is born within, the thing won't just fall out, or possibly, 3. Because without pain in that "region" as childbirth occurs, you'd have less nerve endings down there and sex would therefore be about as exciting as inserting tab A into slot B. 

So you would have an option in terms of evolution, if it were at all a choice: Feel pleasure while having sex, anytime, or feel no pain while having a child, maybe once or twice in life. To get right down to it, the whole pain factor, outside of the obvious, might just be that so long as its mildly painful it'll remain an activity that doesn't happen all the time (forcing the population to rise) or perhaps it just creates that great ordeal of pain that the "miracle" of life deserves to have on its platter because of the amount of sheer complexity involved in the activity.

----------


## Libram

Bandini said, "That said, I do think Creationism is utter nonsense." You should realise that Creationism and Religion are two very different things.

Creationism is not an accepted religious doctrine, it only started out around the time of Darwin's "Origin of the Species" to contradict it. The Church has no problem with evolution...the late Pope said that there was nothing in evolution that went against the idea of God. Creationism is a cult of false "scientists" who twist ideas into a new faith of their own. Creationism is often warring with orthodox Christianity.

----------


## Miss Darcy

Pshaw.

I think, regarding birth pain, that evolution is not supposed to make things less painful. Evolution - via natural selection - eventually changes things to be more effective. If it were more effective to give birth with less pain involved, then I'm sure that would eventually be the result of evolution...that we would evolve that way. But I don't think less birth pain necessarily is more effective - probably quite the reverse. *Shrugs* That's my two cents, anyway.

I agree with Bandini that this whole Creationism thing gets on my nerves. There would be no such thing as Creationism without science, and I mean *real science*. 

But I can't see how religion can agree with evolution. Look at it this way. Faith means believing in what you're told by a particular book given to you by your parents (for me that's Shakespeare  :Wink: ). Being a Christian, I take it, means believing in everything written in the Bible - because the Bible and what is written in it is the essence of Christianity. There would be no Christians without the Bible. It doesn't do to believe in snippets - just in this, or just in that. If you're going to be a Christian, you may as be a whole one.

So in this light, if you're a Christian you should believe that the Earth is flat (Matthew 4:8) and doesn't move (Psalms 104:5), that witches exist (and should be burnt, or so said the priests who were the interpreters for God - well forget that one), that pi=3 (various sources, Kings 7:23), that rabbits chew the cud (Deuteronomy 14:6-7), that slaves are to be treated as property and are less than human (Exodus 21:20-21, Peter 2:18, and others), similarly with women (Ephesians 5:22-24, among others)...that ghosts exist...well if it had been written earlier we'd have some aliens in there as well, sure (not saying there aren't any, just that our image of them is somewhat...well I don't think aliens are the way we imagine them to be)...whew...I didn't mean this list to become so...er...controversial? But honestly, it's all in there. I wanted gentler things, such as belief in magic etc...well believing in God is of course believing in magic...but I digress.

I don't understand why so many women/girls follow Christianity, considering it treats them as inferior to men. Well, sure, so a man/some men/men with communication with some kind of god/or God himself (who is male, by most accounts).......wrote the Bible. It's very obvious. But why agree with it? Why agree with the treatment of wives as "property"? Why must a woman worship her husband as the husband worships God? Why all this "inferiority"? And why go with it?! If you're a guy and think women are inferior...well that's your problem. But if women think _themselves_ inferior...that's seriously sad.

I also don't understand how so many down-to-earth-seeming guys can believe in all that stuff, you know, magic, ghosts, witches, invisible giants who can take a whole lot of something from nothing, who make men out of dust (I'm a little allergic to dust so I hope that won't be a problem), etc., etc., etc. But that's their thing. I obviously can't know how the psyche of a male works, so I'm not going to deal with it.  :Wink: 

Is this getting to be a bit too long? If so, my apologies. You know I get carried away about this stuff. Hope I've been respectful for once... :Smile: 

Darcy.
(Have you noticed I'm usually Darcy now in religious discussions and usually Miss Darcy everywhere else? Strange.)

----------


## Bandini

Thank you Libram - I must admit I've never really explored the argument from 'the other side', apart from a paper I wrote on Wittgenstein's Fidesm, in which I argue that...well no time to go into it here. What I'm saying is I don't accept that out of thousands of cosmologies/religions etc., there can be one 'true' God. I know a Christian would just say "Ahhhh! But that's...", because everything is proof of God to a Christian. That said, I have had the odd numinous moment - probably because I was schooled in a Christian society ,so those feelings have terms of reference from this.

----------


## Miss Darcy

Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein. That name rings a bell. Was he the one who...screwed up his eyes in deep concentration before answering a question? Or was that someone else...

Ditto Bandini on what he (? excuse if not correct...) says about a "true" God. The Christian god is not any more true than all the other gods of different religions of different times (including of course the gods of ancient mythology). Believe what you want to believe, but saying that your own god is better than anybody else's, I think, is rather...well you know what I mean. I have nothing against honest Christianity, honest belief in whatever you do believe...but I don't like it when Christians behave irresponsibly towards members of other religions (or even different sects within their own religion) and, of course, us atheists. Believe what you like, but please don't intrude on the beliefs of others, if they have any...let them also believe what they like.

Atheists don't believe because there is no reason to believe. No reason at all. Or if so, why Christianity, and not any other of the hundreds of religions available? Why? Obviously, Christians are usually people who follow the religion they do simply because it has been passed down to them. Otherwise they have converted due to some "insight" or "revelation" (go into that later). But if you do believe, you should realise that there are contradictions, mistakes, and obscenities in the Bible (excuse me for saying so).

You should realise that we humans are of absolutely no importance to the world. We exist, that's it. There is no particular point in us being here (perhaps to become better human beings, but not a particular point that some god has set down for us). To quote Douglas Adams:

"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

What a perfect analogy (I got this quote out of Richard Dawkins' "A Devil's Chaplain"). It fits perfectly. Just perfectly. Down to the very last bit...I don't have that much respect for Adams as a novelist (sorry), but I must say, as a scientific thinker, he's rather good. Sometimes he writes very convincingly, though he's not my kind of writer. But I really respect him for that.

Oh, the time! 

Darcy.

----------


## Libram

> So in this light, if you're a Christian you should believe that the Earth is flat (Matthew 4:8) and doesn't move (Psalms 104:5), that witches exist (and should be burnt, or so said the priests who were the interpreters for God - well forget that one), that pi=3 (various sources, Kings 7:23), that rabbits chew the cud (Deuteronomy 14:6-7), that slaves are to be treated as property and are less than human (Exodus 21:20-21, Peter 2:18, and others), similarly with women (Ephesians 5:22-24, among others)...that ghosts exist...


That is only if you take the Bible litterally. And how can you know whether or not ghosts exist? They could very well exist. And as to Women...you do realise that they have been treated as inferior for a long time, and that now the situation is changing?

You should realise that many, many scientists believe and find no clash between their faith and their science. The Bible was written many years ago - but does it follow that it must be wrong? People do not change. We are very much as we were when we were mere hunters and gatherers. There are, I believe, many universal truths in the Bible. Else who would follow it?

Besides, who says God didn't make the earth those 4.5 billion years ago, created life, let evolution happen, and then the humans just misinterpreted some of what he said? Interpreting for God is a hard job, you can't always get it right.

If you are a Christian and not a hypocrite then you are a good person. You don't kill, don't lie, are morally upright...as long as you really follow, you cannot come to harm.

----------


## Loki

Miss Darcy seems to ignore something.

The world must be flat due to the same reason that God must exist. Some insects even have four legs. People are made of ribs and then at the Devil's tempting reproduce. Women are inferior to men in every way, they can be treated as property. Animals should be killed for a man who is invisible and directs us all on a cosmic playground. Children should be tortured for rebelling against parents who have brought them up wrong. Children ought to be sacrificed because the invisible maker orders it. Wars must be fought in the name of our Lord Jesus who is Dead, and is come to put a sword in man's hand (Matthew 10:34-35).

There is someone out there who can hear your every prayer, who knows you, and loves you, and will do anything for you if you are a good little sheep. Any little things you may need, if it's a work promotion or a new puppy dog - you pray for them, and your heavenly father gives them to you. But when it comes to cruelty, to starvation, to agony, to all evil in the world - does he stop it if you pray? If all the Christians in the world prayed for the end of suffering, God would never stop it, even if he could.

If you pray for something for yourself, yeah, it's okay, God can do it for you. But if you pray for something for somebody else, something that will help somebody else who is desperate, something that will perhaps cure somebody else of a disease - no response. God lets them continue in their suffering, or lets them die, which frees them from their anguish. Or actually, no, it doesn't free them from their anguish if they have grown up in an unchristian environment, or perhaps in the gutters, with no one to guide them, with nothing to stop them from revolting against the society that condemns them to such a pitiful existence. For a petty lifetime of immorality God will sentence you to an immortality of torment.

The fact is, there is no need for a Hell, there is quite enough suffering on Earth as it is. Rely on it that evil will be punished, there will always be conscience, there will always be torment to one who has sinned. But in some cases people...seem to suffer without cause. After leading a perfectly peaceful and moral life, many have to die in agony, punished for something they have not done; while all over the world evil rules unchecked. Does it not lead one to think that there might be something more? Not an afterlife, no, but perhaps the Eastern idea of reincarnation is not far off the target. If reincarnation were true at least to some extent, this would make sense. It seems rather strange, this short life, and then to think there is nothing more - you are left to rest without having reached perfection. I realise that many may not agree with this, however I am not trying to make anybody do so, I am only putting the idea forward for some consideration.

Just a few thoughts,

Loki

----------


## Dyrwen

> If you are a Christian and not a hypocrite then you are a good person. You don't kill, don't lie, are morally upright...as long as you really follow, you cannot come to harm.


Therein lies the problem. You say "That is only if you take the Bible litterally." and act like there aren't some Christians that do take it literally. To _really follow_ it, I'd sooner believe someone who followed it literally was _really_ following more of it than someone who interpreted it, since they aren't following it to the T, they're adding in what they feel is right or wrong to it. 

Not to mention, your idea about "There are, I believe, many universal truths in the Bible. Else who would follow it?" is a bit haphazard as well, since many religions have "truths" which are just as understandable and reasonable as the Bible, so they might follow them as well since they make sense, too. And believe it or not, some of them don't even have a god directing that set of truths because many things are picked up culturally and made into texts for verifications on cultural norms for others. 

Don't get me wrong though, I know what you mean about Christianity changing over time to better adapt to society, but if anything, all that shows is how the book itself wasn't too effective in delivering its point, when (if God were all knowing and all) God could've just had it written proper the first time it was done instead of leaving all these practices in that aren't relevant 2000 years down the road. I'm all for liberal interpretation, but if one is going to do it, at least admit that one becomes a little less Christian with every alteration in the text...

On another idea: Whether God did make the world 4.5 bya and started evolution, or not, isn't so much the point if we can't reasonably deduct that there is a god in the first place. Then again, that's where the beliefs come in and lead us to reason that we all gotta explain the universe somehow and sometimes feeling there is a god doing it instead of natural order that works on its own just makes more sense to some. 

Just late night thoughts in regards to what I read,  :Smile: . And Loki, way to be a devil's advocate, but the mixed messages aren't helping anyone when you don't make a concise point.

----------


## Bandini

I think that Christian ethics are basically pretty right on. It's basically be tolerant and love one another. Great. The problem is that religion is always used, by some, as an instrument to wield power over others. So we get the exact opposite of what Jesus tried to teach. The other problem is when it is used to restrict people from doing things or encouraging people to behave like sheep - that whole 'flock' thing got to me. Robert Anto Wilson added a caveat to Crowley's (not a great moral teacher IMO!) best known aphorism - "Do as thou wilt - and love - shalt be the whole of the law"

----------


## Loki

> And Loki, way to be a devil's advocate, but the mixed messages aren't helping anyone when you don't make a concise point.


I am aware of that, Dyrwen, I had been planning to expatiate a little but unfortunately I was called away from the computer too soon. I thought I'd edit the post when I had more time...so I reckon I will do so now.  :Smile:

----------


## Dyrwen

I see, sorry for jumping the gun. Your edit made much more sense of the post now,  :Smile:

----------


## Loki

No need to apologise, Dyrwen, jumping guns is my favourite morning exercise.  :Wink:

----------


## Loki

Is it not strange that all the theists have disappeared somewhere?

-No wonder it's so quiet. It is rather difficult to have an Evolution vs. Creation debate without having anyone around to support Creation.

----------


## baddad

.......perhaps some people, theists, creationists, the 'believers' , have sensed/or do sense, a disturbance in the force.....perhaps the hush we hear is the bated breath of someone who is witnessing.... 'first-hand' .....the beginning of all that they have struggled to 'see', struggled to believe.....a dreadful silence announcing the beginning of the end......................and we can't see it...............

----------


## Bandini

Or they're just thinking "****, my beliefs are absolutely ludicrous!" *Braces himself for onslaught of fervent, dogmatic knackers*

----------


## Miss Darcy

> .......perhaps some people, theists, creationists, the 'believers' , have sensed/or do sense, a disturbance in the force.....perhaps the hush we hear is the bated breath of someone who is witnessing.... 'first-hand' .....the beginning of all that they have struggled to 'see', struggled to believe.....a dreadful silence announcing the beginning of the end......................and we can't see it...............


Perhaps. Perhaps they've just decided there's no use arguing any more...maybe they've realised it's hopeless to try to convince us...or maybe they simply don't have any arguments left.

----------


## baddad

Si, true. But of course all positions on reality may eventually reach such an apex, this is what I am implying, along with the point that all perceptions are arguably only as viable as the next, including the perception that anothers perception is or may be, imprecise. To deny the existence of the reality of another's spiritual or philosophical belief, sheerly from one's own unmet demands for a precise accounting, or concrete proof , seems hubric. Our own existence is not precise. Life is not precise. As for dogmatic knackers, I hope for myself to avoid such an approach to life not matter the strengths of my own beliefs. And while I personallly have no need for the existence of gods I shall not detact from another's approach to life. Me, I'm living to learn and it is all good...............

----------


## Scheherazade

Or maybe they are not as argumentative as the Evolutionist lot  :Wink:

----------


## Miss Darcy

I hadn't thought of that one  :Tongue:

----------


## Molko

No one has written in this thread for a while.... so anyway I thought Id share this quote from Stephen Hawkings: 

"Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that"

 :Smile:

----------


## baddad

Yes, agreed, a God is a philosophical stance.

----------


## Loki

Proof of God: he wrote the world bestseller of all time.

Should I elaborate?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Molko

Yes, please do  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dyrwen

Like to see that argument hold ground once LotR manages to outsell it. Then where will ya be? heh.

Seriously though.. if popularity meant anything we'd all be Chinese.

----------


## Monica

> Seriously though.. if popularity meant anything we'd all be Chinese.



That was hilarious!  :FRlol:

----------


## Molko

I thought it was a rather rude generalisation of chinese people...

----------


## Dyrwen

Well humor be damned, the argument was for popularity equalling truth and who's more populous than people from China? 

I suppose I could've said one in four animals is a beatle, but that doesn't relate much to human life..heh.

----------


## baddad

RE: POST #228 " A quote by Steven Hawkins"

IMHO...... Ya know, I LOVE Steven Hawkins mind, his personality, and his indominatable approach to an existence (his so much more so) full of trials and tribulations. But I have to wonder what (religiously motivated no doubt) reporter finally waggled this answer (actually Hawkins refrains from answering, allowing instead a position of supposition) from Hawkins lips. Hawkins is a physicist. Read his book, " A Brief History of Time".............The gods don't make any mystical appearances in Hawkins book....

----------


## Basil

> Hawkins is a physicist.


Hmmmm, are all physicists automatically nonbelievers?
According to The Celebrity Atheist List (which I do not offer as any sort of conclusive "evidence"), Mr. Hawking seems to be something of a deist--he believes in a God, but not a "personal" God. Just because "the Gods" do not make an appearance in one of his books does not really mean anything at all.

----------


## baddad

Basil, What is a 'personal' God?

*notices Stanislaw Lem on the athiest list.....nods to Stan...*

----------


## Basil

> Basil, What is a 'personal' God?


Knowing nothing about religion, I will tenatively offer this distinction: "personal gods" are very active in the lives of mortals and very concerned about the human race; so much, in fact, that it sends the losers of their little morality contest to a very bad place where they are not allowed to watch _The Simpsons_ or eat Klondike Bars. The belief in an "impersonal" god (I think) presumes that human existence is NOT some sort of holy experiment, and that it is possible a higher power exists, but that life is just incidental and not the basis for a morality play.

----------


## Dyrwen

I'd say you summed it up well. In another light, a personal god is one that interferes with life and expects certain things from its creations. An impersonal god just made the universe and went on vacation letting whatever happens, happen, without consequence. 

Many scientists that happen to still be theists, will usually be deists, because it allows them to get around having to understand how the universe came to be by figuring "Something made it, left it, and we'll never know what it was." Gets around that whole testy religious angle, but leaves in the whole "why are we here" idea.

----------


## niebieskipolak

Shinto beliefs say that humans were born from dieties.
Christian, Muslim and Jewish beliefs say we were made by God to look like him.
I'm sure others do the same.

----------


## amuse

p'raps it's not a matter of lying - p'raps it's in the (breadth of) ability to understand god fully.

----------


## Amra

Muslims do not believe that people look like God or that they resemble Him in any way.

----------


## Dyrwen

niebies: as Amuse said it isn't about religion lying, but about the point that it's just an individual belief and just because a lot of people hold it doesn't make it true in any absolute sense.

Amra: Isn't that technically because Allah is not to be seen, has no face and no image to be viewed by man?

----------


## Miss Darcy

> Why would religion lie?


It's not so much the lying, more...well, each religion has different beliefs, right? And why should some particular beliefs be more true than others? There's nothing wrong with believing something, even if it's not true; but in trying to push someone into your own beliefs...

*Grins rather sheepishly* or into your own opinions...or perhaps even into the facts...

But what's wrong with facts?
What's wrong with religion?
As long as we keep the line between the two...

----------


## Avalive

I can't think about this. It would drive me nuts....

----------


## Bongitybongbong

I'd have to think that there was a little of both invloved...just my opinion.

----------


## Nightshade

Yup with Amra muslims dont belive we were made tto look like GOd as we dont know what God is suppose to look like all we Know is that we were created in the best possible image.

Drywn: actually its more like God/Allah (Allah basicly means THE GOD) is any shape and every shape and that he can be seen in anything and everything as a power... and Im getting out of my depth here so Id better swim back to the shallow and say yeah HE/she/It (sexless and all) has no face to be viewed by man.
Also whose to say that it is a case of a fact being a fact only because you belive it??

----------


## Loki

> all we Know is that we were created in the best possible image.


It is a very strange thing that man always seems to think he's the best, that he's the ruler - that God created the whole planet for his pleasure after His own (funny sentence, I know  :Biggrin: )....that we're created in God's image (or in the best possible one...who says we're anything better than chimpanzees? We are, after all, in the family of the Great Apes - we're closer to chimpanzees than orangutans are), and consequently, his "pet". I know it's tempting to think God is human(-like), but how do we know he doesn't have a jackal's head if we've never even seen him? And why not suppose that he came down to earth in the form of a sheep and died for our sins at the butcher's hand? Pity we don't believe this, it would save a lot of animals' lives...however it would probably affect the poor butchers in a bad way.  :Wink:  In fact, how do we know that God, incidentally, didn't create the fish in his image and that man only evolved? Who knows but that Adam and Eve were really salmon? I think that would diminish our importance a deal - I suppose we'd start worshipping fish.  :Biggrin: 




> Also whose to say that it is a case of a fact being a fact only because you belive it??


If you're referring to religion, then I don't think anybody ever talked of calling it - or its contents - "fact"...it always seems to be "belief" because there's nothing to prove it. (If there was then I'm sure it would be far more credible for a lot more people; sadly, God seems to not want to prove himself. He seems to want to make it difficult for his followers by making himself obscure and unreachable, cloaked by enigma...)

I know I'm probably "wrong" in all my conclusions about God, etc. but I think I'm not any more wrong than the traditional viewpoint established thousands of years ago. They deified Jesus...there was no Christianity before then. Why not? Why didn't God show himself to the Egyptians, for example? Or is it perhaps just as good to believe in Anubis and Amun-Re and Bastet?

Loki

----------


## Loki

> Shinto beliefs say that humans were born from dieties.


From what I recall, weren't the Shinto deities natural ones? Such as mountains and rivers and trees? Then they would be in a sense correct; we were born from water. We in fact are water. And soil. And stardust. And particles that were created (created themselves) at the beginning of time....

----------


## Nightshade

> It is a very strange thing that man always seems to think he's the best, that he's the ruler - that God created the whole planet for his pleasure after His own (funny sentence, I know )....that we're created in God's image (or in the best possible one...who says we're anything better than chimpanzees?


Sorry that wasnt clear, the belief is that everything GOd created is perfect and the best image for its purpose in life. Ie some is blond because blond is the coulour that best suits them. Flies look they way they do because that is the best and most perfect image for them. etc.
 :Biggrin:  



> If you're referring to religion, then I don't think anybody ever talked of calling it - or its contents - "fact"...


No I wasnt actually I was referrimng more to the power of belief. In that if you believe somthing is real, true or a fact them it is so if only to you.
Ive had this argument with other people before so before anyone states the obvious flaw I am not saying that if you believe gravity doesne exsist it wont, Just that for most beliefs that are taken for facts (the shape of the earth for instance once it was a fact that it was flat).
So what I am saying is that facts are only a dominant belief in society, a fact is only a fact if most people belive it.

----------


## Loki

> Sorry that wasnt clear, the belief is that everything GOd created is perfect and the best image for its purpose in life. Ie some is blond because blond is the coulour that best suits them. Flies look they way they do because that is the best and most perfect image for them. etc.


Fascinating.  :Biggrin:  So does that mean God created every individual...er...pair of individuals...for example the first two flies, the first two blondes, the first two... :Biggrin: 

I still maintain what I said about Jesus being a sheep. He could have come down multiple times already (our sins are fast accumalating) and nobody noticed. Why not?

Have you ever realised that the Bible indicates the Earth to be flat? Of course, you'll say, because that was the belief at that time. I'd perfectly agree with you. It also says there are insects with only four legs (creepy), that we should sacrifice our children to God, that kids should be whipped multiple times (as long as they survive)...all this alongside with God created Adam and Eve, etc. etc. etc. which people really cite as Christianity. I respect those who follow the Bible's better half, though they're obviously not full Christians...but I think that most people don't even read Deutronomy (for good reasons) and therefore can still think that this book was written by God. Otherwise they would be appalled, shocked, horrified. Many Christians deconvert after reading the Bible.




> So what I am saying is that facts are only a dominant belief in society, a fact is only a fact if most people belive it.


Would this also mean that, because Christianity is the dominant world religion, the Christian god is a fact more than any other god? That gods still believed in today are any more true than those believed in during the past? I think I know what you're getting at...but that would not be true "fact", it would only be thought of as fact. If I believed I could fly (see Dyrwen's post near the beginning of this thread) would it then make it a fact?

This is becoming a very interesting discussion...

----------


## Nightshade

> So does that mean God created every individual...er...pair of individuals...for example the first two flies, the first two blondes, the first two...


Well it means whatever you take it to mean exept that God in some way had somthing to do with it.
Personally I belive it means God decided the genitics of it and made all the rules aboout genes and things and then let things evolve from there.
So 2 eyes 2 feet 2hands 1 head for humans 6 legs compound eyes , wings ect for flies.

Also that certain traits go together red hair, pale complextion.. things like that and usually peoples natural hair colour actually suits them best!
(genetics again)




> Have you ever realised that the Bible indicates the Earth to be flat?


I dont think I can comment on the bible as I am not a christian but The Qu'arn (Koran) indicates that it is round, revolves around the sun and other things. Also I think that it depends how you are reading these things. If they are trully holy books ment to last forever then different things will have different meanings through time.




> Would this also mean that, because Christianity is the dominant world religion, the Christian god is a fact more than any other god?


No I think the socially dominat accepted fact today is that God does not exsit.
But what I mean is that facts are realtive the christian God is a fact to Christians and and to other people their God is a fact. Thats what faith is all about isnt it believing and knowing somthing is true?
 
Maybe mother nature is just another name for God maybe evolution is too. maybe any unhuman power is God or s manifestation of at least?

----------


## Loki

> Well it means whatever you take it to mean exept that God in some way had somthing to do with it.
> Personally I belive it means God decided the genitics of it and made all the rules aboout genes and things and then let things evolve from there.


Very interesting. But then there is no need for a God...it seems to be a rule of nature that unnecessary things don't exist/come to exist/continue to exist. Back in the old days, people didn't know anything about science etc. as we do today, the sky was held up by giants, the world was flat and resting on a mountain of turtles, etc...all those beliefs sprang from the need to explain why we are here and how we came to get here. How did we get here, after all? And so God was born. God was exactly the right sort of thing to make a world and solve their problems of how they got there, why this happened, why that happened, etc. God, or the gods, of course...long before Christianity there were other religions, such as the Ancients of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Norway, of course  :Biggrin:  - my personal favourite.....but nowadays there's no need for a God to create planet Earth - planet Earth creates itself. There no need for a god to plant fully-formed humans onto that Earth and command them to live. There is no need for someone to make things happen. Things happen by themselves.

Or do they? Some people, deists if I am correct, think that God started the Big Bang and then decided to disappear since he wasn't needed (or became extinct, whatever you like) after that. The universe blowed up from the size of a nothing to the size of a pea to the size of - it's still growing today...Antimatter fought matter, and matter won...but you see, Anthropic principle does not necessarily imply that there is a god. It's more to do with this universe being the universe with the best conditions for human life - in any other sort it would be impossible. We ask, why are we here? Why is everything _exactly right_? But we would not be here if it _weren't_ exactly right, and wouldn't be here to ask it. There are multiple histories of our universe out there - and we observe it from this one because it is the one suited for us to develop. I may not be making much sense here, but it is a fascinating subject...I'd suggest reading The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking, it's a fantastic book.




> No I think the socially dominat accepted fact today is that God does not exsit.


You'd be surprised. The source I have says




> World Population Percentages by Religious Group
> religious 86%, non-religious and anti-religious 14%.


This statistic was updated in 2005...




> But what I mean is that facts are realtive the christian God is a fact to Christians and and to other people their God is a fact. Thats what faith is all about isnt it believing and knowing somthing is true?


I know what you mean, but wouldn't that still be non-fact in real life? I suppose you could say fact can only be observed by humans (?) and so whatever we observe is correct but...truth doesn't change by observer. The truth is there without us, isn't it? If the whole solar system had never come into being, would it mean that the rest of the universe didn't exist because nobody was there to say it was a fact that it did? You're right, it is a fact to _them_...but without them, or anybody else, would it still be? I don't think so. Facts are the things that are unchanged by perspective. Much is called fact, undoubtedly, which is not fact at all...




> Maybe mother nature is just another name for God maybe evolution is too. maybe any unhuman power is God or s manifestation of at least?


Nice thinking. I

Loki.

----------


## Adelheid

Things are not evolving, they never did evolve, and never will evolve. Are they evolving in front of you? Answer is NO. Then why believe it so? Surely in the hundreds of years that people have started to believe in this thinking, they would have seen SOMETHING evolve. (assuming that the fishes now would change into birds later), surely out of the thousands of days so far, something would happen? But NO. Nothing HAS evolved. Sometimes I wonder whether science, REAL science (not applied science and technology), but real science is not moving backwards. The thinking seems so to me.

----------


## atiguhya padma

You can see the fruitfly adapting to changes in its environment. How come virus's get more and more resistant to anti-biotics?

----------


## baddad

Adelheid: In my humble opinion.......Evolution is an incremental process taking place over an infitestimally lengthy time continuum. Scientific study of this process is neccessarily limited by the relative 'blink-of-an-eye' existence that is the individual human lifespan. But current accumulated scientific evidence indicates the hypothesis/theory of evolution of life forms seems to concretely answer many questions concerning the ongoing wonder that is life. Only continued study and a penchant for the truth will eventually solve the debate surrounding evolution. Man, as well as being many other things, is a logical animal, considerate enought to weigh many factors in arriving at a plausable explanation for any given phenomenon. But I am suspicious this thread is trying to compare supposed diametrically opposed theories when in fact evolution vs. creation theories are not diametrically opposed, but totally disconnected from each other, and are not limited to having relatively little in common, but have nothing at all in common and yet both equally share the possibility of truth. 

Spiritual aspects of life, if they exist for one's self, can be compared to the physical/concrete world. And yes, a screwdriver can be used to peel potato...... but why bother? Personally I find a theory that allows for both possibilities (a spiritual existence seperate from the physical) intellectually pleasing and infinitely wonderous.........

----------


## Sitaram

Several comments regarding various matters:


I occured to me just now, as I read this thread, that we *do* live in a caring universe. The caring part of the universe is that very part which complains so bitterly that the universe is uncaring. A truly uncaring universe would be devoid of such sentimental rhetoric.

The great rabbi of the 12th century, Moses Maimonides (Rambam) who wrote "The Guide for the Perplexed" in Arabic, in Spain, often mentions the Muslim sect of the Mutakallimum, who advocated the use of philosophical reason in theological matters. Maimonides spends much time arguing against the literal interpretation of verses which suggest that God has some form.

Even in the New Testament, there is one verse in which Christ explicitly says, "No man as seen the Father at any time" (but then Jesus adds, "He who sees me sees the Father.")

There are Greek Orthodox who censure the Russian iconographers who portray God the Father in Icons as an old man with a beard. The Russians argue that the "Ancient of Days" in the vision of Prophet Daniel is God the Father, seated upon a throne, but the Greeks argue that it is Christ as the pre-eternal Logos.

I once asked a very strict, conservative Greek monastic, of the Athonite tradition, what Eastern Orthodoxy believes about evolution. He explained that there was no conflict in thinking that God used evolutionary means to create mankind. He pointed out that Basil the Great, theologian of the 4th century, who wrote "The Six Day Creation" (Exemeron), concedes that a day could be metaphorical for an eon of time. For the Psalms say, in one verse "With the Lord, a day is as one thousand years, and one thousand years is as a day."


There IS some dispute, between various Islamic sects, regarding the attributes of Allah. Here are some links on the matter:




http://ahmadjibril.com/students/tawheednames.html




> For this reason ,when asked about the manner in which Allah is seated on the throne the Salaf said: The sitting (istiwa) is known, the manner is unknown, believing in it is an obligation, and inquiring about it is a heresy. (ar rawdah an niddiyyah p 29) If someone were to ask: How does Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, descend to the lower heavens?, We would reply by asking: What is His nature? If the questioner says,  I do not know Allahs nature. , We say: And we know not how He descends! To determine how an attribute is manifested, we should know the nature of He whose attribute it is: the attribute is but an aspect of its owner, dependent upon Him. How could you expect us to explain the manner in which Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, descends, hears, sees, speaks, or sits upon the Throne, when you do not know what His nature is? If you attest that Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, is a constant, absolute reality, incorporating all the attributes of perfection, dissimilar from any other existing thing or being, you must accept that His hearing, seeing, speaking, descending, sitting and others are perpetual and real, and that He is characterized by the attributes of perfection which are not like the hearing, seeing, speaking, descending and sitting of beings. (ar rawdah an niddiyyah p.34) Tawheed of names and attributes is damaged by the following:
> 
> 1. Tashbeeh/ Comparison: This means comparing the attributes of the creator to the attributes of the created as the Christians, Jews and some sects in Islam compare the face of Allah with the human face, Allahs hand to the human hand and so on. (al asilah wal ajwibah al usuliyyah p. 35)


http://www.ghazali.org/works/gz-itiqad.htm




> I have even heard one of his followers say that [Ahmad ibn *Hanbal] forbade the allegorical interpretation of all but three traditions, namely the words of the Prophet when he said, The Black Stone (al-Hajar al-Aswad) is the right hand of Allah in the earth; and, The heart of the believer lies between two of the fingers of the Merciful [Allah]; and Verily I shall find the soul of the Merciful [Allah coming] from the direction of al-Yaman. [Even here] the literalists have been inclined to forbid any allegorical interpretation. It is assumed, however, that Ahmad ibn-Hanbal knew that ascending (istiwa) is not fixity of location (istiqrar), and descending (nuznl) is not change of location (intiqal); nevertheless he forbade allegorical interpretation for the good and' welfare of people, since whenever it is allowed matters become worse and go out of control, overstepping the limits of moderation. Things which go beyond the limits of moderation are beyond control. Therefore there is no harm done by such a prohibition which is also attested by the lives of the Fathers who used to say, [when discussing verses and traditions], Take them literally as they have been .[revealed and) handed down. Thus Malik, on being asked about ascending (istiwa), went so far as to say, The fact of ascending (istiwa) is known but its manner is not; to believe in it is an obligation, to inquire about its manner: is a heresy.



http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/oth...religion.islam




> One person said:
> To deny, however, that Allah has a hand is to deny one of His attributes.
> 
> But I reply:
> No, we should say Allah has the attribute of 'yad' which is not a 'jariha'.
> It is not an organ. We should believe in this attribute, and we should believe that the word 'yad' does not mean the 'jariha'.


===================

The way I see it, evolution and change spells survival through adaptation.

Languages are constantly changing and evolving, which is why Chaucer and Shakespeare sound so different from our everyday speech.

The universe itself seems to be changing and evolving, from the big bang, and continual expansion, with occasional supernovas, and baby stars.

I think that religions and philosophies which have the capacity for change are preferable to religions and philosophies which are frozen in time.

You know, it wasn't until the 1846 that general anesthesia was first used at Mass General Hospital

http://www.ehistory.com/world/amit/d...m?amit_id=2234

Islam speaks against intoxication. Anesthesia is definitely a form of intoxication. Also Islam is very much in favor of imitating the Prophet Muhammed in every aspect of his life, grooming, attire, cuisine, etc. Now, I am quite certain that Muhammed never had a surgical or dental procedure. But if he DID happen to have an operation, I am quite certain that he had to suffer through it without the aid of local or general anesthesia. Now the world has changed, since then. So, if someone were really sincere about Islam, and avoiding intoxication, and imitating the Prophet Mohammed, then I would expect them to refuse any sort of anesthesia. Yet, I am quite certain that all Muslims, up to the most respected Imams and Ayatollahs, hasten to have surgical and dental procedures when the need arises, and do so with the aid of local and general anesthesia.

This seems to me a bit of a "sticky wicket".

By the way, did you know that George Washington had major surgery, without anesthesia, and that it possibly extended his life by an additional 10 years?

http://www.founderspatriots.org/articles_wash_med.htm




> In 1787 Washington had a severe bout with what is described as a rheumatic like condition in that he could not raise his arms above his shoulders and spent much time in bed. This may have been due to a type of arthritis arising from an inflammatory condition of the blood vessels surrounding the bony joints. In 1789 approximately six months after his inauguration as our first president, he developed cramps, fever and chills and was found to have a carbuncle (inflamed mass under the skin) near the thigh bone which was crudely removed by surgery without anesthesia. During this time he also developed conjunctivitis and pneumonia and was unable to perform his presidential duties for 109 days! As far as is recorded General Washington continued his presidency without medical problems thereafter.


Both Judaism and Islam forbid lending on interest, which is deemed usury.

No one in the times of either Moses or Mohammed could possibly foresee this world of modern economy and medicine. In our world, it becomes essential to use banking of some sort, as well as stocks and bonds, which automatically involves us in the loan business, indirectly. Islamic countries have devised institutions which allow religious Muslims to borrow and repay without any involvement in usury. Jewish Talmudic scholars have devised rules which allow an observant Jew to invest in the stock market, and yet not feel guilty for having the investment labor on the Sabbath day.

But all of this legalism is a struggle to force something static and frozen to evolve with changing times.

If God/Allah is all-wise and creates humans in the image and likeness of God, then why is there some necessity for male circumcision (or female circumcision in some cultures, though this practice is disputed)? Why are we created with something which ought not to be there, and requires removal?

There is a verse in the Psalms which explicitly states that "the years allotted to a human being are three score and 10 (70) or perhaps four score (80) and what is beyond this is toil and travail." Suppose medical science reaches a point where it is possible to extend an individual's life to 150 or 200 years. Does this mean that God did not have the foresight to realize that one day such longevity might be possible? Would it be sinful in the eyes of a fundamentalist to avail ourselves of a technology which permits such longevity?

----------


## Sitaram

(continuation of post above).
Why were swine created, if they are unclean and haram (forbidden)? Each year, many animal and plant species become extinct. Why are pigs not cast into extinction by the divine will of the Almighty? 

http://www.world-destiny.org/a44com.htm

Pig is one of the most curious of all words. It is in Old English as pigga, but its origins are unknown. The Hebrew word piggool (Strongs number 6269 )means "fetid," "unclean," and "to stink!" 

(end of continuation)
==================================
Let us compare the 96th Surah of the Qu'ran with the Biblical account of creation in Chapter 2 of Genesis:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/096.qmt.html




> AL-ALAQ (THE CLOT, READ) 
> YUSUFALI: Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: 
> 
> Genesis 2:7- "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."



Neither account precludes the concept of evolution. God/Allah is a *Fashioner* who fashions man out of something which is pre-existing. These accounts may scarcely be called creation "ex nihil" (out of nothing), a presto-chango wave of a magician-Deity's wand.

And where did the blood come from? Or where did the dust come from?

I, just now, searched google.com on : scientists evolution "a proven fact"

Most of the links returned were religious organizations arguing *against* evolution. The following link seems to be a useful summary of the scientific arguments in favor of evolution

http://rwor.org/a/v24/1161-1170/1170/evol5.htm

I wonder why a perfect and unchanging Deity would take the trouble to create an imperfect and changing universe (or universes).

There is an old conundrum which poses the same question in this manner:

"IF we assume that God is perfect, lacking in no respect, and also all-wise, doing nothing without a reason, then we may deduce one of the two following conclusions: either act of creation on the part of the Deity serves no purpose since the Deity is perfect and lacks nothing (making the creation extraneous and superfluous), and hence the Deity is not all-wise, having done something which serves no purpose; OR the act of creation WAS necessary, since something WAS lacking, which would imply that, prior to the creation the Deity was somehow lacking and incomplete, and therefore, not perfect."

We cannot have a Deity who is both perfect and all-wise and who also creates. One or the other must go. Perfection or Wisdom, which shall it be?

Sitaram feels that *wood* is at the heart of all these problems. Everyone has a chip on their shoulder, the theists, the atheists, the scientists, the theologians.

The origin of 'chip on someone's shoulder' is from an early American schoolboy ritual before fights. One boy would place a woodchip on his shoulder and dare the other boy to knock it off. If the other boy knocked the chip of wood off of the first boy's shoulder then a fight would occur.




> Two men look out from the same bars:
> One sees mud and the other sees stars.


It all depends upon your point of view.

----------


## aberration

Keep in mind that Evolution is still a theory. Theories cannot be proven. In spite of all supporting evidence, we can never say that evolution is fact. If one case arises which contradicts the theory, the theory becomes void. 

Conversely, it takes an enormous amount of faith to believe in something like Creationism. I'm a Catholic but that doesnt mean I have to believe God created the universe in a week. Technically, if He lit the fuse on the Big Bang, it only took a fraction of a second  :Smile: 

Evolution takes faith, just as creationism does...it's just a more logical answer so it's easier to believe in. If you want to know a little about the theories around the start of the universe etc I recomend "a brief history of time" - Stephen Hawking. It won't give you a definitive answer but it might shed some light on personal beliefs, whatever they may be. It isnt really a partisen work and its a fairly easy read, considering the subject matter.

----------


## Adelheid

To me at least, Evolution takes MORE faith than Creation. More faith in chance, fate and time. To those who believe in Evolution- those are your gods. Still atheists? 

And Evolution, the theory bit, makes no sense to me...like I said it takes more faith to believe that time, fate and Chance (such are your gods and goddesses) came together at exactly the same precise moment, randomly, and that's how the big bang happened. Time monitered her work, and little atoms began to form, and with Fate's help, put together to form cells. And all three gods put their heads together to form the simplest life form on earth. Time improved the form, chance put it in earth, and fate provided air, oxygen, water and food for that masterpiece to live.... and time went on...... insects were formed, fish were formed, birds were formed, animals were formed, humans were formed..... and time, chance and fate decided to stop, for they were happy with progress.....

Come, come! Surely you must own that the simple believe which states that God created everything in six days on unquestionable authority and evidence is by FAR easier to believe compared to everything happening at the EXACT SAME split second in order to form what no MAN or scientists or Professor of science has ever done? Create something out of nothing, life out of stillness, and the equivalent of sunshine, food, water and air to nourish it....as well as the cycle which ensures that the sunshine, food, water and air never fades away? 

Can you presume to say that? None has done such a thing! And yet your faith is so strong in Time, Fate and Chance as to say that they did it??? Out of the thousands of years to meet, they all chose the SAME moment to???  :Brow:

----------


## Scheherazade

Wouldn't you say the same thing about Virgin Mary as well? That it hadn't before and hasn't happened since then? Or the Jesus' coming back alive?

----------


## atiguhya padma

Aberration,

Evolution is a theory, like Quantum Theory. Without Quantum Theory, you wouldn't have been able to post to the LNF. Like Quantum Theory, Evolution is one of the best explanations the human mind has created to explain the way the world works. It is to the credit of science that it maintains that these explanations are theories. One can't imagine many theologians talking about the theory of God.

I suspect that the 'Evolution is only a theory' brigade are really trying to say that scientific theory is no better than religious theory. Of course, that is complete rubbish. The theory of God is a poor explanation of the way the world works in comparison to Evolution or Quantum Theory

Regarding scientific theory, i suggest you read this http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...1alabama.shtml

----------


## Maxos

Correct, I think there is nothing to add.

----------


## aberration

except that i was trying not to take i side in my little post there  :Smile: 

I BELIEVE in evolution, gravity (which is still theory) and two-for-one icecreams on thursday. I also believe in God but I dont believe that He created the world in six days, nor in heaven, hell, or divine intervention. Philosophical debates like this arise when people read too much into texts like the bible, which is merely a moral guideline. A few of my teachers at school (catholic school) hated me because I refused to listen to their dogmatic doo doo. For a while I thought of becoming an aetheist but I didnt much feel like gaining 30kgs and I dont really like Star Trek. 

I see no reason that scientific theory cannot co-exist with a divine presence.

----------


## Maxos

You are from Brisbane.
Robbie MacEwen is from there, isn't he.
He has just won his third stage at the Tour, great!

Thus, from your last sentence, everyone can see how yours is a fantastic country for cyclists, a bit less for thinkers.

Scientific theories do not contradict God's existence, anyway a single man who wants to understand Science, CANNOT, today, accept this mithological way of approaching reality, he must read the world in physical terms, since the two languages, of Sciences and Religion, CANNOT have the same ends, means, power, meaning, as Galileo first understood and demonstrated.
Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world, if you are a man of some knowledge.

You CANNOT believe in scientific theories, they are ways to put some oder in our universe of feelings, the problem with this is that you don't actually know on what set of events the theory will apply, that's why Physics change: they aim at magnifying the application-field of a theory.

----------


## aberration

"everyone can see how yours is a fantastic country for cyclists, a bit less for thinkers."
Probably right, though. But that might have something to do with our country being a nation of drinkers. 

Im curious as to why you think I can't believe in scientific theories when I've already stated that I do. I don't believe in any Christian mythology except for the presence of a divine power. 

Religion no longer attempts to explain the world. It is there to guide you through it. You accuse me of having antiquated ideas about science without having the remotest understanding of my knowledge in the field. On the other hand, I know that you have antiquated ideas about religion.

"Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world" - You have grossly missinterpreted the reasons for having religion in the first place. This faux pas is typical of the "piously preaching aethesist" of whom I have encountered many. 

Who's to say that in the beginning (the Big Bang) God thought of all the rules that would govern the universe, whipped out a little thunderbolt and blew everything accross the cosmos, then left it to its own devices. 

I find it a little disconcerting to think that human beings could be the highest intelligence in our humble little universe (I also believe in life on other planets). Of course, we may be and if you can disprove the existance of God I'll happily eat my words. You dont have to agree in the existance of God but I think that you should perhaps explain your argument instead of repeating such sanctimonious dribble as - "a single man who wants to understand Science, CANNOT, today, accept this mithological way of approaching reality"

----------


## Maxos

I said: "Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world, if you are a man of some knowledge."

If you refer to common people, you are right, religion is a way like others (EG advertisement) to guide you through the choices of your life, I was referring to "men of knowledge" (Notice, I haven't said "Culture")

If you are not a Physicist, you can actually believe in scientific theories.

The problem of christian mithology lies in the fact that you live in an anglo-saxon country, I live in old europe, in poor older catholic Italy, you are more similar to ancient oriental countries, really monotheist, we are still pagan and politheist, ours is a mithology of the past, yours is a mithology of the present, it is modern, changing along with society, so it doesn't seem a real mithology (businessmen, terror, nation, ecc...).

----------


## karanae84

I wonder why it has to be an either/or debate? Not that it's a simple matter to pull evolution and creation together, but is it really so important? The world exists--what does it matter if people differ in how they think it got here? I would argue that the problem is forcing others to choose one or the other... it is your deal what you choose to support, believe or accept for yourself.

----------


## Dyrwen

Well Karanae at this point it appears to be more of an education v. disagreement sort of "debate" in the world over evolution's place. A lot of folks only disagree with the concept because they don't fully understand it, though there are quite a few that are certainly valid in their disagreements after learning all about it. 

Most people I've ever met that don't believe in evolution tend to ask: "Where's the evidence?" More often than not, and that's what I'm basing the thought above on. There's plenty of it and most are more than willing to dispense it when asked in the form of fossil records and gene records. Guess all I'm saying is: Nobody expects to change someone else's mind, really, but sometimes we would like to be the one that pushes someone a little closer to that line of acceptance. 

Besides, what else are people to do on message boards if we can't argue? :P

----------


## karanae84

I don't disagree... I enjoy debating the topic myself, as long as it's a back and forth debate. The problem I have with many people who debate the topic is just that they generally refuse to listen.

----------


## Sirius_Kai

I'm not sure if anyone has said this already--because I don't want to go through 19 pages of stuff to find out. But are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Could not the universe have been "created" through evolution. In other words could evolution not have been guided by an intelligent force?

----------


## Dyrwen

That was mentioned Sirius and there are plenty of folks subscribing to that belief, since it lets them have their cake and eat it too. Really nothing wrong with that idea, so long as you're okay with the god being there at the start. If anything I find it a bit more reasonable than just throwing evolution away entirely.

----------


## Maxos

> it lets them have their cake and eat it too


Fantastic.

Should I decide to come to the USA, I think I'd avoid Al and choose WA.

By the way, what do "Al" and "WA" mean????

----------


## Dyrwen

Alabama and Washington. Alabama is the South, a hazardous place for someone with a loud set of dissent to live. Washington is far Northwest, an eerie little place full of hippies tolerant and pretty nice, so long as you stay on the west side of the state. Not to say Alabama doesn't have nice people, just that it can be a bit ..well, unnerving to live in for some folks compared to others. Seeing as Tennessee and a few other southern states tried to make evolution unable to be taught in schools and Washington hasn't had anyone bicker about the problem as of late.

----------


## Maxos

> evolution unable to be taught in schools


What??????

----------


## scruffy_danny

I think if there is such a thing as a God, as the typical religion perceives it, then I wager he simply planted the seed for the world, with a fair idea of how it was going to turn out, as a gardener does when he plants the apple seed. So he created evolution. 

But just as it is beyond the apple's intelligence to realize how it came to be and why, it is also beyond our intelligence too. 

That's my explanation anyway, it suits me fine.

----------


## Maxos

Hey Mr. explanation, the point is:

What is God for?

I don't need God to understand the world.

----------


## Dyrwen

> What??????


Just read some Google news once in awhile about America around the words "evolution banned in schools" and you'll get the gist. For awhile there were stickers on textbooks in Georgia schools that said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" until they were ruled unconstitutional. The issue is still debated in Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri...etc.

----------


## Maxos

!!!!!!!!!!!! :Eek2: !!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Sirius_Kai

> Alabama and Washington. Alabama is the South, a hazardous place for someone with a loud set of dissent to live. Washington is far Northwest, an eerie little place full of hippies tolerant and pretty nice, so long as you stay on the west side of the state. Not to say Alabama doesn't have nice people, just that it can be a bit ..well, unnerving to live in for some folks compared to others. Seeing as Tennessee and a few other southern states tried to make evolution unable to be taught in schools and Washington hasn't had anyone bicker about the problem as of late.


I like Alabama okay. It is a bit rigid in its beliefs (like voting republican in elections...blah). However, if you are diligent enough, you can find those who are more "alternative" (as far as AL goes) in their ways of thinking. I am a Christian, suprise! But there are things that I know. I know that the people who wrote the Bible didn't have an understanding of the world like we do today, scientifically speaking. I know that, if there is a God, it is more than possible for him (or her, or it, I guess...if that's your view point) to have directly inspired the Bible, just as it is possible for that same God to have "inspired" evolution. I think personally far too many people are willing to throw away ideas, leading to such happy things as wars. But, I'm just one man with an opinion.

----------


## Dyrwen

Whatever works for you. I found quite a few free-thinking sorts when I lived in NC, be they theistic or not, so I certainly can attest to there always being an alternative personage somewhere. Didn't mean to drag on your state, but when comparing some of the general populous to a NW state it gets to be that way at times. Had to find a distinction generalization so maxos would get the drift.

----------


## anizmail

i think that is the point - whatever you believe about it - evolution is the THEORY of evolution. if it is going to be taught scientifically, it must be called what it is - a theory. really this debate is not a scientific one, though. the bible says, "the fool says there is no God" so each person must decide. those who believe in a literal 6 day creation by God do so by faith. it is not by science, though there is at least as much empirical evidence for creation as for evolution. and those who fight so ardently for evolution do so be/c they reject the existence of God. they want to be in control, be sovereign. these are all results of post-modern influence. whatever you believe, know what it is, know what the origins are. "there is nothing new under the sun" as scripture says. whenever you think that you are expressing some new explanation, some new excuse not to believe in God, know that there have been others before you who have been there already. it is what the greeks called sophomoric, the wise fools. wise in their own eyes and in the eyes of the populace, but fools before God. for those that think there is no conflict between creationism and evolution, it is simple to see when you read the scriptures. scripture asserts that God created the universe in 6 days - that He said it and it was done. there is indeed a conflict. this argument goes to the integrity of scripture. it undermines all of scripture. you must choose - do you accept the veracity of scripture or not? is the bible what it claims to be, God's Word, or not? you cannot have it both ways. contrary to what post-modernism teaches, both cannot be right, be/c they each inherintly say that the other is wrong. if you question scripture in the first pages, what will you do with the rest? you might as well go through and begin to tear out all the pages that you don't agree with, and then, well, what's the point of picking it up at all? Here is the bottom line: scripture teaches that God created the universe in 6 days simply by speaking it into existence. man then fell, God put a curse on all creation. it teaches that since then and as long as the earth shall exist, human beings are sinful and unable to obtain favor in God's eyes, thus deserving of hell. scripture says that God requires justice be/c He is holy. scripture also teaches that be/c of God's great love for His created people, He made another way to satisfy His justice. He sent Someone to live a perfect Life and then bear the justice that man deserves. scripture teaches that Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man came to fulfill the requirements for us, by living a perfect life, dying that we would not have to die for all eternity, and rose again that we, too might live. all He asked, according to scripture, was that we accept that from Him. according to scripture, Jesus said, "anyone who comes to Me, I will not cast out". this is the choice before you- will you believe or won't you? if you are right and scripture is wrong, no big deal, no one gets hurt. but if scripture is right and you are wrong, you get to spend an eternity in hellfire "where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth". so choose carefully, friends.

----------


## Dyrwen

> if you are right and scripture is wrong, no big deal, no one gets hurt. but if scripture is right and you are wrong, you get to spend an eternity in hellfire "where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth". so choose carefully, friends.


Pascal's Wager is the concept you are talking about, whether you know it or not. However fine and dandy that whole speech was, I can only say similar things in return to you. 

If your scripture is wrong and another's scripture is right, you might also get to spend an eternity in hellfire alongside me. There are plenty of other gods out there that will get angry if you don't follow them, whether you believe they're all _your_ god or not. Personally I'd suggest believing in the Jewish god, since there isn't any hell, technically speaking, for them. As Thomas Jefferson once said; "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." What you suggest, believing "just in case" is tantamount to saying "Believe or go to Hell, the odds are against you" which is basically just fear-mongering. Reason holds more weight in my mind, so I'd rather question the existence all together rather than pick a side because I fear going to Hell.

----------


## anizmail

well, my friend, i suggest doing your research a little more carefully. first of all id like to respond to something you said back in feb. you said that "Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works." that is incorrect. a scientific theory is simply a proposed explanation to a set of observations. when it is proven true it becomes a scientific law. that is why evolution is still, as far as science is concerned, called a theory. just because it has been widely accepted does not make it any more true. 

now, as far as hell is concerned... i actually do believe in the jewish God and if you would carefully read the jewish scriptures, you would see oh yes indeed, there is a hell. what you are referring to is reformed judaism which does not believe much of anything. if you talk to an orthodox jew, you would see quickly that hell is taught. i quote from the jewish scripture : Malachi 4:1 "'Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,' says the LORD Almighty. 'Not a root or a branch will be left to them.'"

as far as other religions are concerned, not many teach hell. most teach that as long as you are sincere about what you believe, it's all good. many teach annhilationism or soul sleep. that after death, there is no more. but one thing that is exclusively taught in the bible is grace. no religion teaches that God loves us and wants a relationship with us so much that He forsook Himself for our sakes. 

you are right, i do not propose believing as "fire insurance". that's why i said choose carefully. search for truth, don't just spout folly without even looking. the true scientists seeks to disprove rather than prove. you just accept what sounds jolly to you and you say _i'm_ unreasonable. i also believe that faith is not a choice, it is a gift. you have to ask for it and you have to accept it when it's offered, or you won't have it. 

i challenge you to read the scriptures, genesis - revelations. then you will be equipped to respond to these things.

----------


## Dyrwen

> well, my friend, i suggest doing your research a little more carefully. first of all id like to respond to something you said back in feb. you said that "Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works." that is incorrect. a scientific theory is simply a proposed explanation to a set of observations. when it is proven true it becomes a scientific law. that is why evolution is still, as far as science is concerned, called a theory. just because it has been widely accepted does not make it any more true.


Evolution is as much a theory as gravity is still a theory. That's all I can add to that.




> now, as far as hell is concerned... i actually do believe in the jewish God and if you would carefully read the jewish scriptures, you would see oh yes indeed, there is a hell. what you are referring to is reformed judaism which does not believe much of anything. if you talk to an orthodox jew, you would see quickly that hell is taught. i quote from the jewish scripture : Malachi 4:1 "'Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,' says the LORD Almighty. 'Not a root or a branch will be left to them.'"


You seem to be unaware that there are thousands of different types of Jewish faiths, Christians faiths, Islamic faiths, etc; that all happen to believe different things about another. I've met enough Jews that don't believe there is a Hell, or at least if there is no Jews are going there, to follow through with my original belief about the matter. I don't disagree that the scripture may call for a Hell to exist in their faith or that Orthodox's might believe there is a Hell, just that most Jews that I've met don't believe Hell is relevant to their religion anymore. 




> as far as other religions are concerned, not many teach hell. most teach that as long as you are sincere about what you believe, it's all good. many teach annhilationism or soul sleep. that after death, there is no more. but one thing that is exclusively taught in the bible is grace. no religion teaches that God loves us and wants a relationship with us so much that He forsook Himself for our sakes.


There were about 15 crucified saviors before Christ, as far as our historical record can tell. Only through many of them were quite a few people saved, or so they say. Martyrdom has been around a lot longer than Jesus. God did not "forsook" anything. He came down, felt pain for awhile, died, came back to life and lived forever in Heaven again as controller of the universe. Meanwhile if I say "There is no god" I rot in Hell for all eternity. Any human being is a bigger marytr than God because we _actually have something to lose_ by dying. 

Pagans love their gods and many of their deities love them back just as your god might proclaim. Although Buddha is not a god, the faiths of Buddhism more theistically based teach ultimate love for nature as their own god so that nature may love them back, by sending them to nirvana. Same goes for Hindus, depending on the god being worshipped at the time, since many of them desire the love of their followers just as much as Yahweh might.




> you are right, i do not propose believing as "fire insurance". that's why i said choose carefully. search for truth, don't just spout folly without even looking. the true scientists seeks to disprove rather than prove. you just accept what sounds jolly to you and you say _i'm_ unreasonable. i also believe that faith is not a choice, it is a gift. you have to ask for it and you have to accept it when it's offered, or you won't have it.


As if I haven't spent time searching for flaws, finding problems, seeking to disprove the world around me with any measure of power I have. But since you went and fell off a tangent: Why ask for faith when life works out just fine without it? Why should I believe in a god of anykind when abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang, etc all explain with a great deal more detail the world around me than God and the Bible ever have? The Bible says "God did this" but you only have the Bible to prove that God did anything at all. I've enough fossil evidence, dating records of the universe and its objects, as understanding of the biological structure to prove plenty of what I know given the time to prepare, but all a theist has to respond back with is: "You don't know that for sure" and I can only retort that neither do they. 

You may believe in your heart to be right, but so do I, and the great thing is, neither of us will ever know if we're actually right until we die. There is no 100% in life and I'm willing to admit it, but that may also be why I cannot ever have faith, because that would require my belief 100% that something will happen and I cannot reason myself into such a thing because there is always a chance something else will happen.




> i challenge you to read the scriptures, genesis - revelations. then you will be equipped to respond to these things.


You seem to believe I've not read them. I've read plenty of genesis and revelations, though I haven't picked through the rest of it. I've read enough pamphlets throw at me to understand what I don't believe is true. The Bible is just a book of literature to me. Asking me to read it to understand anything is like me telling you to read the Star Wars novels to understand the world around you. Both are just books, neither are true accounts of the world with any proof backing them up entirely. There are shades of truth in each, but some are more believable than others.

----------


## anizmail

well, since this is a literature forum, and this is a subforum on religious texts, until you've read what's in between genesis and revelation (that's 64 of 66 books), and i don't mean "pamphlets", we can't really talk about what's in them. 

this is where i will bow out and will be glad to continue the discussion once we have the same information to discuss. 

have fun!

----------


## anizmail

oops - i forgot one thing - the LAW of gravity. not a theory, friend. 

Equation to prove gravity:

Force=Gravity Mass (a) Mass(b) / r^2

Now where did i put that pesky equation to prove evolution?  :Brow:

----------


## Sirius_Kai

anizmail, you are correct in what you say about theory and law. Only when a _theory_ has been tested, tested and re-tested--and proven beyond disbelieve to be true--does it become scientific _law_. But, because of certain elements, i.e. the missing link, evolution remains a theory. It, quite honestly, holds no more weight than the _theory_ of creation. Only because many people, like Dyrwen, believe there is no God has evolution gained popularity. To me, since I have heard just as many scientists state very rational eveidence to suggest with as much possibility that creation could have happened, I find it just as plausible (and because of my worldview, more so). I must say that I do personally believe in creation. It could quite possibly have been literally six days. I could also have been through a process simillar to evolution. All I personally need to know is that God was behind it. I do not think that evolution can be disregarded, just as I do not think that pure creationism can be disregarded. I think that God keeps it this way to sustain the element of faith in Him.

----------


## Dyrwen

> To me, since I have heard just as many scientists state very rational eveidence to suggest with as much possibility that creation could have happened, I find it just as plausible (and because of my worldview, more so). I must say that I do personally believe in creation. It could quite possibly have been literally six days. I could also have been through a process simillar to evolution. All I personally need to know is that God was behind it. I do not think that evolution can be disregarded, just as I do not think that pure creationism can be disregarded. I think that God keeps it this way to sustain the element of faith in Him.


To your first point about the amount of scientists believing in either side being equal, I give you linkage, which although from 98' still has a margin of more than 2:1 odds over those with creationist beliefs as far as the leading scientific minds go. I'm glad to see you at least leave room open for god to have partaken in starting evolution.. seeing as there isn't any evidence that evolution is wrong, just that there isn't enough evidence to prove it is a law of nature. It might as well be considering adaptation's role in previous generations and the fact that you can literally watch certain smaller animals evolve through genome patterns in less than a few years. But meh, some folks will never be pleased. 




> well, since this is a literature forum, and this is a subforum on religious texts, until you've read what's in between genesis and revelation (that's 64 of 66 books), and i don't mean "pamphlets", we can't really talk about what's in them. 
> 
> this is where i will bow out and will be glad to continue the discussion once we have the same information to discuss.


Way to miss the point. This thread is about evolution v. creation, and religious texts or not, I was merely telling you that your book is just literature to me, but you hold it up as some sort of evidence of the world's six-day creation and the possibility of god's existence being fulfilled. The "information" I wish to discuss is only the disproving of evolution and considering there has yet to be some magical word in the Bible that came out and says "Hey, evolution is in fact false" I can only continue to ask "Where's your proof evolution is wrong?" 

That's what this particular thread is about (or at least what it has become, outside of the generalized "how do you feel about it" discussion). It isn't about those books in between the Bible, unless a particular one happens to go about sourcing evidence that can be verified in the real world to prove its point. Seeing as evolution wasn't even thought up back then, I sincerely doubt there's even any evidence remotely there. Most things cited are of the Flood and/or the six-day creation, which have less to do with evolution and more to do with abiogenesis and the big bang theory. Evolution is merely the _how_ of how we evolved into human beings. Though considering the Bible tends to say God just made man without any "god made primates.. god let primates evolve.. god took first man and said.." notation in it, that's left up to interpretation. 

The main problem therein is simply that: It's a book left up to interpretation, rather than a slab of cold hard facts you can pick through with a fine toothed comb. Now, continue to jump around the issue and tell me to read your holy book a few more times, or hey, actually do what no one else has ever done and show evolution as false. But before you do, submit it to the newspapers, since that sort of bombshell doesn't need to be dropped on some forum.

----------


## anizmail

gen 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
gen 2:19 "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name."
gen 2:22 "The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."

there's no room for evolution as fas as the bible is concerned. and i'm done here. thanks for the lively debate.

----------


## kilted exile

A couple of articles I found this morning on speciation, seemed they might be somewhat relevant to your discussion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4461827.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

----------


## Dyrwen

Well aniz, at least you're willing to stick to literal translations, though I'm sure you waver once you get around to the laws about killing non believers, adulterers, etc. Sure there's some good interpretation of NT to OT there that helps you get around that.

Kilted, those articles were pretty interesting. The BBC is quite nice for news of all sorts, as I've come to spot over the past couple years. Nice to read a publication that realizes evolution isn't seriously "debated" in the scientific community as to whether or not it is true, just over what needs to be fixed in their theory.

----------


## Sirius_Kai

The reason I am willing to consider evolution as God's method for creation is the passage (though I cannot now remember where in the bible it is--I'll look it up if necessary) that states that a day is as 1,000 years and 1,000 years as a day. Which is to say that God is outside of time. If God is outside of time that leaves the interpretation of a day (especially in describing an event like creation) very much open. Therefore, evolution could very possibly be the method of creation. And since, when Genesis was written, they had zero knowledge of microscopic organisms, who is to say that all life does not have common ancestry. As aniz pointed out it makes mention of the fact that God started life from dust. So since there was no knowledge of microscopic organisms (other than God's of course), the "dust theory" would have been the way of explaining the commone ancestry aspect.

----------


## Dyrwen

Yeah.. considering god made the universe itself in 6 days, that leaves the opportunity to have time itself never start till he was ready or if anything he could've started it along time ago, then had the Biblical account of "creation" detail adam dealing with the animals after evolving over the past couple million years. The whole "making humans from dirt" thing has always struck me as simply micro-biology from amino acids and minerals, which were started a couple billion years back until they reached the point of intelligence in a bipedal mammal known as human beings. 

Your "common ancestry" thing has also hit me as more of an atomic level being implied, since we aren't all from two human beings or else the inbreeding would've killed us off long ago from the freakish mutations that would've occurred. In theory, we are all composed of atoms that have existed since the time of the big bang, so in a sense, we're all related, all 13.5 byo, but in any practical sense the concept as it is makes little point outside of saying "Yes, we all happen to exist in this universe and are made of atoms." Still, we're all of a common ancestry if you work at an atomic level, heh.. but that may be reaching. 

If anything it's one of the more logical evolution via God ideas, since there's a lot of room to figure out timeframes, what was created when, that sort of thing.

Just thought I'd throw in some valid scientific interpretation into the mix to possibly help the concepts being explained here more understandable

----------


## septuagint

Sirius_Kai, the scripture you are referring to is found in 2 passages: Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3.

This is a lengthy response, but to understand my argument you must read the whole thing.

It is really amazing to me that if we were talking about secular literature many in this forum would be flamed for not having read the actual literature that is being discussed here. Not even to mention, most in here are NOT looking at primary sources (Hebrew,Greek,Aramaic).

When Psalm 90 says:

90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.
(nasb)

It is NOT saying that to the Lord:

1 day=1000 years 

It is saying that 1000 years is nothing to the Lord. In context, the Psalmist just said, that God created all, and He has been from everlasting. It is stressing his eternality in the face of judgment. Notice the rest of the Psalm. It is not saying, hey, every time we see the word day (yom in the Hebrew), let's translate it 1000 years. Sure why not.

In the 2 Peter passage we have the same exact thing. The apostle Peter is saying, look, judgment is coming. There are those who say, "where is the promise of His coming..." Peter says, look, God is not slow, don't forget, to God, 1000 years is NOTHING. 

2 Peter:
3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 
3:8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 
3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 
3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 
3:11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 
3:12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 

Also, Anizmail is RIGHT on, contrary to Dyrwen. Anyone who calls themself a Christian MUST interpret the creation account as literal. Here are some of the reasons why:

1. We get no indication in the Hebrew to translate the creation account as figurative. There is no figuration language. The context dictates we must translate it as literal days (there was evening and morning--24 hour period).

2. There is a major problem when we say we evolved and were not created. The gospel of Jesus Christ itself is attacked. Contrary to popular psychological belief the Bible does not present man as inherently good, but desperately wicked.

Romans:
3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 
3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 
3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 
3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 
3:13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 
3:14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 
3:15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 
3:16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 
3:17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 
3:18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." 

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 

We are not just evil because we sin, but:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 

This is theology 101. Who is this one man you ask? It is Adam. When Adam sinned, he plunged the entire human race into death. This is the gospel, that men are dead (eph 2) blind and cannot find God. Only when God draws men to himself can they see. The apostle Paul was NOT looking for God on the road to Damascus, he was putting Christians in Jail (Acts 9), he even watched on as the first Christian martyr died (Stephan). The Lord made him alive with Christ on that Road.

If you say men evolved from whatever, you deny there is a man named Adam. Therefore, Romans 5:12 is false. You can't have both, if you call yourself a Christian, the simple understanding of the Gospel is that sin came through Adam, death spread to all men, and it is only through Jesus Christ that we can be made alive.

As far as the THEORY of evolution is concerned, the evidence is sparse. I'm quite amazed that the main Evolution proponent in here, Dyrwen doesn't even understand the difference between a theory and a law. Dyrwen, you even said that you thought gravity was a theory. This suggests to me that you are very ill-informed about your own beliefs in evolution. Anizmail didn't make up that equation, ever read Newton?! 

To most, when you ask, "why do you believe Evolution is true?" Most say, well, every scientist believes it, it must be true. Most don't even know the reasons why they believe it.

A good book written by a scientist and an EVOLUTIONIST is: Icons of Evolution. In this book, Dr Wells debunks pretty much every piece of evidence that we were presented as college students/high school students (the Miller-Urey experiment, that experiment where they create amino acids in a lab, pictures of embryos, etc). The four-winged fruit fly is presented by Dr. Wells, of which some think alone could support evolution, he calls a "hopeless cripple--an evolutionary dead end." He even goes so far to say that much "science" today is not truth-seeking, but dogmatism. Anyone who believes in Evolution should pick up this book and see the truth that Evolution is not only a theory, but a very badly supported one.

It comes down to this, for Anizmail and myself, we don't share our opinion, it is one of authority. The Bible is our authority as God's word, (and to answer your question Dyrwen) even when the Israelites are told to wipe out the Amalekites and not leave one alive. Additionally, we do not kill in the same way that Israel did to violations of the law, because the law passed away (Col 2:14,Rom 3,4), or perhaps you never read that, Dyrwen.

----------


## Sirius_Kai

septuagint, thank you for your well informed response. Honestly, I was hoping somone would refute what I was saying. I didn't know how else to get th point across I was trying to make. When I run into that problem, sometimes I'll state a view in opposition to my own hoping and praying that someone else more well versed in the scripture will be able to refute it. I am glad to say this metod has never backfired. Thanks again.

----------


## Miss Darcy

Dear septuagiant,

A warm welcome to the OLN. I trust you'll enjoy your time here.

As a general rule I tend to avoid the religious discussions here, because I know how hot-blooded I can get during those discussions, but the temptation is too great - and I must pick the apple off the tree.  :Wink: 




> To most, when you ask, "why do you believe Evolution is true?" Most say, well, every scientist believes it, it must be true. Most don't even know the reasons why they believe it.


I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you there. Firstly, evolution isn't a question of faith, of belief - evolution is simply something that has happened since approx. 3,850-2,500 mya (mya means million years ago - that's the Archaean Era) and is happening still. Secondly, people don't "believe" in evolution just because people tell them to, they know there is such a thing as evolution because of the facts, because of the archeological evidence. Though theories have helped us piece together this evidence to create the big picture, even without theories the facts are the same.

Take away the Bible, though, and you have no reason to believe in your God. You have absolutely no idea there was any Adam or Eve, heaven or hell, nothing. There are no particular traces of any "creation" event in the past, a few thousand years ago or indeed at any point of time.

The fact is, Christianity is only one of many religions, past and present. Religion has been here for a long time, in fact, ever since people started wondering about the world around them. Why do storms happen? So they create a god or two, who have a quarrel and then it flashes lightning and the heavens bellow with thunder. Religion sedimented, spread...

...And then there was science. To the humans' great delight, they found they could make observations, and piece those observations together to make sense - more sense than the invisible gods in the sky.




> Through the ages, people have many-a-time asked the question "why?", and many-a-time they have been incapable of answering it. In the effort to answer this question, myth and religion were born. But there were some people whom these explanations did not satisfy. Thus, the first scientists, who tried to explain natural phenomena from their observations, came into existence. As the years passed by, scientists' ideas and theories were slowly perfected. Today, our knowledge of the world around us is aided by high technology that allows us to see more, and thus know more.


Okay, so it's easy to get millions people from two. But put it this way.

You have four grandparents, two from your mother's side, two from your father's side.
You therefore have eight great-grandparents.
That means you have sixteen great-great-great-grandparents.
And so on.

So looking from the other side, we should have had some...millions of ancestors around at that time.

Of course, not true, there have obviously been interbreedings etc. But there were two people who we can trace through our DNA and through men's Y chromosomes...




> Through our maternal line we all share the same common ancestor who lived around 150,000 years ago. [...] This doesn't mean that she was the only woman living at the time. We probably have other female common ancestors but we have no way of tracing them. Their genes have all been jumbled up through generations of sexual reproduction when they passed through the male line.





> Scientists have recently studied copying mistakes in the DNA letters of the Y chromosome. They compared the Y chromosomes of 1,062 men from every part of the world. It turns out that all men share a single male ancestor who lived around 60,000 years ago  'Y Chromosomal Adam'.


For more info on Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam (they lived some 85,000 years apart) go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/d...ve/index.shtml . It's quite fascinating.




> A good book written by a scientist and an EVOLUTIONIST is: Icons of Evolution. In this book, Dr Wells debunks pretty much every piece of evidence that we were presented as college students/high school students (the Miller-Urey experiment, that experiment where they create amino acids in a lab, pictures of embryos, etc).


This seems to be some strange mutation of creationist "science". People with uni degrees making up a whole lot of stuff and selling it. That's what I think. 




> The four-winged fruit fly is presented by Dr. Wells, of which some think alone could support evolution, he calls a "hopeless cripple--an evolutionary dead end."


Quite the contrary. The fruit fly is a great help in science as it shares much in common with humans. "About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues," says biologist Sharmila Bhattacharya of NASA's Ames Research Center. This is very useful for scientific testing - fruit flies are very often found in the laboratory as substitutes for people.




> Anyone who believes in Evolution should pick up this book and see the truth


I, in turn, would recommend "The Devil's Chaplain" and "River out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins to anyone aspiring to understand evolution.

You can't fly a rocket on Bible fuel. You can fly a rocket with the help of science. 
You wouldn't even be able to argue about on the Online Lit Network without science.

Darcy

Further reading:

The Fruit Fly in You -http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/03feb_fruitfly.htm

Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ch.../archaean.html

Amber fossils
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/amber.shtml

Ethical atheist
http://www.ethicalatheist.com

Positive atheism
http://www.positiveatheism.com

----------


## Dyrwen

> Further reading:


I would also suggest this book: Denying Evolution by Massimo Pigliucci. It's a wonderfully detailed book about how evolution works and how creationism is nigh-impossible given the evidence to the contrary. 

Edit: 



> 1. We get no indication in the Hebrew to translate the creation account as figurative. There is no figuration language. The context dictates we must translate it as literal days (there was evening and morning--24 hour period).


That hasn't stopped quite a few Christians, who happen to believe they're real Christians, from taking it less than literally. Personally it looks more like an individual opinion based around whether or not its meant to be taken literal or not, whether the book implies its literal or figurative or not. People can and will read more into the text or take less away from it based on what they intend to get out of it. 




> 2. There is a major problem when we say we evolved and were not created. The gospel of Jesus Christ itself is attacked. Contrary to popular psychological belief the Bible does not present man as inherently good, but desperately wicked.


For a second there I thought you said "does not preseng God as inherently good, but desparately wicked" since he smites whole villages, sends bears on children, the usual vengeful stuff, but then I read you said man and figured, well that's just as correct. I can't see how human nature isn't just inherently wicked or good depending and evolution could not have still worked its tricks until mankind became a stable species and the term "good" and "wicked" was easier to identify with on a certain creature such as us. 




> If you say men evolved from whatever, you deny there is a man named Adam. Therefore, Romans 5:12 is false. You can't have both, if you call yourself a Christian, the simple understanding of the Gospel is that sin came through Adam, death spread to all men, and it is only through Jesus Christ that we can be made alive.


You've overlooked the idea that man evolved into what he is and Adam was named the first human by God for evolving first. Then his actions given the choices he was allowed led him to cast all of mankind into sin because of how he acted around God once being acknowledged as truly man. At least that's where an evolutionist christian might think it would go.




> As far as the THEORY of evolution is concerned, the evidence is sparse. I'm quite amazed that the main Evolution proponent in here, Dyrwen doesn't even understand the difference between a theory and a law. Dyrwen, you even said that you thought gravity was a theory. This suggests to me that you are very ill-informed about your own beliefs in evolution. Anizmail didn't make up that equation, ever read Newton?!


I addressed this in the post above where I asked "where is the proof evolution is false". The theory of evolution is just as sound as gravity because there is no debate in the main scientific community over whether evolution is false, just over what parts of it need to be delved into further. If you honestly think evolution is seriously in question you'd see a lot more than just American schools trying to get creationism taught alongside it, seeing as most of the world accepts it outright without question because there isn't any evidence to the contrary. The Bible is IT. The only source supposedly contradicting it and it's just literature. It isn't peer reviewed, it isn't based on fossil evidence, just that "God inspired it" and therefore its correct. 




> The Bible is our authority as God's word, (and to answer your question Dyrwen) even when the Israelites are told to wipe out the Amalekites and not leave one alive. Additionally, we do not kill in the same way that Israel did to violations of the law, because the law passed away (Col 2:14,Rom 3,4), or perhaps you never read that, Dyrwen.


I'm aware the laws passed away, though if God spoke to you like he did to Moses in Leviticus 24 then I'd be mighty paranoid that the Bible was no longer your authority on God's word, rather because God himself spoke to you a word of his own. But eh, such is life, not as though God has any authority over anything anymore since he stopped talking from the clouds and wiping out villages with a signature saying he did it. Suppose quite a few still stick by em though, which is fine by me, so long as you don't start stoning me in the streets I don't care what ya believe. Which is also why I do care whether or not the topic at hand, evolution, remains very much in teaching because it has evidence backing up and has not been refuted in any measure of the word. Until some actual evidence strikes it from the school systems I shall most certainly continue following the buckets and buckets of fossil records, radiometric dating, and theories which have been tested and proven again and again.

----------


## anizmail

i know i said i was done but i swear i heard angels singing. miss darcy you said:

"As a general rule I tend to avoid the religious discussions here, because I know how hot-blooded I can get during those discussions, but the temptation is too great - and I must pick the apple off the tree. "

thank you - you acknowledged what i've been looking for all along - evolutionism is just a religion!  :Wave:

----------


## anizmail

all right - i can't help it. but this is really my last one.

sorry - i'm just a 31 yo housewife and i can't figure out how to quote like you guys do.  :Crash:  

dyrwyn you said:
"That hasn't stopped quite a few Christians, who happen to believe they're real Christians, from taking it less than literally. Personally it looks more like an individual opinion based around whether or not its meant to be taken literal or not, whether the book implies its literal or figurative or not. People can and will read more into the text or take less away from it based on what they intend to get out of it."

take that up with them, friend, neither septuagint nor i have taken that position.

again dyrwyn:
"I addressed this in the post above where I asked "where is the proof evolution is false". The theory of evolution is just as sound as gravity because there is no debate in the main scientific community over whether evolution is false, just over what parts of it need to be delved into further. If you honestly think evolution is seriously in question you'd see a lot more than just American schools trying to get creationism taught alongside it, seeing as most of the world accepts it outright without question because there isn't any evidence to the contrary. The Bible is IT. The only source supposedly contradicting it and it's just literature. It isn't peer reviewed, it isn't based on fossil evidence, just that "God inspired it" and therefore its correct."

you have really been hiding in some cave if you truly believe that evolution is not debated in what you call "the main scientific community". first of all, debate this: all that fossil evidence from millions of years ago - how do they date that? carbon dating - isn't it interesting that carbon dating doesn't go back further than 50,000 years? hmmm.... it doesn't matter how sound you or anyone else thinks evolution is - ALL scientists acknowledge that it is a theory. period. now let's have no more of that, please.

dyrwyn:
I'm aware the laws passed away, though if God spoke to you like he did to Moses in Leviticus 24 then I'd be mighty paranoid that the Bible was no longer your authority on God's word, rather because God himself spoke to you a word of his own. But eh, such is life, not as though God has any authority over anything anymore since he stopped talking from the clouds and wiping out villages with a signature saying he did it. Suppose quite a few still stick by em though, which is fine by me, so long as you don't start stoning me in the streets I don't care what ya believe. Which is also why I do care whether or not the topic at hand, evolution, remains very much in teaching because it has evidence backing up and has not been refuted in any measure of the word. Until some actual evidence strikes it from the school systems I shall most certainly continue following the buckets and buckets of fossil records, radiometric dating, and theories which have been tested and proven again and again.

we don't believe God speaks anymore, ( i'm sure septuagint would concur) in fact at the end of revelation (that's the last book of the bible, fyi) He says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." (rev. 22:18) if i hear voices i'm in trouble!

we don't have to disprove evolution - it has yet to be proven - the burden of proof is on those making claims of it's validity. that is science. now if i were to claim that gravity was not valid, i would have the burden to prove my position. that is why they are still seeking evidence of evolution. there's no one looking for evidence of gravity. 

now, miss darcy, you said:
"I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you there. Firstly, evolution isn't a question of faith, of belief - evolution is simply something that has happened since approx. 3,850-2,500 mya (mya means million years ago - that's the Archaean Era) and is happening still. Secondly, people don't "believe" in evolution just because people tell them to, they know there is such a thing as evolution because of the facts, because of the archeological evidence. Though theories have helped us piece together this evidence to create the big picture, even without theories the facts are the same." 

this statement you make is ludicrous. if you are going to talk about something as science, then talk about it scientifically. you are claiming that evolution is an absolute truth. that would mean that science should have termed it a law, yet it remains a theory.

miss darcy:
"Take away the Bible, though, and you have no reason to believe in your God."

eng 101 - this is what is called a primary source. take away any primary source and you have nothing. really...

miss darcy, you seem to think that we think science is evil and/or unnecessary. no one said that. i like science. i love my computer and i love that i got to see my baby growing inside me and i could go on and on. i think septuagint would agree with me that we are simply asking for distinction between science and science fiction.

dr. wells "icons of evolution" is not a creationist. he is strictly an evolutionist. his entire book debunks the so-called "evidence" of evolution. he says that despite the lack of evidence, he still believes evolution. and if you don't know you're adversaries, at least know your allies. septuagint was speaking of the four winged fruit fly, not the common fruit fly that is in many labs. but i'll let him answer that one if he wants to. 

one last thing - this is so amsuing to me. you both assert that there would be terrible mutations if everyone descended from two people. HELLO! i agree! there are terrible mutations - look around you - look at what we have become! everyone has cancer, people die young, we only supposedly use 10% of our brains. what world are you living in? don't you think that maybe people 6 thousand years ago were much closer to perfection than we? every generation from the original is less perfect - just go make some copies  :Nod:  

ok - i really am done here -no hard feelings - i've enjoyed this.

----------


## Logos

A gentle reminder here people.

Please, agree to disagree, and/or discuss the texts, not other posters/members.  :Smile:

----------


## Sirius_Kai

Unfortunately, I am somewhat at a lack in both Bible (as I just really started taking my faith seriously) and evolution theory. But the fact remains that many people just aren't going to believe in creation. Probably just as many (though I'm not sure about that) aren't going to believe in evolution. In fact, the main source from which the theory of evolution started, On the Origin of the Species, was a hypothesis if I'm not mistaken. Now, if we'll all remember from our 8th grade biology class, the hypothesis stage is right up there at the beginning of the scientific method. This means that Darwin had no proof that his theory was correct, just an idea that needed to be experimented with. Now, we all know that if you begin with an idea and find evidence that may or may not support that idea, you will more than likely piece the evidence together with the original idea.
Well, I'll just cut myself off here. We are a secular country, which is why evolution is so popular. It takes God out of the picture. I personally believe that neither the Bible nor evolution will be proven. If so, it would eliminate our free will in choosing (or not) to follow Christ. I'm done.

----------


## Logos

Oh and welcome to the forums anizmail.

No need to smash your computer  :Wink:  if there is a portion of or an entire post of someone else's you want to quote, simply click on the Quote button located bottom right-hand corner of the post. 

You can then type your response above or below the text, just be sure that the "[QUOTE=Logos]" portion at the top and the bottom "[QUOTE]" remain intact. You can use the Preview Post button to see if it has worked before Submitting your reply.

----------


## baddad

RE:CARBON DATING; Carbon dating is only one technique being used to loosely pinpoint an artifacts age. It is the decaying of speficic atoms that is measured, and many atoms besides carbon are used for this purpose. Yes, 'carbon isotope' dating is roughly useful to the 50,000 year timeline, but other decaying atoms are also used to measure different timelines that measure from the thousands of years to the 100's of millions. One such atomic measurement (don't have my geology text in front of me and so can't name the decaying isotope used) has determined that the oldest rocks on earth formed 3.2 billion years ago. Carbon isotope dating is only one of many isotopes used. The techniques are accepted without argument in the main scientific community. But of course, there are few absolutes in the world, and slight inaccuracies may occur. But the scientific principles behind isotope dating are quite sound.

----------


## Miss Darcy

> thank you - you acknowledged what i've been looking for all along - evolutionism is just a religion!


And Christianity is a science, I suppose. All I was saying was that I tend to avoid talking about religion; not that I don't enjoy discussing evolution.




> i know i said i was done but i swear i heard angels singing.


Isn't it the wrong time of year? You know..."hark the herald angels singing, tralalalala, lalalala..."  :Wink:  Okay, so I'm just kidding. I hear music sometimes too, as if in the distance....very very soft singing...hmmmmm, perhaps I should convert.

...Nah. All it means is I need to become a composer.  :Biggrin:  That would suit me more.




> you have really been hiding in some cave if you truly believe that evolution is not debated in what you call "the main scientific community". first of all, debate this: all that fossil evidence from millions of years ago - how do they date that? carbon dating - isn't it interesting that carbon dating doesn't go back further than 50,000 years? hmmm.... it doesn't matter how sound you or anyone else thinks evolution is - ALL scientists acknowledge that it is a theory. period. now let's have no more of that, please.


The theory of evolution is a theory. Evolution itself is a fact.

Theories describe how evolution happened, is happening...theories help us understand it. But evolution doesn't need our theories to happen - it has happened millions of years before we even existed.

Put it this way. Theory of evolution is like the word, say, "table". Evolution itself _is_ the table. Without the word, "table", the table would still exist, there would just be no way to communicate what it is or to describe it. With evolution, the theory has the added benifit of helping us understand the way the table works.  :Wink: 

If there was no evolution, then how do you explain fossils? How do you explain the peppered moth of the Industrial Revolution? How do you explain our DNA records? How do you explain the fact that we share 99.4% of our DNA with chimpanzees? This isn't to say that we evolved directly from chimpanzees, only that not so far down the river we share common ancestors.




> he says that despite the lack of evidence, he still believes evolution.


Anyone who can say they "believe" in evolution is not an evolutionist. Sorry. They are a member of a strange new heretic religion that is made of twisted religious ideas. This is very subtle creationist science. Sorry.

If one man could disprove evolution, then it'd be in the papers, the whole scientific community would be a-buzz with all this amazing proof that there is no proof.

Also,




> miss darcy:
> "Take away the Bible, though, and you have no reason to believe in your God."
> 
> eng 101 - this is what is called a primary source. take away any primary source and you have nothing. really...


This is the internet. People sometimes even neglect basic capitalisation, and they use shorthand forms like "LOL", "ROFL", "BRB", "GTG", etc. There is nothing wrong with that. My meaning was, I believe, clear...I was merely putting it conversationally.

Must go now. I'll let Dyrwen and Maxos answer the rest if they want to, since they have a better scientific background than myself.

Darcy

P.S. I'd also recommend "Telling Lies for God" by Ian Plimer for more on creationism. "The Devil's Chaplain" by Dawkins, mentioned before, has interesting information about religious memes and how they are passed from generation to generation.

----------


## Dyrwen

> take that up with them, friend, neither septuagint nor i have taken that position.


I'm not here to "take things up" with people's personal preferences, just to enlighten them to the fact that not everyone else believes as they do, even if those others happen to share the same religion as those posting here. When someone says "Anyone who calls themself a Christian MUST interpret the creation account as literal" I take into account the fact that I've met many more Christians who do not take it all as literal and feel I must at least bring that knowledge to the forefront so others are aware that they are not the center of the universe, they are not correct no matter what in the world; there are always alternatives and we do not know everything.

I merely speak doubt to others whom are sure of themselves because doubt is wise, while certainty is absurd, as Voltaire once said. 




> you have really been hiding in some cave if you truly believe that evolution is not debated in what you call "the main scientific community". first of all, debate this: all that fossil evidence from millions of years ago - how do they date that? carbon dating - isn't it interesting that carbon dating doesn't go back further than 50,000 years? hmmm.... it doesn't matter how sound you or anyone else thinks evolution is - ALL scientists acknowledge that it is a theory. period. now let's have no more of that, please.


baddad has addressed this issue. Carbon dating is not the only type of dating and if I understand it right carbon dating is used to find the ages of younger items, whereas radio-metric isotopic dating is used to find the ages of older things. 

Carbon dating is explained here, which is shown as indeed 50,000 years as its limit. Carbon dating is more useful for smaller incriments of time, in hundreds or thousands of years to better understand the relative ages of more recent fossils or materials. 

Isotopic Dating is explained here, which is shown to detail old items by their rate of nuclear decay, which is quite easily tracked and quite accurate for longer-dating usages. 

So please, if you would, read up on all the uses of dating materials before trying to insinuate that the world is somehow less than 50k years old, when it's most certainly beyond 4 billion years old. Though is interesting to note that you tried to start out saying "..if you believe evolution is not debated in the scientifc community" then went off on a tangent about something more to do with plate tectonics and geology than anything else. Evolution is biology. The age of the earth is geology. No one is seriously debating the age of the earth, either, well except you and quite a few Judeo-Christians that is. 




> we don't believe God speaks anymore, ( i'm sure septuagint would concur) in fact at the end of revelation (that's the last book of the bible, fyi) He says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." (rev. 22:18) if i hear voices i'm in trouble!


Then it seems like quite a few people would have trouble getting God to accept them into their lives, if he couldn't tell you that you are in fact accepted. Though I suppose there's always other ways to communicate to get around that. Even so, there are quite a few Christian religions that claim to speak with God and be spoken back to, and these people aren't in insane asylums or awaiting the apocolypse anytime soon.




> we don't have to disprove evolution - it has yet to be proven - the burden of proof is on those making claims of it's validity. that is science. now if i were to claim that gravity was not valid, i would have the burden to prove my position. that is why they are still seeking evidence of evolution. there's no one looking for evidence of gravity.


I wouldn't go pulling the burden of proof card unless you have God's fingerprints on file. Evolution has piles of evidence detailing how it works and why. Creationism has one book with some vague notions about some magical being from beyond the stars creating everything in 6 days without so much as a shred of left over evidence showing such a thing occurring. 

You want burdens of proof? We've got fossils showing primates moving up into bipedal beings over thousands of years and their skull structures slowly increasing/decreasing respectively as they evolve into what are now us. We can also watch certain creatures literally adapt to their surroundings in less than a few generations watching flys, birds, and many smaller creatures with shorter lifespans than we. 

Where's your proof that God took some dirt, made it into man, then broke off a rib, made a woman, then happened to have them create lives which then became every person on earth in less than 10,000 years yet no genetic records can note any similarity between every human on the planet to one common ancestor from such a time? Personally, my way seems a bit more reasonable, but I suppose we just have different opinions on what is more practical.



> one last thing - this is so amsuing to me. you both assert that there would be terrible mutations if everyone descended from two people. HELLO! i agree! there are terrible mutations - look around you - look at what we have become! everyone has cancer, people die young, we only supposedly use 10% of our brains. what world are you living in? don't you think that maybe people 6 thousand years ago were much closer to perfection than we? every generation from the original is less perfect - just go make some copies


First and foremost: We use all of our brains, not just 10%. Check this and this if you don't believe me. It's a common myth that started in the 1800s. 

Second: We would be able to track genetic similarities, such as everyone sharing a common two parents way back when, and the mutations would not be diseases such as these. Most are caused by smoke, poor diet, lack of exercise, etc, although obviously not all of the reasons for some of the cancers are known. 

Third: We're living longer than we ever have. A hundred years ago you were lucky to live to age 40. Nowadays you'll reach 80 without much effort and plenty of people my age will live into their hundreds without much trouble either. Perhaps I should ask you the same question you asked me: What world are _you_ living in? Looks mighty normal to me.

----------


## Basil

Scientists say we only use 10 percent of our brains . . . but I think we only use 10 percent of our hearts.

----------


## Maxos

In your case, remeber that 10% * 10 % = 1 %

----------


## Scheherazade

> Scientists say we only use 10 percent of our brains . . . but I think we only use 10 percent of our hearts.


That is if one does have a heart no doubt...

That makes me wonder... Somewhere in the Forum the Fool was arguing that not all brains have the same capacity to perform mental functions. Do all hearts have the same capacity to perform their functions?

----------


## Dyrwen

*cough* Not if they've smaller vetricles or an off-beat movement. 

(but I doubt that's what you meant.. seeing as hearts are a muscle pumping blood and only work depending on their condition, wheras brains have levels of consciousness that may be active and unaware of another part) I'll just assume this was meant more as "capacity for love" than what I said and back away.. heh.

----------


## Jay

For love and other things, Dyrwen  :Smile:

----------


## Basil

I spend all my spare moments consoling newly-orphaned children. _MY_ heart works just fine.

----------


## baddad

Ahh yes, the heart: black, empty, cold, bloody, scarred, none existent or too big, distant, hollow or hallowed, broken or freed, renewed or wasting.........all the things we need to share the love......

And as for Basil...........Basil is doing the work of a village, the type of work that only makes other hearts grow. Kudos!!

----------


## Basil

> And as for Basil...........Basil is doing the work of a village, the type of work that only makes other hearts grow. Kudos!!


The work of the village idiot some would say. But I thank you. And the newly-orphaned children, from the depths of their measureless grief, thank you as well.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Creationism teaches separation, isolation. Each species had separate beginnings and are distinct from each other. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches unity, that we all have a common ancestor, we are all related.

The former is incredibly divisive and has led to all kinds of disregard for our environment.

----------


## Miss Darcy

> Creationism teaches separation, isolation. Each species had separate beginnings and are distinct from each other. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches unity, that we all have a common ancestor, we are all related...


Agree with you all the way. Creationism also makes out that humans are somehow "more important" than other fellow animals, while evolution makes us realise that we are really not much better/not better at all (depending from which angle you look at it).

----------


## blp

> The theory of evolution is a theory. Evolution itself is a fact.


Yes. In fact, Darwin's theory is _a_  theory, not _the_ theory. Before his, there was Lamarck's, which describes a process often believed, wrongly, to be what Darwin described - evolutionary change as a matter of organisms physically adapting to their environments by a sort of process of intergenerational learning. 

It's perhaps worth remembering that Darwin was distressed enough - on religious grounds - by his own discovery to keep it under wraps for several decades. He was certainly not some atheist zealot. Creationists _want_ to believe their theory and that obviously biased position is where they start from. Darwin didn't want to believe his, but was driven to it by overwhelming evidence.

----------


## Adelheid

[QUOTE=atiguhya padma]Creationism teaches separation, isolation. Each species had separate beginnings and are distinct from each other. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches unity, that we all have a common ancestor, we are all related.
QUOTE]

I beg to defer. We all came from the same ancestors too- Adam and Eve, remember?

----------


## Scheherazade

AP refers to species... Does creationism suggest that all the animals came from Adam and Eve?

----------


## Adelheid

Sorry. I should have been clearer. I was in a rush, but that's no excuse.

What I meant was that HUMANS all came from the same common ancestors- Adam and Eve.

As to the animals? God made each of them, according to their kinds.

----------


## Scheherazade

How do you differ from AP's suggestion then? He suggested that 


> Creationism teaches separation, isolation. Each species had separate beginnings and are distinct from each other. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches unity, that we all have a common ancestor, we are all related.


 and as far as I can see you are also saying that all species were created separately according to the creationist theory; humans came from one origin and other animals from different ones.

----------


## baddad

IMHO.......The story of Adam and Eve is, of course, only a fable, a tale used to relate the supposed seperation of humankind from their creator(s) and a convenient excuse to explain this ongoing treatment of humankind as pariah as far as the 'gods' are concerned....


.....All species, including man, have a common ancestor? Well sure!! I am naturally assuming, as an evolutionist, that you (whoever said it here first) mean the bacteria that formed in the oceans and on land, and progressed from there to form all living species on earth, these are our common roots, yes? Or are you only going back a blink in geologic time and promoting 'the missing link', the evolution of ape-like creature into homosapiens? *waits to get spanked for ASSUMING .........


Side note: Alexander Pope believed that all of life was a connected chain, and humans should be well aware of their position in that chain as a 'link', and not wish to be the masters of the domain............

----------


## Ancestor

I believe in evolution but not perhaps in the same way most people do. I cannot say that man evolved from ape because I personally have seen proof of that either way. I have however seen proof of animals evolving in order to adapt to their ever changing eviroment. Scientist have found those evolutions through bones and some are trying to show it through DNA. Also history shows that man too has evolve in appearance as well in order to adapt. I imagine though that both creation and evolution is true to a certain point.

----------


## blp

Adelheid, what is it that makes you believe the Adam and Eve story?

----------


## Ancestor

> Adelheid, what is it that makes you believe the Adam and Eve story?


I take it that you do not believe in the Adam and Eve story? If so then why not?

----------


## Sitaram

I take a look at this interesting and active thread from time to time. 

Suddenly, tonight, I occurred to me to search for the position of Islam on the question of evolution. I have not yet found what I am looking for regarding Islam, but I did find this most interest post which tries to point out that, in the Bible, when the Red Sea is parted, it is very clearly stated that God does not say, by fiat, "let the sea be parted", after the same fashion that God says "Let there be light," but rather, God employs the instrumentality of a powerful east wind, acting during the course of an entire night. The point is that the Bible does not rule out physical process as a means for God to accomplish or fashion something, but leave open the possibility that physical and chemical processes over a long period of time will be the modality for God accomplishing the divine will.

Elsewhere, in the Bible, there is explicit mention of the role of physical elements in carrying out the divine will.

In the Psalms, there is a verse which reads, "Fire, hale, ice, snow, blasts of tempest, which perform His works" and "Praise him O sun and moon, praise Him O ye stars and lights, Praise him ye heavens of heavens, and thou waters that art above the heavens, praise the works of the Lord. For he spake and they came to be, he commanded and they were created. He established them forever, yea, forever and ever, and they shall not pass away." (I am paraphrasing from memory here, so pardon any slight inaccuracy). 

I am also reminded of that striking passage in Isaiah which says (again, paraphrasing from memory), "Just as I send the rain and snow down from heaven to the earth, and it does not return to me until it has done its work, and brought about fruition, so too, I have sent forth my words (or Word), and it shall not return to me until its work is done."



http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/029201.php

God and Evolution




> Michael Williams goes to bat against evolution, pointing out that belief in evolution is based on faith. I certainly agree that God could have created the universe as it is now, complete with its fossil record. Why He would do that, just to confuse us, I dont know, but its possible. Whats not possible is that evolution is not ongoing from this point on  unless you subscribe to the belief that God recreates the world at every moment  our false memories and all  which, I think, is position of Islam.
> 
> However, those who try to disprove evolution usually have a secret agenda. They falsely think that belief in evolution is incompatible with the belief that God created the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Did God part the Red Sea? Not according to the anti-evolutionists  the Red Sea was parted by a strong east wind!



http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.a...=21&portion=16




> Moses extended his hand over the sea. During the entire night, God drove back the sea with a powerful east wind, transforming the sea bed into dry land. The waters were divided.

----------


## Dyrwen

> I cannot say that man evolved from ape because I personally have seen proof of that either way. I have however seen proof of animals evolving in order to adapt to their ever changing eviroment.


Just a nitpick, but man didn't evolve from ape. Apes, Monkeys and Humans evolved from a common ancestor that was similar to all three in some manner. Thought I'd note it, since some more confused arguments pop up of "Why are there still apes around if we evolved from them" and it's more clear to just note it in this manner. Helps to picture evolution at times as a tree growing with branches and our species and the other primates come from the same trunk that eventually branched out into different spots. 

heh, had to clear up what I read or it would've driven me nuts.

----------


## Ancestor

> Just a nitpick, but man didn't evolve from ape. Apes, Monkeys and Humans evolved from a common ancestor that was similar to all three in some manner. Thought I'd note it, since some more confused arguments pop up of "Why are there still apes around if we evolved from them" and it's more clear to just note it in this manner. Helps to picture evolution at times as a tree growing with branches and our species and the other primates come from the same trunk that eventually branched out into different spots. 
> 
> heh, had to clear up what I read or it would've driven me nuts.



Don't you think that it may be possible we evolved from a ape species that is no longer living in the world today? I am not saying I believe the theory but I cannot say I disbelieve it either until there is more scientific proof. Look how many kinds of apes and monkeys there are in the world as we know it. They say nothing is impossible until proven without a reason of doubt.

----------


## Dyrwen

Yeah, I do think it's possible, seeing as it is technically happening _right now_ since the species we evolved from no longer exists, as far as we can tell. 

Doubt is fine, I was just clarifying a misconstrued idea presented. To fine tune your phrases: You believe or disbelieve in concepts, but you accept or reject theories. For instance; I can believe I'm able to fly, but I can simultaneously accept the theory/law that gravity won't let me fly without a plane or neat invention. Just like you can accept that evolution is correct, but withhold your beliefs in it being completely right until further proof is given. Having your cake and eating it, too..which works quite nicely. Even I don't accept evolution as absolutely true, since there is always the chance it was wrong all along, but I still accept it and support it as best I can until something manages to prove me wrong. 

Whatever works though, just adding into the discussion with what I can think of at 1am.

----------


## Ancestor

This is proving to be a interesting subject.

----------


## Ancestor

> Yeah, I do think it's possible, seeing as it is technically happening _right now_ since the species we evolved from no longer exists, as far as we can tell. 
> 
> Doubt is fine, I was just clarifying a misconstrued idea presented. To fine tune your phrases: You believe or disbelieve in concepts, but you accept or reject theories. For instance; I can believe I'm able to fly, but I can simultaneously accept the theory/law that gravity won't let me fly without a plane or neat invention. Just like you can accept that evolution is correct, but withhold your beliefs in it being completely right until further proof is given. Having your cake and eating it, too..which works quite nicely. Even I don't accept evolution as absolutely true, since there is always the chance it was wrong all along, but I still accept it and support it as best I can until something manages to prove me wrong. 
> 
> Whatever works though, just adding into the discussion with what I can think of at 1am.


Thanks for answering me and I am glad you are adding to the discussion. I feeling that evolving from apes can be possible but there is no direct proof out there to make be believe it a 100%. But it would be fascinating to see that proof though. Again thanks for your honesty it is so refreshing to see how many honest opinions here.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Loki

There is no proof as such that we are evolved directly out of apes. However, there _is_ proof that we share a common ancestor. We are, after all, more closely related to the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee itself is related to the other Great Apes (gorilla, etc.). We share 94.4 % of our DNA with the chimp: scientists estimate that the the common ancestor of chimps and humans branched off from the gorilla approximately 7 million years ago; the two species themselves diverged only between 5 million and 6 million years ago. Scientists are debating whether we should perhaps, after all, be classed along with the chimpanzee as "Great Apes". Or whether the chimpanzee should be classed as a "Homo" species. (Homo trogladytes instead of Pan trogladytes.)

----------


## blp

> I take it that you do not believe in the Adam and Eve story? If so then why not?


Why would I? It's just a story in a book. 

All the scientific evidence contradicts it. And even if I wanted to believe a creation myth rather than the science, there are numerous others to choose from. With no empirical criteria to go on, why would I choose this one in particular?

----------


## Ancestor

> Why would I? It's just a story in a book. 
> 
> All the scientific evidence contradicts it. And even if I wanted to believe a creation myth rather than the science, there are numerous others to choose from. With no empirical criteria to go on, why would I choose this one in particular?


Man had to originate from somewhere and I wonder if we can prove where our origins came due the evidence by now might not be around anymore. I have not heard of anyone other then Adam and Eve being the first humans. Of it is like answering the old question which came first the egg or the chicken. Thanks for answering me and I was curious about what you thought on the subject.

----------


## AimusSage

The story of Adam and Eve, if taken literally is fiction. Therefore creationism in the common definition is indeed unlikely to be true.

The symbolism it could represent however isn't as that is an integral part of Christian religion. Something that has been part and has influenced western civilization for the last two millennia. Whether you belief the symbolism is irrelevant. This symbolism is not confined to Christian religions. It is everywhere.

Evolution theory only works to a certain extent. Most of the knowledge we have now is based on deductive reasoning. It is al estimates, and the proof that we have is not definitive proof. An important rule in research is to question your results. Every new finding refines a theory, whether it is evolution or space technology.

The point is, the bible is thousands of years old. At the time people didn't have the knowledge we have now. They did not understand DNA, or RNA, or knew what a light bulb was. The story of Adam and Eve was their way of explaining their existence. There must have been a thousand and one different interpretations as to where humans come from. Most of them have died with the people that told them. But those that survived tell an interesting tale that spans thousands of years and chronicles mankinds attempt to understand their existence. The tale is far from finished, but religion is no longer at the forefront and science has taken over this search.

Does this mean religion is no longer necessary? No, religion takes on a different mission today, but the major religions are only slowly becoming aware of this mission. Religion can provide great comfort for people. It can be a binding factor in a culture where everyone is becoming more detached. But that is not something for this topic.

Just my two (not so coherent) cent.

----------


## Ancestor

> Evolution theory only works to a certain extent. Most of the knowledge we have now is based on deductive reasoning. It is al estimates, and the proof that we have is not definitive proof. An important rule in research is to question your results. Every new finding refines a theory, whether it is evolution or space technology.


I totally agree with you there because there are thousands of new information being discovered every day. I think with anything in life you should take time out to re-examine it you may be surprised at what you find. Adam and Eve may be fiction or not which is something we may never know for sure but it is worth investigating.

----------


## Sitaram

All Biblical scholars worth their salt know full well that the very first creature God created was this small, white, grumpy mouse with large ears and an evil grin, head tilted to one side. Then gradually over eons, all other life froms evolved from that primordial mouse creature.

(Dyrwen... this is what as known as comic relief)

 :FRlol:  

 :Wave:  

 :Nod: 

Fortunately, that grumpy, evil mouse possess a sense of humor.

Just last week, scientists at the famous Genome project annouced that they have detected traces of mouse DNA in all life forms.

We have squandered centuries discussing Adam and Eve, when all along, it was Mickey and Minnie, right under our noses!

----------


## Dyrwen

It's been investigated pretty well since genetics was introduced. There has been no genetic similarity found in mankind's DNA that would make it partially related to everyone else on earth. That's basically all we have to look for, as far as Adam & Eve are concerned. We've mapped the human genome and know we're not all related, at least not to two people. Not to mention the whole carbon dating and radiometric dating discussion that happened awhile back pretty much also demonstrates our investigation into the amount of time mankind might've existed for Adam & Eve to work out plausibly. 

I'm all for investigating things thoroughly, but when it comes to the "science" of the Bible, the most basic tenents of biology, geology, and physics took the Bible to school with their investigations once the teachings for popped up. Evolution continues to be fine tuned into a more and more probable theory, so much so that there isn't much disagreement over it in the scientific community outside of minor details that mean a lot. I really can't see how anyone is waiting for evidence of Adam & Eve, outside of the fact that they just want to wait for something that may never be found, therefore they won't ever have their beliefs proven wrong because there isn't any proof to be found. It's a circular thing, but I suppose when it's an important part of creation, it has to be held onto. 

Personally, I tend to think like AimusSage with regards to religion in today's world. Just think of it this way: We weren't any smarter biologically 2000 years ago, but we've certainly become more aware of our surroundings, so the psychological intelligence over our collective society has increased a great deal more. I mean, really, they thought the earth was flat, that lightening was from Zeus (later, God), and floods happened because they did something wrong. A five year old in modern society has more intelligence than that line of reasoning, and considering that mindset wrote the holy text itself, some revision and sidesteps on what needs to be held onto is a good thing, as far as I can tell. 

Just sort of ran aground on that thought process, since sage mentioned their ignorance to dna above.

Edit: Sitar, [Brain]_Yes!_[/Brain] hehe

----------


## Ancestor

Since there were batteries along with indoor pluming during the time of Cesar I think we were not as ignorant was we think humans were back then. How can we judge intelligence based on today's technology? Evolution is not based on what we our mind is capable of doing in a certain time period. Human beings are constitantly changing and evolving every day whether we see it or not in ourselves. Isn't evolution physical, environmental, and mental changes within our world? If I have misunderstood do forgive me but it sounds like we are saying that evolution is defined as how intelligent we were back then.

----------


## AimusSage

You misunderstood, Technology evolves too. That does not mean that people were ignorant a thousand years ago. It simply means they were less technologically advanced. The level of technology does not define the intelligence. Do you know exactly how a computer works, down to the specifics? The fact that technology is here doesn't mean everyone understands it. 
However, a lack of certain technology, that has given us a better insight in so many fields, means the explainations will be different. This has nothing to do with ignorance or lack of intelligence. It means the tools were not there to explain many things.

----------


## Ancestor

> You misunderstood, Technology evolves too. That does not mean that people were ignorant a thousand years ago. It simply means they were less technologically advanced. The level of technology does not define the intelligence. Do you know exactly how a computer works, down to the specifics? The fact that technology is here doesn't mean everyone understands it. 
> However, a lack of certain technology, that has given us a better insight in so many fields, means the explainations will be different. This has nothing to do with ignorance or lack of intelligence. It means the tools were not there to explain many things.


Sorry about misunderstanding you. It still makes me wonder what evolutional theories they had a thousand years ago. I cannot help but think we might not have had the need to explain things back then. I wish time travel were possible so I could just observe what really happened back then. Thanks for setting me straight.

----------


## Chava

Has anyone here read the Science of Discworld, by Terry Pratchett and Co? IT actually gives a nice form of explanation/summarisation of earths creation, with added wit.

----------


## Chava

Just out of curiosity, but if each religion has their own theory about the creation of earth (and more) then how can it apply? 
If i don't beleive in God, then how can he have been responsible for my creation?
Not to mention someone who beleives in a different creation theory. I think it's to simple to say, that some omnious force decided to create an earth with creatures on it, and i think it seems arrogant to believe that humans were created seperately from animals, and on the their own seperate day. 
It is such a domineering concept, and i don't find it sufficiently plausible.

----------


## Dyrwen

Yes Chava, that is one of the more pressing matters of creation, seeing as there are so many different creation myths and some of the more Judeo-roots of many of them make humanity out to be something special that is to be held above mere animals. Although I'm fairly sure a few of the eastern religions are more judicious in how we're "all" created at once, not just animals, then humans. 

On your line of thought about arrogance, I always had a feeling that if there were a god, no one actually believes in that particular one. Everyone made up their own gods to fit their own needs, but the real god isn't needed for anything, because no one knows it existed. Basically taking a line from Futurama when God says, " If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." It's a simple concept that god doesn't care about the world below in terms of whether we believe in it or not, because it still made everything in any case, but meanwhile everyone tries to follow a god they think actually did it, only to end up knowing it was always the wrong one. Sure there's an idea of god being believed in that fits the original's description, but they didn't know for sure it was this one in particular. 

So from a probability standpoint, if there was a god out there, no one is actually believing in him, because there's a higher chance that they'd make up their own according to their needs and traditions, rather than be able to notice the real god just watching things happen. Although I suppose deists could fit under this belief concept in some manner. In any case, to your second question: Just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean there isn't a god responsible for your creation. I'm an atheist, mind you, but from a hypothetical standpoint that's the plain truth. From a silly casuality standpoint: Just because you were born and your parents weren't around, or you aren't even sure your parents were ever there, doesn't mean that they didn't still create you. (another hypothetical in the same theistic vein of creation, although obviously there is a big difference between parents and deities when things go back far enough, heh)

----------


## blp

> Man had to originate from somewhere and I wonder if we can prove where our origins came due the evidence by now might not be around anymore. I have not heard of anyone other then Adam and Eve being the first humans. Of it is like answering the old question which came first the egg or the chicken. Thanks for answering me and I was curious about what you thought on the subject.


There are lots of creation myths, i.e. lots of different ideas in different religions about who were the first humans and how they came to be. If you're religious, which religion you subscribe to is largely a matter of which one you have been given the most exposure to. 
As Dyrwen's posts indicate, there's plenty of evidence still around about where we actually came from.

----------


## Ancestor

The chances of finding DNA from Adam and Eve is highly unlikely that it could be tested today. Even if we find their DNA how would we prove the DNA is truly Adam and Eve's. Where would this evidence be located at and how you we know for sure, after all it still would be theory.

----------


## tiny explorer

Even scientist themselves depend on God's creation and even have God in their lives. It is such a great contradict to your faith in God if you don't believe that God did every little existing thing. It's as simple as you believe your parents bore a child and that was you, but then the birth documents is not enough for you, but instead still looking for proofs. You know, sometimes we should have to put faith and believing first before you knew it at the end than believing that which is based on human knowledge although they were really intellectual,but God is GREAT.Believing that, its enough to proving we are His creation and not from any evolution.Besides, we are His highest form of creation and we ought to give thanks for that and not to use His given wisdom to screw the Ideals of creation. thanks for reading me!

----------


## Loki

Tiny explorer, no offence or anything, but why believe in the Christian god in particular? We could just as well believe in Zeus and Thor or any of the old mythologies. Or in any other religion existing today. Is Christianity any more relevant than any other religion?

The fact is, if you can believe something that only requires faith, you are stuck with the problem of which faith to choose; all of them are equally correct if having faith in something makes it 'real'. This problem is, of course, solved by your cultural background and upbringing - you are likely to inherit religious "memes" from your parents, grandparents, etc. If you come from a long line of Jews, then it's likely you will be a Jew. If you come from a long line of Christians...then would it surprise anyone if you were a Christian? My point is, no religion is "superior" or "more correct" or "going to save us more than any of the others". Religions are, like people, simply different.

----------


## Dyrwen

> The chances of finding DNA from Adam and Eve is highly unlikely that it could be tested today. Even if we find their DNA how would we prove the DNA is truly Adam and Eve's. Where would this evidence be located at and how you we know for sure, after all it still would be theory.


It isn't about finding some random two people's DNA being the origin of all things. It's about the fact that if we descended from two people, then their original DNA would be easily spotted amongst our own DNA because it would be the one thing that surprisingly would be the same for all people. We'd all share that same gene, or at least a recessive trait of it somewhere in the DNA chain. They've yet to find any evidence of said DNA anomally and considering we have mapped the entire genome, if it isn't there, then we just aren't all related.

----------


## baddad

.......hmmmm......all of us here at the site.......related to each other................ *shudder*

----------


## Ancestor

> Tiny explorer, no offence or anything, but why believe in the Christian god in particular? We could just as well believe in Zeus and Thor or any of the old mythologies. Or in any other religion existing today. Is Christianity any more relevant than any other religion?
> 
> The fact is, if you can believe something that only requires faith, you are stuck with the problem of which faith to choose; all of them are equally correct if having faith in something makes it 'real'. This problem is, of course, solved by your cultural background and upbringing - you are likely to inherit religious "memes" from your parents, grandparents, etc. If you come from a long line of Jews, then it's likely you will be a Jew. If you come from a long line of Christians...then would it surprise anyone if you were a Christian? My point is, no religion is "superior" or "more correct" or "going to save us more than any of the others". Religions are, like people, simply different.


I do not think that tiny explorer implied that his religion is superior or more correct. tiny explorer was stating that he believed his to be true and I did not get the impression tiny explorer was converting us. I came to the same faith as my parents only ten years ago and I do not practice my faith the same way they do.

----------


## Ancestor

> It isn't about finding some random two people's DNA being the origin of all things. It's about the fact that if we descended from two people, then their original DNA would be easily spotted amongst our own DNA because it would be the one thing that surprisingly would be the same for all people. We'd all share that same gene, or at least a recessive trait of it somewhere in the DNA chain. They've yet to find any evidence of said DNA anomally and considering we have mapped the entire genome, if it isn't there, then we just aren't all related.


I only brought up DNA to use as an example of proof I would require knowing full well that it would be impossible to do. Mitochondrial DNA is the only strand of DNA that can survive the longest in human remains. Therefore it would be impossible to determine Adams DNA at least. I honestly cannot say if all humans are related to each other but someone down the road could prove me wrong. There is always a possibility that my ideals are and I prefer to state if I am not a 100% correct anyone is welcome to prove me wrong. That is the only way I can learn.

----------


## Loki

> I do not think that tiny explorer implied that his religion is superior or more correct. tiny explorer was stating that he believed his to be true and I did not get the impression tiny explorer was converting us.


Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought Tiny Explorer was implying that we shouldn't doubt Christianity, that faith is enough to prove that we are of God's creation. If this is so, then heaven must be pretty crowded by now by all the gods that have ever existed. The Greeks were created by the Greek gods, the Norse by the Norse gods, the Jews by the Jewish god, the Muslims by Allah, the Christians by God Almighty...and there are of course, many other religions in the world. There is soon chaos.

Which god is supreme? The one who has created or converted the most people? 




> Besides, we are His highest form of creation and we ought to give thanks for that and not to use His given wisdom to screw the Ideals of creation.


That's just it. The Christian thing of "we are the best". "We are God's favourites" and "we shouldn't meddle with His intentions". We are no better than overgrown monkeys, full stop.

We now live in an era in which we are advanced enough technologically to see and analyse the evidence. It would be a very nice thing if people finally realised that material evidence is, after all, more plausible than an odd assortment of myths and legends.

But don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that it's ethically wrong to be a Christian. Just as long as Christianity allows scientists and atheists (as well as members of other religious cults) to be created by whom they choose. If they want to be made of stardust that is billions of years old...then why not? It is, after all, just as poetic as being created by a giant, bearded fellow with a rather odd sense of humour.

Loki

----------


## Ancestor

I noticed your signature Loki (Thank God I'm an atheist... ) are you truly a atheist? I was just curious and hope that I am not imposing on something that may be personal. For the longest time in my life I never believed in a higher being but now I do. 


> Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought Tiny Explorer was implying that we shouldn't doubt Christianity, that faith is enough to prove that we are of God's creation. If this is so, then heaven must be pretty crowded by now by all the gods that have ever existed. The Greeks were created by the Greek gods, the Norse by the Norse gods, the Jews by the Jewish god, the Muslims by Allah, the Christians by God Almighty...and there are of course, many other religions in the world. There is soon chaos.
> 
> Which god is supreme? The one who has created or converted the most

----------


## Loki

> I noticed your signature Loki (Thank God I'm an atheist... ) are you truly a atheist? I was just curious and hope that I am not imposing on something that may be personal. For the longest time in my life I never believed in a higher being but now I do.


Yeah, I'm an atheist; I feel very lucky to have been brought up one. My parents are both atheists, though my mum loves the Zen philosophy (as I do myself). I have that as my signature because it's one of my favourite oxymorons.

----------


## Ancestor

Oh, thank you for answering me and I gather I was not being too personal for which I am glad of that.

----------


## Loki

Not at all. Me being an atheist was never meant to be any secret.  :Smile:

----------


## blp

Has anyone else seen that Simpsons episode where Lisa finds what appears to be the skeleton of an angel and it is then worshipped by the people of the town? Lisa's really sure it must be a hoax, so she takes a sample of it to be tested in a lab. Homer's angry response: 'Facts! Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything even remotely true.' Then the scientist turns up and says the tests were 'inconclusive' and Reverend Lovejoy says 'Once again science falters before the proofs of religion.' 

Anyway, in the end, the angel turns out to be a marketting gimmick to promote a new shopping centre.

----------


## blp

> For the longest time in my life I never believed in a higher being but now I do.


And what changed your mind?

----------


## Ancestor

> And what changed your mind?


One day I began Tai Chi and meditation which brought me out of my depression. I was meditating one night and suddenly felt the strongest warm energy around and it made me realized I stopped asking for proof of existence of a higher being. A light formed in the room so bright it felt like morning only it was about ten p.m. I felt that must be a higher being. May sound crazy or impossible but it feels so true to me. I do not ask anyone to believe me or not that is up to them.

----------


## Ancestor

> Not at all. Me being an atheist was never meant to be any secret.


Good, and it sounds like that being an atheist makes you happy which is a good thing. Most people sure do not like atheist's and to me if you are happy being a atheist then so what. Not many of us are truly happy with who we are and I for am finally happy with whom I am today.  :Smile:

----------


## blp

That's really interesting.

----------


## AimusSage

> One day I began Tai Chi and meditation which brought me out of my depression. I was meditating one night and suddenly felt the strongest warm energy around and it made me realized I stopped asking for proof of existence of a higher being. A light formed in the room so bright it felt like morning only it was about ten p.m. I felt that must be a higher being. May sound crazy or impossible but it feels so true to me. I do not ask anyone to believe me or not that is up to them.


Not to offend you or contest what you experienced, but why according to you must it have been a higher being? Could it not have come from within yourself?

----------


## blp

It's a long time since I've meditated. I always found it difficult. 

Most of what I read about meditation indicated that whenever visions and revelations occur, they are simply products of one's own mind and ways of distracting oneself from the meditation and should, as much as possible, be ignored so the meditation can continue. 

Sorry if this is getting off topic.

----------


## Ancestor

No offense taken and I can understand the question but it may be a bit hard for me to explain. I am fully aware it could have come from within me and in fact had several visions before this. This time was extremely different I actually felt it from without of my body not within. Also was not distracted by it but it quieted my mind like I have never been able to do on my own since. If felt beyond my own capabilities and I am aware it vey well may be within my capabilities but not this experience. I am able to touch a person and can tell you how sick they truly are. My empathic ability somehow allows me to determine a source of energy. It did not feel a like it was a part of me also the experience was so bright on my eyes that they felt like I had been staring into the sun for several minutes. Sorry about not being able to explain this properly to you.

----------


## tiny explorer

I'm not paricular to any religion here and even not trying to mention any...what i'm trying to imply is to whatever faith(in general) we are created to by "The Creator"(onto which different religions are basing their faith.Evolution justifies our existence as product of anything else but that still is vague because of it's complexity and and thus bringing a good support to the fact that we are created and not evolved.Not being particular to whose the God or Gods.Thank you.

----------


## Dyrwen

Actually, evolution has nothing to do with our existence as far as 'creation' goes. The origin of life is more of a big bang+inhabitable planet concept, which is based around plate tectonics, the age of the earth, and more chemistry with a dash of physics than anything else. The biology of evolution has to do with life after it was created, not how it got there in the first place. It's a small distinction, but one that has to be made so that the discussion doesn't hit a misconception that evolution somehow explains away the need for a creator.

----------


## Loki

> Good, and it sounds like that being an atheist makes you happy which is a good thing. Most people sure do not like atheist's and to me if you are happy being a atheist then so what.


I was not aware that people don't like atheists, but I will be careful not to say that in the future  :Tongue: . No, but seriously, it's very difficult for me to understand. Christianity and, I believe, every other religion, cites love and tells us to help others. But so often members of different beliefs dislike one another and feel hot feelings towards each other. I think being an atheist is a pretty neutral state - one doesn't believe in this god or that god. It must be something in human nature that makes us judge those who are different from ourselves.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Christianity and, I believe, every other religion, cites love and tells us to help others.>

Many religions do, and some of their advocates would have us believe that religion is founded on principles and doctrines of love. But of course that's complete nonsense. Most scriptures that I have seen, have as many, if not more, words of vengeance, violence and vitriol than words of love. In fact, it surprises me how much hatred there is in religious scripture. In fact, were you to calculate the number of words that specifically refer to love in most world scriptures, it would be a small fraction of the total written output.

What happens is that some believers pick and choose what they want from these writings, and give undue emphasis to the small amount of stuff on love and tolerance, whilst carefully sweeping all the other vast amounts of offensive rubbish under the carpet, when they are promoting their beliefs.

On the other hand, some believers thrive on the fears of others. Every day I walk past a vicar who thinks it is his duty to broadcast the Bible to the busy commuters filing out of Victoria station. His lectures are filled with proclamations of the future suffering of those that reject his message; they are filled with condemnations of his audience, whom he calls sinners. His goal is to fill people with enough guilty feelings about themselves, that they will heed his message, and become one of the in-group, the elite that he feels he belongs to.

Now, were someone to stand where he does, spouting out rubbish from some trashy pulp novel and threatening everyone with future horrors and calamities, no doubt they would be carted away to somewhere that would attempt to cure him, or at least make him less of a social outcast.

<I think being an atheist is a pretty neutral state>

I disagree. Neutrality is for agnostics. Us atheists are unequivocally against all religion.

----------


## Chava

> <I think being an atheist is a pretty neutral state>
> 
> I disagree. Neutrality is for agnostics. Us atheists are unequivocally against all religion.


i could only agree with that.

----------


## Dyrwen

I can only disagree with that. 

Atheists can have religions, and do, (see LaVeyian Satanists, Universalists, Brights, some Buddhists, etc) and are not against it. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. To be an atheist you have no belief in gods and whether or not you want a religion is a personal preference. To be an agnostic you have no knowledge that said gods exist or do not, so you potentially don't believe in any gods, also. I don't believe people can just remain completely neutral, no matter how undecided they are, so I happen to find everyone as either an atheist or theist depending on their gnostic stance. Then again, I classify everyone as an agnostic because _no one knows_ for certain if there are any gods out there. 

Although back on the original thought lineup: We're all born atheists and we learn to accept a god and/or religion, as far as anyone can tell. Seeing as no one can come out of the womb knowing what a god is, or for that matter, even care at that age. They're technically agnostics, but since they don't know of gods they, by default, also cannot believe in them, making them atheist in nature. (Christians might want to look at that fact as "original sin" because we all start off needing a god to be saved, or something)

Thought I'd add that into the fray, since I tend to hold pretty steady to this interpretation of definition.

----------


## Ancestor

Around where I used to live people disliked Atheists, Spiritualists, and anyone who did not believe in their religion stating we were going to hell and for my faith Spiritualism I was accused of worshiping the Devil. In truth I feel most people do not want to be opened about other faiths or learn about them. A woman came up to one day on the street and asked me about my faith. I tried to explain it to her but she believed my soul was going to hell no matter what I said. She would not listen to me and told me I should be in a church based faith. I do not go to a church because most church do harp on going to hell and sinning which is not positive in my opinion. 


> I disagree. Neutrality is for agnostics. Us atheists are unequivocally against all religion.


 We should not judge another for any reason and I disagree that all atheists from any country is against religion granted some are but Loki did not give me that impression.  
  


> Quote from Loki: No, but seriously, it's very difficult for me to understand. Christianity and, I believe, every other religion, cites love and tells us to help others. But so often members of different beliefs dislike one another and feel hot feelings towards each other. I think being an atheist is a pretty neutral state - one doesn't believe in this god or that god. It must be something in human nature that makes us judge those who are different from ourselves.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Dyrwen,

I suppose what you are saying depends on the definition of religion. According to the online Cambridge Dictionary, religion is: the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

I don't dispute that there are belief systems that have no truck with monotheism or polytheism. But I am not at all sure that these belief systems should be called religions.

----------


## Dyrwen

> Dyrwen,
> 
> I suppose what you are saying depends on the definition of religion. According to the online Cambridge Dictionary, religion is: the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.
> 
> I don't dispute that there are belief systems that have no truck with monotheism or polytheism. But I am not at all sure that these belief systems should be called religions.


I understand the definition problems, though I try to hold true to a root meaning of the word more so than the popular accepted definition. Religious tolerance.org gives a good line up of ideas about it. Since the word is based off religo, meaning good faith or ritual. The main thing I see of religions of all types is worship, ritual, and devotion to it no matter what. There are principles to be followed and those that join a religion follow them as a dogma. 

One could say I worship my computer, (and back when I was a Satanist with a baphomet painted above it on the wall, it would be more accurate than anyone can define, heh) but I obviously don't follow any principles outside of "Keep it safe" and "Use it often". There are plenty of religions out there that involve no gods, or really even any worship, but many of them do have a ritual and principles they wish to follow, and I tend to believe that means they are religions. 

The idea that a religion has something to do with believing in god is rooted in Christianity writing our dictionaries and creating the word off its latin roots into a different idea, rather than just following what it ought to mean. By doing so they manage to say everyone who isn't religious doesn't believe in god, but I know plenty of religious people who don't believe in god, but are still quite proud of their religious beliefs.

----------


## Adelheid

I think the idea here is not to prove the other side wrong, but to discuss the views.... so take it easy.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dyrwen

Nobody's more calm about this than I Adel, but I analyze every post for a counter viewpoint, so that this learning experience keeps on going.  :Smile:

----------


## Maxos

What is really discouraging are those thousands of fanatic people (included the Jews) crawling around in Köln singing hypnotic lullabies.

----------


## Ancestor

> What is really discouraging are those thousands of fanatic people (included the Jews) crawling around in Köln singing hypnotic lullabies.


I hope this does not offend you or anything but may I ask what that has to do with Evolution vs Creation? Could be please explain futher?

----------


## Dyrwen

I've rarely seen Maxos on topic, but if he manages to show how this is on topic, he'll have my attention for once, heh.

(seems like this might have been a good reply in the "hearing voices of god" thread, maybe, but not here of all places)

----------


## Maxos

I have made a mistake, the post to which I was replying was before.

----------


## Ancestor

> I have made a mistake, the post to which I was replying was before.


That is okay I was curious and thought I had missed that topic on this forum. I do hope that I was not rude towards you.

----------


## adilyoussef

I want to ask some questions plz. Why the animals are not like us? Why we are the only creatures that passed through evolution (if it exists)? And why this process has stoped since a long time ago?

----------


## Ancestor

> I want to ask some questions plz. Why the animals are not like us? Why we are the only creatures that passed through evolution (if it exists)? And why this process has stoped since a long time ago?


Good question there adilyoussef. I believe that animals do evolve like us because in order to survive us humans who keep taking over their homes they have to choice but to adapt and evolve. But some people do not think animals should have any rights and are just for food. I do not feel that way anything that has a pulse and breaths is alive like I am and should be respected. Not sure it has stopped maybe slowed or we just do not see it going on now. I wish I could give a better answer but I cannot, sorry.

----------


## Dyrwen

> I want to ask some questions plz. Why the animals are not like us? Why we are the only creatures that passed through evolution (if it exists)? And why this process has stoped since a long time ago?


Animals are very much like us. Many of them feel emotions, show goals and interests in varying things, and are fairly intelligent. All creatures have passed through evolution, we are no different. It hasn't stopped either, we're always evolving. It just takes hundreds of thousands of years to see any significant difference at times, but because we've only had (what we call at least) civilization over the past 8,000 years we tend to base everything off of that.

----------


## Pendragon

This may sound a tad off it, but this is my sincere belief. I believe in both creationism and evolution, just not any of the theories out there now. I believe God created the Earth and every living thing. But I do not belive that the animals or even mankind is still the same as when God formed them from the dust of the Earth. Too much has gone on, and they have had to adapt. Thus they have changed over the years, or evolved, if you choose to use that word. But not ape to man. Sorry, I don't buy that at all. When God made man "in His image" he made a "spirit" for that is what God is. Read the Bible. In the next chapter, he gives that spirit a body, formed out of the dust of the Earth. "Male and female created He them, and called their name Adam in the day of their creation." Now he seperates the spirits, giving Eve her own body. It's all there. READ. But time writes its lines on every face. Things change. They evolve. Sermon over. Dragon out.

----------


## okmit

I believe the passion over the subject is a greater wonder than the subject itself and promise not to be offended by anyone who believes an ancient colony of apes were their link to existence or by those that think God made two people out of dirt.Untill an evolutionist has a spiritual epiphany they will choose the idea their tail fell off,they stood up.and became genius.For those I would recommend,G.K. Chesterton,"The Everlasting Man".and C.S. Lewis."The Abolition of Man." For those that think a Supreme being created two people from dirt I would recommend the same two books.

----------


## Dyrwen

That's an odd way to remain neutral Okmit, but I can respect you at least trying to add in new book knowledge to the arena.

----------


## okmit

I apologize for not being clearer on my personal stance.I am a right wing conservative Republican by political labeling,and practice the Byzantine (Eastern Rite) Catholic Christian dogma.A creationist,pro-lifer,and anything but neutral on any subject.
I do hope you read the books...Okmit

----------


## Dyrwen

Hey, neat, you're like my polar opposite. HI! heh, was just noticing you managed to give a good suggestion to each side without stating any side, so it appeared pretty neutral. I plan on picking up the Lewis book soon, as I've heard good things on occasion about em.

Though I might add to your original post: We didn't "lose" our tails. They slowly went away, sure, but we still have tailbones and people are still born with tails (sourced). Also, as it has been mentioned earlier, we didn't evolve specifically from some "ancient colony of apes" but a common ancestor of the apes and monkeys (as well as homo sapiens; 3 branched off it). And considering we share 98% of our DNA with chimps, and they create art, have plenty of emotions, tight nit communities, etc, I wouldn't go saying we grew up to be geniuses by any stretch of the word. Intelligence is different for every species, but we certainly aren't any smarter. Of course, we'd like to think so..

----------


## blp

> Read the Bible.


How is reading the Bible going to convince someone who doesn't think the Bible is true? There's no argument there, just a series of statements made without any evidentiary proofs.

----------


## okmit

Lewis is good,but I think you would find Chesterton's logic in the "Everlasting Man"(particularly on this subject) more entertaining.

Do you really believe chimps create art?

----------


## blp

> Do you really believe chimps create art?


Not only chimps, but cats. 
http://www.tenspeedpress.com/catalog...m.php3?id=1020

----------


## atiguhya padma

I'd better get some art lessons, before people accuse me of not being human!

----------


## okmit

I see its time too quit pussy footing around with the idea that monkey-ing in paint is a CREATIVE expression of art.I certainly wouldnt want too be held responsible for causing any of our artistically challenged humans too feel dehumanized!

Anyone ever hear an Ape play a trumpet?OK thats tuff...how about a Kazoo?

----------


## Dyrwen

Considering they don't have the fingers to properly pull off most musicianship, I doubt we'd see them playing those. I seem to recall them being able to learn how to speak english though, which allows them to identify their needs quite easily, and considering I can't speak sign language and quite a few apes of all types can now, I'd call that pretty decent intelligence. Still, we've had cat, elephant, and ape art recorded and they all look different, depending on their color usage. If the animal was just an idiot they'd shove the stick up their rear and run around spraying paint over their masters, which oddly enough I've come close to seeing from some toddlers. Watch videos of these animals painting if you want to see contemplative thought, because it's certainly there. 

In any case, all this discussion is, is "Are we better than animals?" Which as we've established early on, the Judeo-Christian faith says yes because God holds humanity in a higher regard by giving them souls, talking to them, etc. Meanwhile, I would say we're no different. A beaver makes a home, raises a family, develops adaptations to fend off predators, passes his skill onto his children, who proceed to build another home when he passes on and they move out. I buy a home, lock my door, teach people what I know, and am no better than some giant rodent who can even swim and survive longer than I can in the wilderness, underwater, or the cold.

----------


## okmit

CoCo sure was a wiz!But if you put your mind to it I'm sure you too could conquer the art of mimmicking.As for YOU being no better than a giant rodent,well I'll leave that assesment to you.But I am sure that you would fare much better in the beavers cold,wet,wilderness than the beaver would in your warm,dry,city enviroment!

----------


## okmit

Oh yes,and did I see you write...spraying paint over "their MASTER?"

----------


## Dyrwen

Seeing as most of their art isn't anything outside of abstract (to us anyway) and their color usage is mainly based off of their memories and/or emotions at the time, it's fairly easy to tell they aren't just mimicking, or else they'd produce the same works of art all the time, rather than different ones. 

The beaver and I are just two different creatures, they have an extra eyelid to see under water, extra flabs of fat to survive the cold winters and chilly waters. I live in Washington, so it isn't that dry here, nor is it really ever too warm, and when I look outside, there isn't much city either, but I suppose there is concrete about. Personally I've always respected other animal's adaptations because they become more "need based" rather than want, which end up just being useless for some of us. Sure I can type 80wpm, survive off ramen noodles for months on end, and deliver packages for my job in less than an hour, but these aren't exactly needed adaptations on my part. They're what we're used to though, so I guess they work.

Nice job picking out one word to better fit your ideas, though, really. I couldn't think up much else at 8am, but we'll say I meant "keeper" or "trainer" if that suits your fancy. I'm no zoologist, so I don't know their official term. They make sure the animal gets their food, like I do with my dogs, and since dogs' owners are usually referred to as owners and/or masters, it's the first thing that comes to mind. But who really thinks of their pets as something they own? They're just furry friends that we keep alive because they make us happy, but I suppose them relying on us in a city environment does make us fairly owner-like of them.

----------


## okmit

Master,keeper,trainer,lord is what we are because we have dominion over them.We feed them,breed em, work em, entertain ourselves,and eat em.I thank God for the dominion,for the thought of a creature of higher intellect,(or lower)passing me on a bun through a drive thru window to be devoured is just too scary!!!

----------


## Dyrwen

So I suppose you ignore wolves, sharks, snakes, murderers, lawmakers, and various other things, creatures as I call em, to have dominion over you? I know I don't control most of those things, nor do I really control any animals I've ever had as pets. I keep them happy and they don't kill me, that's all life is when it comes to control and dominion. I'm not the master of my dogs because they could quite easily kill me, though perhaps you have smaller animals than I. 

Then again, maybe you meant to focus entirely on intellect, rather than sheer power of will. I'm fed and worked by my boss, though I wouldn't exactly say he has a higher intellect than I, so perhaps that's a type of dominion we're talking about. 

In any case, I'd say the main difference between us at this point is that I'm willing to be apart of the creatures around me as equals insofar as I don't degrade their position in society and because of that I don't fear them having control over my life. All things control us, be it weather, the bills, or the angry dog next door, but that isn't a reason to fear them, but to merely respect their ability to wield some power over our lives. You just regard your respect to a higher power than I, whereas I have no belief that that power exists, so I delegate my own to more individual sources. Just different perspectives on the same concepts.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<CoCo sure was a wiz!But if you put your mind to it I'm sure you too could conquer the art of mimmicking.>

We all do. Do you seriously think anything original is created otherwise? Most of what we do and say has no originality to it. What little originality we may display in our lives, is a direct result of the amount of mimicking we have indulged in.

----------


## okmit

> <CoCo sure was a wiz!But if you put your mind to it I'm sure you too could conquer the art of mimmicking.>
> 
> We all do. Do you seriously think anything original is created otherwise? Most of what we do and say has no originality to it. What little originality we may display in our lives, is a direct result of the amount of mimicking we have indulged in.


You cant create an original mimmick!That is why you are not a mimmick of an Ape.You are descendant of Man not an evolution of a species that is incapable of expounding.

----------


## AimusSage

> You cant create an original mimmick!That is why you are not a mimmick of an Ape.You are descendant of Man not an evolution of a species that is incapable of expounding.


It is possible combine two or more 'mimmicks' and create something original by adding something of your own. Animals do this to. Your failure to see this does not mean it does not happen, but I guess ignorance is bliss.

----------


## Ancestor

Okmit, I hope this does not offend you but when you were a kid you mimmicked your parents in order to learn how to do the common things you do every day. You cannot seriously believe that animals do not have a different kind of intelligence then you do. What is so scary about the thought of evolving from a ape? Many species that have evolved do not resemble what they originally looked like. Learning sign language is all mimmickering especially when a sentence is form completely on their own. Personally since I was not alive during the time man evolve I could not tell you what or whom we evolved from but I do know we sure did not look like we do today back then. Lucy is a good example of that.

----------


## tiny explorer

:Banana:   :Banana:  


> You cant create an original mimmick!That is why you are not a mimmick of an Ape.You are descendant of Man not an evolution of a species that is incapable of expounding.



I do think that too!!! Maybe I can't express myself freely and expound more on my ideas but youhave said it right. I support you there!!!  :Banana:

----------


## okmit

AimusSage,a mimmick is a copy and can never be original.Granted when you add something of your own it would be original but it would no longer be a copy.So tell me,what magical animal feats have I missed?CoCo didnt add any new,or original signs or begin teaching other primates her new skills has she?

It has been said,"God is knowledge,and evil is ignorance."You have no need to become offensive.

----------


## okmit

Ancestor,I am familiar with that nasty looking creature (Lucy.)I'm certain that had that species had the adaptation skills God gave us they would learn sign language much quicker than CoCo.

There is nothing scary about the thought of evolving from an ape...its just wrong!

----------


## okmit

tiny explorer,I thank You.I have enjoyed reading your posts also...particularly the last one!

----------


## Ancestor

> Ancestor,I am familiar with that nasty looking creature (Lucy.)I'm certain that had that species had the adaptation skills God gave us they would learn sign language much quicker than CoCo.
> 
> There is nothing scary about the thought of evolving from an ape...its just wrong!


If Great Spirit had made it that we did actually in fact evolve from a ape how then is it wrong? I am trying to understand your way of thinking here. Chimpazee's who have learned sign language has passed it down to their children without humans encouragment. You cannot judge intelligence based on communication skills that humans use. Animals have a totally different communication skills on their own. You cannot base what we look like today to what we looked like hundreds of thousands of years ago. Iceman that was found a decade ago has been proven to be human and he does not look like the humans of today. Without science backing us up one way or the other how can you stand by your convictions. Mine are always opened to being proven wrong because I do not know for sure if I am correct. I would not be a insult to me if someone to prove me wrong it would be a learning stone I gladly step on. Nothing is written in stone as you go through life for tomorrow is always unwritten. Besides as someone who has learned some sign language I can tell you that is not simple to learn and in fact has more then one dialect.

----------


## okmit

Great Spirit...Hmmm.
In my second post I stated I was a Christian.We believe God made man in his own image.We dont believe the Great Spirit looks like CoCo,or even Lucy.I'm not seeking converts,only dialogue.I also believe we all have a God given right to be wrong.

On the animal intellect,I am truly amazed by their God given survival instinct.It is a shame they were never able to sharpen those skills to survive the terror of humans.

On not looking now like we looked hundreds of thousands of years ago.I'm affraid your preaching to the choir on that point! I'm 57 years old and every time I shave I wonder where the good looking young guy went that use to look back?

----------


## Ancestor

I still look the same as I did when I was in my twenties and now I am in my late thirties. I do not believe in trying to convert anyone to my beliefs or way of thinking and I am looking to be converted either. That for me is morally wrong especially if some is happy with their own faith. Great Spirit is how I choose to call God by and I have no problems you being Christian. Do you know what the Great Spirit looks like? Knowing that humans skeletal remains have shown several different structal changes for humans over a thousands of years. How can we say for sure that the first human being truly looked like the Great Spirit? Do we today look like the Great Spirit? Was it meant to be taken so literal? I am not doubting the Bible only man's interpretation of the Bible. Great Spirit's words may be true but humans are not always so. I meant no disrespect but merely trying to point out that without hard scienfic proof we cannot say what we truly looked like all those years ago. The true question is what does the Great Spirit truly look like. Did he also not creat all life on Earth? I believe that he did create all life and we all are truly different and I thank the Great Spirit for that.

----------


## Dyrwen

On that same line of thought, it's very possible that the preverbial "Adam" that God spoke to was merely the first man who God got around to talking to. The story about him being made in God's image could've been much more loosely meant, in that God said "I made you in my image" (once upon a time, but you've evolved into who you are now). In any case the idea that a superficial appearance of the deity being closer to us than animals merely overshadows a point of arrogance, more so than accuracy. It doesn't matter if God's image looks like man or if man looks like God because, supposedly, we're all God's creatures. Just because he might've told us he loved us and we rounded up some books and a few dialogues around the globe to get a popular opinion going, doesn't necessarily make it so. 

There's just as much possibility of any Great Spirit being plausable as there is for God, and the image of each is just as diverse, because of that interpretation given book. Man writing a book "inspired" by God is about as loose as you can get. I've read Star Wars books "inspired" by the original movies, but all they are are a military novel about an adventure. It holds true to some inspired lines of thought, but that doesn't make it exact in any sense. For man to go pulling the strings on how things worked in literature for something even as important as creation isn't that far fetched.

Seeing as most mankind has a certain air of ego about it, I wouldn't put it past the authors to have gone and made man just the first thing God loved, rather than the animals around man. It inspires mankind to believe more so and any other story might lead them down a path of low self esteem that some can't handle, of being looked at as just another creature of God, here to be loved. Mankind is but a brother or sister to nature and everything in it. We can't accept that "daddy loves his children the same" because we're all brats that want to know in our hearts that He loves us the most. 

Anyways, yeah.. had that musing of thought after reading a few replies above and grasping onto what the concept being described was. Moving somewhat backwards, I guess, but trying to keep us on the idea being discussed of evolving creatures and the place it has in religion and/or the world rationally.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Regarding the learning behaviours of chimpanzees and apes: Michael Cook in his book A Brief History of the Human Race, tells how scientists have discovered over 30 learned behaviours in apes. Also see the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4166756.stm

----------


## Loki

Besides, how do we know that God isn't a monkey, after all? Has anybody ever seen him?
[I know that man was made in God's image and all that, but some people really do look like monkeys  :Biggrin: ]

----------


## atiguhya padma

<a mimmick is a copy and can never be original.Granted when you add something of your own it would be original but it would no longer be a copy.>

Okmit,

Originality is merely a variant of a copy. When the copy differs from its predecessors, then that difference is what we call original. A bit like evolution itself.

Do you seriously suggest that other animals do not show original behaviours? What about the blue tits that peck through the tin foil found on milk bottles in the UK, in order to get the milk. Is this not original? Do you think they saw some bird that was trained to do this and copied it exactly?

----------


## adilyoussef

> Besides, how do we know that God isn't a monkey, after all? Has anybody ever seen him?
> [I know that man was made in God's image and all that, but some people really do look like monkeys ]


Look at the miror and see for yourself. Then you will get the answer. A painter, whatever a skill He/she may have, can never paint as the original. We are a copy of the original. A copy or a prototipe that has a mission on this limited world in time and space. The physica apearance changes from the time of birth to the time of death. It's a chimical and a biological process. But to evolve from a creature to become another that for me doesn't exist. Why monkeys doesn't. Evolution is only in our minds and our way of living. Look at senturies that have passed and see the difrence for yourself. There is no sign of evolution but only in our way of living and the inteligence that we have reached because we have learned from our parents as they did from theirs. We can shape our bodies as we like but I'm still longing for the day that we evolve to become like angels and fly without the edd of technology.  :Angel:

----------


## atiguhya padma

<There is no sign of evolution>

There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fruitflies, moths and bacteria all supply evidence of it. Take any creature that has a short lifespan, play around with its environment in specific ways and you will see evolution in action. Why do you think viruses are so good at combatting antibiotics?

----------


## Pendragon

> And we have EVIDENCE, yes, evidence, of creatures who lived millions of years ago; this is proof, not faith. Science, yes, only measures, only observes, and puts things together using measurement, observation, and reasoning. But there is at least grounds for belief, not simply books, but actual fossils. And it also makes sense!


You have evidence, you say. I say, evidence according to whom? Is this something you have witnessed with your own eyes, or do you rely on the word of SCIENTISTS who report their findings? How is this different from a Christian who relies on the Bible to tell him or her of things unseen? Can you not see that SCIENCE is a religion itself, with scientists taking the place of prophets, telling the laity of things beyond comprehension? If they say, "This fossil is a hundred-millon years old, we can prove it by carbon dating.", the sheep follow without question. Now me, I question EVERYTHING. It thus becomes easier for me to belive in a surpreme God, than in say, the primordal soup theory, since if it were correct, we could certainly duplicate it in a controled labroratory environment. But we can't. And re the 7 days. The Bible says "For a day is as a thousand years with the Lord, and a thousand years is as a day." II Peter 3:8  :Angel:   :Smile:   :Idea:

----------


## Pendragon

> How is reading the Bible going to convince someone who doesn't think the Bible is true? There's no argument there, just a series of statements made without any evidentiary proofs.


On the other hand, how is reading books on evolution going to convince someone who doesn't believe either? And BTW, I HAVE read Darwin. If you are going to disagree with someone, you at least owe them the courtesy of finding out where they stand. He said apes and men had a "common ancestor" but evolved in different directions, so I do wish people would get it right!  :Smash:  As I said before, I believe God created everything, but things have happened that have caused animals, yes and man as well, to adapt to new environments. This is true evolution. And I believe science supports it. Notice how often they use the word "designed.", as in "a frog's legs are perfectly designed to jump." So whom do they think "designed" them, pray tell?

----------


## AimusSage

> AimusSage,a mimmick is a copy and can never be original.Granted when you add something of your own it would be original but it would no longer be a copy.So tell me,what magical animal feats have I missed?CoCo didnt add any new,or original signs or begin teaching other primates her new skills has she?
> 
> It has been said,"God is knowledge,and evil is ignorance."You have no need to become offensive.


I know what a mimmic is. And I am sorry for offending you. Also, what I meant was combining two things into something new, which is something that was not thaught. I will further refrain from commenting in this thread.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Pendragon,

If you question everything, and only rely only on evidence you yourself have seen, I presume then that you do not believe in the resurrection? Or all the other magical mumbo-jumbo that the bible asks you to swallow without question.

----------


## blp

Also, Pendragon, in order to disbelieve evolutionary science, don't you have to believe that all the scientists involved in it, including Darwin, whose own Christianity caused him to sit on his discoveries for decades and his immediate successor Mendel, who was a Christian monk, are colluding in some gigantic lie?

----------


## Taliesin

> On the other hand, how is reading books on evolution going to convince someone who doesn't believe either?


Well, it actually seems to us that there is a difference between books like Bible and works of Darwin. Bible dictates what is true and what is not. Books of evolution are in some point like math books - they don't dictate the truth, but help you to deduct it yourself - a sort of knowledgical midwife. 
It is quite similar between believing the Pythagoras theorem without evidence and believing it, because you, with the help of a math book, proved it.




> If they say, "This fossil is a hundred-millon years old, we can prove it by carbon dating.", the sheep follow without question. Now me, I question EVERYTHING. It thus becomes easier for me to belive in a supreme God, than in say, the primordal soup theory, since if it were correct, we could certainly duplicate it in a controled labroratory environment.


So you are suggesting that scientists are lying to us? Excuse me, but to me, it seems a bit like some strange conspiracy theory. 
And about questioning everything (a good thing, Descartes did the same) do you also question the existence of God and the creation theory?
And if we are not mistaken, they have achieved at least proteins in laboratory conditions, if not life.

----------


## Dyrwen

> You have evidence, you say. I say, evidence according to whom? Is this something you have witnessed with your own eyes, or do you rely on the word of SCIENTISTS who report their findings? How is this different from a Christian who relies on the Bible to tell him or her of things unseen? Can you not see that SCIENCE is a religion itself, with scientists taking the place of prophets, telling the laity of things beyond comprehension? If they say, "This fossil is a hundred-millon years old, we can prove it by carbon dating.", the sheep follow without question. Now me, I question EVERYTHING. It thus becomes easier for me to belive in a surpreme God, than in say, the primordal soup theory, since if it were correct, we could certainly duplicate it in a controled labroratory environment. But we can't. And re the 7 days. The Bible says "For a day is as a thousand years with the Lord, and a thousand years is as a day." II Peter 3:8


No one is following science like a sheep, outside of the few idiots that just believe what they read right off the bat, but there are plenty of each on both sides of this idea. The way you word it shows that no matter what kind of evidence we show you, you'll never believe it in any case. Unless God himself came down and said "Evolution is true, knock off all the crap about me doing it in 6 days" I doubt you'd believe anything. Once you call science a religion your whole basis for reality goes out the window. Science is a gathering of evidence to prove theories that share a possibility of being correct. They're constantly reviewed by thousands upon millions of people daily and checked and changed to better fit new evidence gathered. It's only a religion to the ignorant person that claims science is somehow infallible. Science admits to being wrong all the time, but they also reiterate being right many times over as well in varying arrays of the world around us. 

Not everyone follows science blindly on their findings, as atiguhya padma said: "There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fruitflies, moths and bacteria all supply evidence of it. Take any creature that has a short lifespan, play around with its environment in specific ways and you will see evolution in action. Why do you think viruses are so good at combatting antibiotics?" There are plenty of things anyone can try to prove evolution, but some people would rather dispute it outright in favor of some magical sky pixie doing the job of their thinking it through dialectically for them. 

In the time to make this post three other replies popped up, so I'll leave it to them more so about your other points and posts.

----------


## okmit

I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope.Cells are much too complex to have evolved randomly;intelligence was required to produce them.

The word "evolution" carries many associations.Usually it means common descent--the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no problem with the idea of common descent,and believe it explains similarities among species.By itself however,common descent doesnt explain the vast differences among species.

Thats where Darwin's mechanism comes in."Evolution" also sometimes implies that a random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life.The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings.Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species.Over time,repetition of the process resulted in great changes--and,indeed,wholly different animals.

That's the theory.A practical difficulty,however,is that one cant test the theory from fossils.To really test the theory,one has to observe contemporary change in the wild,in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.

Darwianian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes.Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns.Likewise,the ratio of dark-to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light colored moths more visible to predators.Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics.These are all clear examples of natural selection in action.But these examples involve only one or a few mutations,and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor.Yet to account for all of life,a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures.That has not yet been demonstrated.

Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell.Many cellular systems are"irreducibly complex."That means the system needs several componets before it can work properly.An everyday example is a mouse trap,built of several pieces(platform,hammer,spring and so on.)Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner,gradually improving its function.You cant catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring.All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. 

An example of an irreducible complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum:a rotary propeller,powered by a flow of acid,that bacteria use to swim.The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works--a rotor,stator and motor.Furthermore,genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

The intracellular transport system is also quite complex.Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments;supplies,including enzymes and protiens,have to be shipped between these compartments.Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks,and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination.Other protiens act as loading docks,opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.

Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell--the very basis of life--is staggeringly complex.Science has no answers,or partial answers,for how these systems originated.James Shapiro,a biochemist at the University of Chicago wrote,"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system,only a variety of wishful speculations."

Whenever we see interactive systems(such as a mouse trap)in the everyday world,we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity.We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism,including Darwin's,which produces such complexity.Only intelligence does.

Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation.I dont want the best scientific explanation for life;I want the correct explanation.

----------


## Dyrwen

> I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope.Cells are much too complex to have evolved randomly;intelligence was required to produce them.
> 
> The word "evolution" carries many associations.Usually it means common descent--the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no problem with the idea of common descent,and believe it explains similarities among species.By itself however,common descent doesnt explain the vast differences among species.
> 
> Thats where Darwin's mechanism comes in."Evolution" also sometimes implies that a random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life.The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings.Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species.Over time,repetition of the process resulted in great changes--and,indeed,wholly different animals.
> 
> That's the theory.A practical difficulty,however,is that one cant test the theory from fossils.To really test the theory,one has to observe contemporary change in the wild,in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.
> 
> Darwianian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes.Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns.Likewise,the ratio of dark-to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light colored moths more visible to predators.Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics.These are all clear examples of natural selection in action.But these examples involve only one or a few mutations,and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor.Yet to account for all of life,a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures.That has not yet been demonstrated.
> ...


Before I reply to this: Quote your sources that you plagiarize next time. http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0017.html

And a beautiful question to ask you, since you uphold that complex organisms or anything complex means it has to be designed: Who made God? If you say no one, why? Does God somehow not fit into your elaborately complex idea of intelligent design? How is it that complexity is merely a subjective point of view to those who can't wrap their heads around a concept too hard for them to understand probability wise? 

There's proof already that this world exists, as far as the evidence shows through what we have discovered; that this world wasn't designed, but actually did grow into what it is today. So no matter how complex and impossible this life around us supposedly is; we've still got the fact that it _did happen_ and until you can spot God's fingerprints on the ground itself, it'll have to do as an accurate representation. 

Obviously we can't watch an organism grow into a whole different species because that takes thousands of years to do, but we can watch it adapt and evolve through its generations into something more efficient. The fact of the matter is, the only argument or point intelligent design makes is: It is too complex to be random, god must have done it. 

Personally that sort of logic seems flawed, but if you can accept it, good for you. The great part about creationism is that it offers no evidence of its own theories being correct; it only critiques evolution. There is no evidence of creationism out there and I've never seen any outside of "This is too complex to be random!" which isn't evidence at all: merely supposing facts on already real things.

----------


## okmit

Plagerize!This comming from an athiest(belief in nothing) that has already proclaimed Nothing is original,everything is a mimick.Should I have used quotation marks to denote you said it?I thought you said a copy or two with a twist of your own made it original?How many ways do you want it?I concur with the text.
By the way,it came from Michael J Behe files,associate professor of biochemistry at Leigh ,author of "Darwins Black Box:The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

I only used a Scientist text because you expressed a faith..or a belief..or a trust in what they bring to the table as opposed to Scripture.However it is clear that you have decided to ignore science when it flies in the face of what you believe..or think...or theorize.

As for the faithless heaping acolades on on those that have vaporized 280 thousand men, women,and children with their brilliant invention,stated ddt was environmentaly safe,that their was no danger in dumping agent orange on my head in nam,that said if we put catylitic converters on our gas powered push mowers and cut in the mornig or evening the hole in the ozone would heal itself...while they continue burning hundreds of thousands of pounds of rocket fuel thru it.Good luck

----------


## Dyrwen

> Plagerize!This comming from an athiest(belief in nothing) that has already proclaimed Nothing is original,everything is a mimick.Should I have used quotation marks to denote you said it?I thought you said a copy or two with a twist of your own made it original?How many ways do you want it?I concur with the text.
> By the way,it came from Michael J Behe files,associate professor of biochemistry at Leigh ,author of "Darwins Black Box:The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."


We're on a literature forum, plagiarism is serious stuff. I'm fine with posting someone else's ideas, just cite them. By the way, atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. You're thinking nihilism, which believes in "nothing" so to speak. An atheist can be anyone, believe in anything, do anything they want, so long as it involves them not believing in gods. But hey, way to act original and bring up the ole' "atheists believe in nothing" idea. Really, good job.




> As for the faithless heaping acolades on on those that have vaporized 280 thousand men, women,and children with their brilliant invention,stated ddt was environmentaly safe,that their was no danger in dumping agent orange on my head in nam,that said if we put catylitic converters on our gas powered push mowers and cut in the mornig or evening the hole in the ozone would heal itself...while they continue burning hundreds of thousands of pounds of rocket fuel thru it.Good luck


Oh, so it's just a personal problem. Well there's your problem right there. Just because some douche makes a nuclear weapon, develops a biological agent to destroy lives, creates some weapon of any sort of destruction, doesn't make science evil. If you were an adult about these sort of things, you might know that. Blame the warmongers, blame the stupid governments that made it legal to use, blame the industrialists and capitalists that stiffled environmentalism all these years-but do not, and I repeat, do not blame all science for your own personal disagreements with a particular branch of science.

Here I thought I was dealing with someone who at least could manage to defend themselves without resorting to personal attacks or dealing with their problems with science in a more objective sense, but it appears you've gone and based your entire dislike for science on a completely personal problem. Get some counseling, stop arguing, it's just absurd. And no this isn't an attack, it's a simple truth of the situation you've brought up. I'm fine discussing a thought on evolution and even defending evidence v. no evidence, even bringing the bible into a discussion, but at no point will anything get done if it's just one big conspiracy hatefest against science in general for some personal cause.

----------


## Ancestor

I wonder why life cannot be made up of both creation and evolution but it appears that it has to be one or the other here. I believe we were created first then we evolve with each passing breath we take. Evolution does not have to always mean a physical, biological, or even turning into a whole species to happen. Evolving is growing beyond what you were in the past in my opinion not Darwin's or anyone else's. The big picture is not how intelligent we are or how stupid we are but that we strive to continue to learn each day about who we are and the world around us. Scientific proof not matter whether it is disproved down the road give us a start to where to look for the answers. Which is at least a beginning and I think we should question theories as well as the Bible. In order to find truth but truth is not always easy for all us to find but at least I seek it.

----------


## Dyrwen

Didn't we note that both of them at the same time is quite fine a few pages ago? There are just some folks that can't accept evolution, just as there are some that can't accept creationism. Life starting from God is fine, when it's looked on as a belief, in my opinion. If it is attempted to be looked at as a fact, then science has to come up to check said facts, which will only end up disputing the facts presented, which is why I said (in a sense) "creationism's sole purpose is to disprove evolution" in today's age at least. No one ever minds that God might've created earth, started evolution, etc, but when creationism spends 99% of its time arguing about evolution's many proven facets rather than presenting its own "evidence" the problem arises. 

I agree that psychological evolution is but a concept we all must take, to grow as people into what we feel is best for our lives, be they guided by faith or reason or both. Question everything, but don't be afraid to take a stance on something that might be wrong. I state all the time that I don't know everything, but I don't hear enough from the other side stating similar. I may not _know_ if anything is true, but I can still _believe_ that things are true. That's how we have a discussion, we pick a side and try to poke holes in the other side, to better understand how our side works and the other works. Works well enough, so long as one tries to remain somewhat objective in their own subjective truths.. heh.

----------


## Ancestor

> Didn't we note that both of them at the same time is quite fine a few pages ago? There are just some folks that can't accept evolution, just as there are some that can't accept creationism. Life starting from God is fine, when it's looked on as a belief, in my opinion. If it is attempted to be looked at as a fact, then science has to come up to check said facts, which will only end up disputing the facts presented, which is why I said (in a sense) "creationism's sole purpose is to disprove evolution" in today's age at least. No one ever minds that God might've created earth, started evolution, etc, but when creationism spends 99% of its time arguing about evolution's many proven facets rather than presenting its own "evidence" the problem arises. 
> 
> I agree that psychological evolution is but a concept we all must take, to grow as people into what we feel is best for our lives, be they guided by faith or reason or both. Question everything, but don't be afraid to take a stance on something that might be wrong. I state all the time that I don't know everything, but I don't hear enough from the other side stating similar. I may not _know_ if anything is true, but I can still _believe_ that things are true. That's how we have a discussion, we pick a side and try to poke holes in the other side, to better understand how our side works and the other works. Works well enough, so long as one tries to remain somewhat objective in their own subjective truths.. heh.


If it was stated a few pages back forgive me my brain is working on stress right now. There are people out there who refuse to consider other theories and stand by their own as solid truth. I feel that if you do not explore others ideals, beliefs, cultures, and theories how are you going to grow as a person. I know there is a good chance everything I know is wrong but I also know that there is a good chance I am right. I feel that answers are going to come from many sources and in the end I decide whether they are true or not.

----------


## Ancestor

> Plagerize!This comming from an athiest(belief in nothing) that has already proclaimed Nothing is original,everything is a mimick.Should I have used quotation marks to denote you said it?I thought you said a copy or two with a twist of your own made it original?How many ways do you want it?I concur with the text.



Whether you agree with someone else's words or not if you copy their words you should be respectful enough to say so. For they where not written or said by you first. Also being a athiest has nothing to with plagiarism. I apologize for my comments but you appeared to be not respecting the opinions of others.

----------


## Ancestor

Do you think we truly can find the truth about evolution vs creation through either science or the Bible? I am curious about what people think about this for me I believe both can lead us to those answers but in the end don't we really decide what is true for ourselves?

----------


## Dyrwen

Of course we decide ourselves, and no one will ever truly convince the other side completely because there will always be someone to believe God did it in 6 days, no evolution required. And so long as God remains unprovable, as gods usually are since they don't leave behind evidence outside of testimonies, that sort of thought will continue forever. 

It's a difference of those that will always choose to follow their emotions, their faith, their feelings, and those that are willing to take what they see as reasonable as a good justification of their beliefs being corect. I'm not saying there isn't a middle ground, I'm just saying no one is ever going to prove the other side entirely wrong, because there are always holes in the theory and there are always arguments from the other side. So long as one side has evidence and the other side faith, by definition no need for evidence, the discussion will continue on forever and ever. 

I see fossils, I see adaptation, I see carbon and radiometric dating, I see plate tectonics, and abiogenesis in molecules being proven again and again. The age of the universe, of the earth, of the creatures around us and their inevitable changes through the eons being proven again and again. And I find it reasonable, I accept it as true because I haven't seen anything to show otherwise. I haven't been approached by a feeling of God in my heart, nor have I read the Bible and thought "Gee, sounds beautiful, so right." We all follow what feels best to us, whether it be some long complex reasonable explanation or some short, to the point, idea that feels right no matter the lack of empirical proof. 

Although I stand by my assertion that creationism is a belief, not a theory, which only exists to disprove evolution rather than prove itself. The creation story is a different idea, but to use it to prove evolution false is about as sane as me using Lord Of the Rings to prove the Earth has more than one realm to it. Literature and scientific studies are two different things entirely, but until people get around to thinking differently, I don't expect the contrast to arise anytime soon.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<You cant catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring.All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. >

This assumes that at all stages of development, the goal remains the same. This is a false assumption.

----------


## Maxos

Halt!

I think that a point is missing here.

Creationism is a belief, nobody could disagree.

Darwinism is a hypothesis, an explanation, not exactly a theory.

The Reason is simple: you cannot think of a way to contradict evolution and more, you cannot make reliable predictions on evolution.

For a Physicist these two lacking features undermine a theory theoretically as well as experimentally. 

Anyway creationism is still a step below, since it isn't any kind of explanation, that is, it does not include a huge amount of phenomena, which Darwinism does.

And, anyway, you must remember that Evolutionism was worked out from the statistical point of view, typical of the 19th century; just like, more or less, Maxwell and Marx, and the three shared the same beard!!!

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon,
> 
> If you question everything, and only rely only on evidence you yourself have seen, I presume then that you do not believe in the resurrection? Or all the other magical mumbo-jumbo that the bible asks you to swallow without question.


OK, I see you misunderstand me. The point I was trying to make is that whether we accept creationism or evolution sooner or later it is going to come down to accepting something without knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt. When I say I question everything, then that makes me search for WHY I believe it. I certainly believe in the resurrection (kudus for using the correct word, the rapture does not appear in the Bible!) and a lot of the other "magical mumbo-jumbo" I believe you termed it. But not without question. Blind faith is no faith. You must ask yourself why you believe these things as opposed to others.  :Smile:  That's all.

----------


## Pendragon

> Also, Pendragon, in order to disbelieve evolutionary science, don't you have to believe that all the scientists involved in it, including Darwin, whose own Christianity caused him to sit on his discoveries for decades and his immediate successor Mendel, who was a Christian monk, are colluding in some gigantic lie?


I've read Mendel as well, and I don't think you can discount his genetic work. No, I'm not one of these "It's all a giant conspiracy!" nutballs. Science certainly is responsible for many of the things we enjoy, this computer we are communicating on for example. But life is God's domain. I do not believe science will ever reproduce the spark that gives life by artifical means. And you're not reading me right. I do believe that animals and man have evolved as I stated BEFORE, simply that God created them in the beginning. Cataclysims have changed the Earth since and EVERYTHING has had to adapt to survive. If man had never changed since Eden, there would only be one race worldwide, correct? So man has changed. The supercontinent broke up. In Genesis, it's called "dry land". There was continential drift. Man had to adapt to survive. New races of man appeared. Evolution? Now, do I disbelieve everything because I question? I saw none of this. No other explaination fits. Sermon over.

----------


## Pendragon

> Well, it actually seems to us that there is a difference between books like Bible and works of Darwin. Bible dictates what is true and what is not. Books of evolution are in some point like math books - they don't dictate the truth, but help you to deduct it yourself - a sort of knowledgical midwife. 
> It is quite similar between believing the Pythagoras theorem without evidence and believing it, because you, with the help of a math book, proved it.
> 
> 
> So you are suggesting that scientists are lying to us? Excuse me, but to me, it seems a bit like some strange conspiracy theory. 
> And about questioning everything (a good thing, Descartes did the same) do you also question the existence of God and the creation theory?
> And if we are not mistaken, they have achieved at least proteins in laboratory conditions, if not life.


Whew, I stirred the proverbial hornet's nest! Math is an exact science, which you can prove. Evolution is a theory, which is "best guess" at best. Do I think scientist delibertly lie to us? NO, I AM NOT A CONSPIRACY NUT! I am simply saying that sooner or later you will have to accept something without seeing it for yourself, be it religious or scientific. By definition, that is faith. 

Yes, I even question the existence of God and "the creation theory", as you term it, that's why I belive it. Protiens produced under laboratory conditions? Possibly, but nothing that can reproduce itself. The spark of life remains a mystery. They can clone, grow a baby in a test-tube for in-vetro (pardon my spelling, I'm deslexic), but life cannot be give back to dead tissue, even if that body has nothing really wrong with it except it's not alive. Many a doctor has helplessly drawn the sheet over a face having done all science can do. When God calls time...

----------


## Pendragon

[QUOTE=Dyrwen]Unless God himself came down and said "Evolution is true, knock off all the crap about me doing it in 6 days" I doubt you'd believe anything. Once you call science a religion your whole basis for reality goes out the window. It's only a religion to the ignorant person that claims science is somehow infallible. Science admits to being wrong all the time, but they also reiterate being right many times over as well in varying arrays of the world around us. 

Not everyone follows science blindly on their findings, as atiguhya padma said: "There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fruitflies, moths and bacteria all supply evidence of it. Take any creature that has a short lifespan, play around with its environment in specific ways and you will see evolution in action. Why do you think viruses are so good at combatting antibiotics?" There are plenty of things anyone can try to prove evolution, but some people would rather dispute it outright in favor of some magical sky pixie doing the job of their thinking it through dialectically for them. 
[QUOTE]While everybody was blasting me for calling science a religion, did any of you take the time to notice that I DO believe in elolution, I just believe that God created everything first. And I can think for myself, thank you very much, or did you bother to read the part about me questioning everything? I'd don't object to being called names, heaven knows I've had my share and expect to get more before I pass the pale, but at least get the facts right! There are plenty of things to question about portions of the evolution theory, but people would rather brush them under the rug and extol the points that tend to prove it. The reliablity of carbon dating is certainly questionable, for example. The same samples tested at different times give widely varying readings. Which is right?

----------


## blp

> Just because some douche makes a nuclear weapon, develops a biological agent to destroy lives, creates some weapon of any sort of destruction, doesn't make science evil. If you were an adult about these sort of things, you might know that. Blame the warmongers, blame the stupid governments that made it legal to use, blame the industrialists and capitalists that stiffled environmentalism all these years-but do not, and I repeat, do not blame all science for your own personal disagreements with a particular branch of science.


Dyrwen clearly doesn't need any help here, but I must add, blame all the people who start wars and kill each other _over religion_. And bear that destructive effect of belief in mind, Okmit, next time you villify people for lack of belief.

----------


## Taliesin

[QUOTE=Pendragon][QUOTE=Dyrwen]Unless God himself came down and said "Evolution is true, knock off all the crap about me doing it in 6 days" I doubt you'd believe anything. Once you call science a religion your whole basis for reality goes out the window. It's only a religion to the ignorant person that claims science is somehow infallible. Science admits to being wrong all the time, but they also reiterate being right many times over as well in varying arrays of the world around us. 

Not everyone follows science blindly on their findings, as atiguhya padma said: "There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fruitflies, moths and bacteria all supply evidence of it. Take any creature that has a short lifespan, play around with its environment in specific ways and you will see evolution in action. Why do you think viruses are so good at combatting antibiotics?" There are plenty of things anyone can try to prove evolution, but some people would rather dispute it outright in favor of some magical sky pixie doing the job of their thinking it through dialectically for them. 



> While everybody was blasting me for calling science a religion, did any of you take the time to notice that I DO believe in elolution, I just believe that God created everything first. And I can think for myself, thank you very much, or did you bother to read the part about me questioning everything? I'd don't object to being called names, heaven knows I've had my share and expect to get more before I pass the pale, but at least get the facts right! There are plenty of things to question about portions of the evolution theory, but people would rather brush them under the rug and extol the points that tend to prove it. The reliablity of carbon dating is certainly questionable, for example. The same samples tested at different times give widely varying readings. Which is right?


Ah, well, we guess that we agree with you in a point - there are very little things that one can be sure of (like CES or a=a).
But well, as Baddad said, when we think that the world or complex life needs reason, then why doesn't the reason need another reason, for it seems that it has to be more complex. Or is God a very simple thing, much simpler than these complex structures and doesn't therefore need a reason?
We are afraid that we have lost your original belief: do you believe that the Big Bang was caused by God?
Or that God created primitive life and that everything has evolved from there to here.
Or that what is written in the Bible plus that things have evolved a little?
The first two theories seem quite OK. The third seems to have more holes in it. What evidence is there that the Bible is the word of God, i.e?

----------


## blp

This one will run and run. 

Pendragon, the problem I have with your position is that Darwin's theory is built around randomness. Just to spell it out for those not clear about it, the process of natural selection is the process by which some of the millions of mutations that happen to organisms for no reason at all, by accident, survive because they render the organism more suited to its environment. Numerous other mutations occur that do not survive. This is what is meant by survival of the fittest - fitness for specific environments, not strength per se. 

I'm an atheist and even I've felt upset at time about the lack of plan or meaning suggested by this process. But I do believe it. 

How can one square this with the idea of a creator? Did the creator start the process with single cells and let it rip randomly, genuinely unaware of what would result? Did he/she know what was going to develop? If there was a plan, why have all the random mutations, the majority of which served no purpose and did not survive? Just to throw us off the scent? Seems silly. Much as many creationists find it hard to believe that the complexity of even small organisms could have resulted from anything but intelligent design, I find it very difficult to imagine any entity being capable of working out the programme for creating life over billions of years, random mutations and all and hard to imagine why they'd take such a circuitous route. Ah well, more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy perhaps. But still, increasingly, not that many, because science has it's explanations not just for the development of organisms, but also the matter from which life was created. I'd be interested to know how far back you imagine the act of God that set it all off happened? I'd also be interested to hear your answer to Dyrwen's 'who created the creator' question. The only time I've asked a creationist this, he responded that this was 'a matter for faith' - which sounds like denial to me.

----------


## Eliza

Interesting article that ran in the New York Times on scientists who do and do not believe in God, intelligent design, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/na...=5070&emc=eta1

----------


## okmit

Ancestor,allow me to begin by apologizing for not only failing to to state that my post was reiterated fom arn,(access Research Network),Michael J. Behe FILES but also for my disrespectful report.But tell me,since I am not recieving a grade,royalties,or any acolades from the science community,or any other community--what difference does it make?Several posts have said the scientific community has proven Darwinism and I have attempted to show they have not.Not unlike myself when other posts make a scientific proclamation,they too have failed to disclose(quote)there source.Are they guilty also?On my not being respectful;How does my disrespect for what others think compare to the childish name calling and antagonistic posts that pagma and others have written?I have not said anyone was ignorant or their chosen theology was mumbo jumbo.

Taliesin,you are correct.They have achieved protiens in a LABORATORY condition--that is by intelligent design--Ooops.forgive me,I meant by"intelligent design"--lest I be accused of stealing a phrase.

Dyrwen--if Literature and scientific studies are entirely two different things--I didnt plagerize!And my ref.to you being an athiest was to point out your assesment that nothing is original must imply that whatever we say,think ,or do has its origin with GOD!

----------


## okmit

> Dyrwen clearly doesn't need any help here, but I must add, blame all the people who start wars and kill each other _over religion_. And bear that destructive effect of belief in mind, Okmit, next time you villify people for lack of belief.


Thank you for the pearl of wisdom--in my ignorance I thought it was due to human greed,and pomposity.The last Holy war I fought in was in Viet Nam--excuse me that one wasnt about religion.I was to young for the Korean crusade--no no,that one had nothing to do with religion either--the two world wars are exempt.But I'm sure your correct anyhow.I did have belief when I went that I could assist in stopping the "Domino Effect."That would be the Evil spread of Communism(common ownership of property.)Alas,after returning home(minus my right leg)my Gov. seized My Private Property and sold it for back taxes!!Draat,my faith and service to man failed me again.If you put your FAITH in man,your going too get screwd whether its a scientist,Governor,or a"holy man."
Thanks again,okmit

----------


## Dyrwen

> Dyrwen--if Literature and scientific studies are entirely two different things--I didnt plagerize!And my ref.to you being an athiest was to point out your assesment that nothing is original must imply that whatever we say,think ,or do has its origin with GOD!


It's always plagiarism until you cite your source, which you didn't do until I pointed it out. Now its a moot issue. Your second idea, if you could call it that, is barely put together in a readable line, but it doesn't appear to have much basis in this discussion in any case.




> Several posts have said the scientific community has proven Darwinism and I have attempted to show they have not.


I would like to bring this whole discussion to a point, because well, I dislike beating around the bush. So far things have gone like this: We give you evidence of evolution, you try to disprove it. We ask for evidence of creationism, you give us some idea about it all being "too complex" then ignore the questions I gave in response to that idea. 

So, do us a favor and do what no one in the history of the world has done: Give us empirical evidence of creationism; not just evidence trying to disprove evolution. Can you do that? I sure hope so, because I'm tired of all this running around in circles about theology and explanations and science in general if we aren't even going to see the other side of this discussion's evidence. 

So, have at it. And if you quote the Bible as a source, I want some tangible evidence found on earth referencable to check your point. i.e. If you were nuts enough to say something like man has one less rib than women, I'd check people around the world to make sure they all had or didn't have the same amount of ribs. (which they do) So please, give us your amazing evidence of creationism, since somehow the piles of evidence covering the walls of this place aren't good enough for you. Really. Go on.

----------


## Pendragon

> Or is God a very simple thing, much simpler than these complex structures and doesn't therefore need a reason?
> We are afraid that we have lost your original belief: do you believe that the Big Bang was caused by God?
> Or that God created primitive life and that everything has evolved from there to here.
> Or that what is written in the Bible plus that things have evolved a little?
> The first two theories seem quite OK. The third seems to have more holes in it. What evidence is there that the Bible is the word of God, i.e?


Here is where we get interesting. My own concept of God is that He hides in the very simplicity of His nature. I believe it was philosopher David Hume who stated, and I paraphraze since it's been awhile that "God is so far beyond human understanding that the very idea of trying to understand Him is ludicrous." I'm not certain I agree with that. As to who created the Creator, I believe He has always existed. It may sound like a cop-out, but it's what I believe. Here's a handy quote from Thomas Jefferson that all of us could use: "The legitimate powers of the government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are 20 Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

----------


## Pendragon

> This one will run and run. 
> 
> Pendragon, the problem I have with your position is that Darwin's theory is built around randomness. Just to spell it out for those not clear about it, the process of natural selection is the process by which some of the millions of mutations that happen to organisms for no reason at all, by accident, survive because they render the organism more suited to its environment. Numerous other mutations occur that do not survive. This is what is meant by survival of the fittest - fitness for specific environments, not strength per se. 
> 
> I'm an atheist and even I've felt upset at time about the lack of plan or meaning suggested by this process. But I do believe it. 
> 
> How can one square this with the idea of a creator? Did the creator start the process with single cells and let it rip randomly, genuinely unaware of what would result? Did he/she know what was going to develop? If there was a plan, why have all the random mutations, the majority of which served no purpose and did not survive? Just to throw us off the scent? Seems silly. Much as many creationists find it hard to believe that the complexity of even small organisms could have resulted from anything but intelligent design, I find it very difficult to imagine any entity being capable of working out the programme for creating life over billions of years, random mutations and all and hard to imagine why they'd take such a circuitous route. Ah well, more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy perhaps. But still, increasingly, not that many, because science has it's explanations not just for the development of organisms, but also the matter from which life was created. I'd be interested to know how far back you imagine the act of God that set it all off happened? I'd also be interested to hear your answer to Dyrwen's 'who created the creator' question. The only time I've asked a creationist this, he responded that this was 'a matter for faith' - which sounds like denial to me.


My friend, for I have had atheists as friends before, you are certainly entitled to your belief. In the long run, we both will come to the final day of our lives. I'm prepared to die for what I believe, and I do not fear the darkness. I've been a Christian for years. Now, I'm disabled from an illness. I could spend my days asking why? Or I can look ahead to what I believe awaits. My choice. This world doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. But it's the one I have to live in, so I go on believing and existing. Someone asked what proof I have that the Bible is the Word of God. To be perfectly truthful, none that they would accept, because it cannot be scientifically measured or tested. Hey, I'm honest. Try getting that out of most creationists. Take care. Dragon out.

----------


## Ancestor

> Ancestor,allow me to begin by apologizing for not only failing to to state that my post was reiterated fom arn,(access Research Network),Michael J. Behe FILES but also for my disrespectful report.But tell me,since I am not recieving a grade,royalties,or any acolades from the science community,or any other community--what difference does it make?Several posts have said the scientific community has proven Darwinism and I have attempted to show they have not.Not unlike myself when other posts make a scientific proclamation,they too have failed to disclose(quote)there source.Are they guilty also?On my not being respectful;How does my disrespect for what others think compare to the childish name calling and antagonistic posts that pagma and others have written?I have not said anyone was ignorant or their chosen theology was mumbo jumbo.
> 
> Taliesin,you are correct.They have achieved protiens in a LABORATORY condition--that is by intelligent design--Ooops.forgive me,I meant by"intelligent design"--lest I be accused of stealing a phrase.
> 
> Dyrwen--if Literature and scientific studies are entirely two different things--I didnt plagerize!And my ref.to you being an athiest was to point out your assesment that nothing is original must imply that whatever we say,think ,or do has its origin with GOD!


Yes, I am aware that many people on this entire forum quote from other sources but I have seen them state from who. Also when you copy word for word of a whole page that is plagiarism not matter who does it. As a writer it does matter because I would not want someone to copy word for word from a published piece I wrote. That feels like they are taking credit for my hard work plus I always quote others whether they are dead or alive. I expect to get the same respect I give to others and if that is wrong then there is not a thing I can do because it is not me to be disrespectful. If I ever show disrespect then I hope someone points it out to me and I can correct my behavior. I did not say others behavior was right but if it offends you then take it up with them. I would and expect them same treatment from them. Why do you hate atheistist? They have the right to believe that a creator does not exist as much as I have the right to believe in one. I believe that it took both creator and evolution to make the world we live in today. I may be wrong but that is one reason I am on this topic to see what other theories or ideals are out there. Being open minded for me helps me understand and even re-examine my own ideals. No one out to get you just trying to understand other points of view.

----------


## okmit

> It's always plagiarism until you cite your source, which you didn't do until I pointed it out. Now its a moot issue. Your second idea, if you could call it that, is barely put together in a readable line, but it doesn't appear to have much basis in this discussion in any case.
> 
> 
> I would like to bring this whole discussion to a point, because well, I dislike beating around the bush. So far things have gone like this: We give you evidence of evolution, you try to disprove it. We ask for evidence of creationism, you give us some idea about it all being "too complex" then ignore the questions I gave in response to that idea. 
> 
> So, do us a favor and do what no one in the history of the world has done: Give us empirical evidence of creationism; not just evidence trying to disprove evolution. Can you do that? I sure hope so, because I'm tired of all this running around in circles about theology and explanations and science in general if we aren't even going to see the other side of this discussion's evidence. 
> 
> So, have at it. And if you quote the Bible as a source, I want some tangible evidence found on earth referencable to check your point. i.e. If you were nuts enough to say something like man has one less rib than women, I'd check people around the world to make sure they all had or didn't have the same amount of ribs. (which they do) So please, give us your amazing evidence of creationism, since somehow the piles of evidence covering the walls of this place aren't good enough for you. Really. Go on.


Easy partner--your getting much to excited.This is a rap fest that can only end in a hung jury due to a lack of evidence from ANY side!And contrary to what Ancestor thinks of me I dont hate anyone.Thats a mistake I made 35 years ago and will not repeat(learned behavior.)Back to the subject;I dont know why you find it necessary too call me immature,ignorant,or thief but a wise man once said,quote"The man that angers you,controls you."

Check out this thought;God is knowledge,the universal solution to all problems.That would explain idiot sav'ant.child prodigy,CoCo,and even why we care about this subject!

----------


## Pendragon

> Why do you hate atheistist? They have the right to believe that a creator does not exist as much as I have the right to believe in one. I believe that it took both creator and evolution to make the world we live in today. I may be wrong but that is one reason I am on this topic to see what other theories or ideals are out there. Being open minded for me helps me understand and even re-examine my own ideals.


Ancestor, where were you when the smoking guns came after me for basically the same beliefs? I was begining to think I was on my own out here!

----------


## Dyrwen

> Easy partner--your getting much to excited.This is a rap fest that can only end in a hung jury due to a lack of evidence from ANY side!And contrary to what Ancestor thinks of me I dont hate anyone.Thats a mistake I made 35 years ago and will not repeat(learned behavior.)Back to the subject;I dont know why you find it necessary too call me immature,ignorant,or thief but a wise man once said,quote"The man that angers you,controls you."


If I were angry, I wouldn't be posting. I'm merely being direct with you, rather than rambling on about whatever pops up in the thread. We've given you fossil records, radiometric dating, and the ability to watch animals with shorter lifespans evolve over generations. You've given us: "God did it. It's all _too_ complex not to be." I give you empirical evidence, which you supposedly know about, yet you give me squat. I'm just looking for some evidence of creationism that isn't some hoity toity lovey dubby answer of "look into your heart" or "god made it all because god is good, etc". Just a little proof, something at least partially testable, ya know? But if you're not going to play ball, like every other person I've asked this question to, then don't. Not my problem, but I at least like to _ask_, just in case there is some evidence out there that finally popped up for creationism. Nice to see there still isn't though.

By the way, I only called you those things when you claimed in a shorter terminology that science was the root of all evil because of your years in the service, which somehow also meant that evolution was wrong because of it. If you had been less outlandish about the subject and addressed it as you normally did, for its supposed faults, rather than its implications that you've generalized over, I wouldn't have made such statements. 

And Pendragon, I haven't seen you claim you hated atheists, so yeah.. who knows where that came from, maybe your "tone" came off harsh or something. You do tend to have an odd sort of believe being espoused, which is hard to be certain of, since it looks sometimes like you disagree with evolution, but others like you don't. Guess you're just more capable of taking both sides at once than I.

----------


## Ancestor

> Easy partner--your getting much to excited.This is a rap fest that can only end in a hung jury due to a lack of evidence from ANY side!And contrary to what Ancestor thinks of me I dont hate anyone.Thats a mistake I made 35 years ago and will not repeat(learned behavior.)Back to the subject;I dont know why you find it necessary too call me immature,ignorant,or thief but a wise man once said,quote"The man that angers you,controls you."


I apologize for the error I made and that it should have read: Why do you dislike the concept atheistism? I miss phrased myself and I do apologize to anyone that I may have offended I meant not to.

----------


## Ancestor

I personally have for most of life wondered about how life truly began on Earth. I often thought about the Bible's version of Adam and Eve along starting out as organic ooze. I may not know for sure which of the two is true but there is evidence of neanderthal's roaming the earth. All the skulls that have been found showing the differents stages of man is proof of evolution taking place. Since I do believe in a higher being I do not see why we could not have started out as a creation which evolved through out time. Surely we must have evolved to meet the changing elements of the Earth. The Earth has also evolved since the creation of Earth and so why wouldn't we. I apologize if I went over the same things but this has me heated and I tend to repeat myself. I here out curiousity but I see that some of us and I won't name names are taking this way too seriously. I have enjoy reading others theories and belief's and it truly has helped me to grow.

----------


## Ancestor

> This quoted from this webpage-Prominent Hominid Fossils
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html 
> 
>  
> "Taung Child", Australopithecus africanus
> Discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924 at Taung in South Africa (Dart 1925). The find consisted of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endocranial cast of the brain. It is between 2 and 3 million years old, but it and most other South African fossils are found in cave deposits that are difficult to date. The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years old (it is now believed that australopithecines matured faster than humans, and that the Taung child was about 3). The brain size was 410 cc, and would have been around 440 cc as an adult. The large rounded brain, canine teeth which were small and not apelike, and the position of the foramen magnum(*) convinced Dart that this was a bipedal human ancestor, which he named Australopithecus africanus (African southern ape). Although the discovery became famous, Dart's interpretation was rejected by the scientific community until the mid-1940's, following the discovery of other similar fossils. 
> 
>  
> KNM-WT 40000, Kenyanthropus platyops
> Discovered by Justus Erus in 1999 at Lomekwi in Kenya (Leakey et al. 2001, Lieberman 2001). Estimated age is about 3.5 million years. This is a mostly complete, but heavily distorted, cranium with a large, flat face and small teeth. The brain size is similar to that of australopithecines. This fossil has considerable similarities with, and is possibly related to, the habiline fossil ER 1470.


Here are two skulls that are examples that some kind of evolution took place and how similar we were to apes at the time. Note is does not prove Darwin's theory but it does not disprove it either.

----------


## Pendragon

> And Pendragon, I haven't seen you claim you hated atheists, so yeah.. who knows where that came from, maybe your "tone" came off harsh or something. You do tend to have an odd sort of believe being espoused, which is hard to be certain of, since it looks sometimes like you disagree with evolution, but others like you don't. Guess you're just more capable of taking both sides at once than I.


Why hate someone for doing the same thing I'm doing, which is standing up for what they believe? Besides, if I say I believe the Bible, and then hate people, that doesn't scan right, ya know? I left a quote somewhere above from Thomas Jefferson. I guess people do think me strange, but I learned to read before I was 5. As we were dirt poor, and devoutly religious (somewhat fanatical wouldn't be too harsh) I read the Bible through many times. Then I began to ask questions, because I couldn't square the way people lived with what I read in the Bible. Needless to say, I soon got in hot water. As a teenager, I tried all kinds of philosophy and studied different religions (heresy to my church!) But the crux of it all was that after all the questions and searching, I came to belive the Bible--just not as my church preached it. Abraham Linclon once said that when a great man died, one man imitated the way he dressed, one the way he carried his sword, one his gait, and one his matter of speech, BUT NOT ONE TRIED TO BE THE GOOD MAN THAT HE WAS. That was the problem I found. People talk a good sermon but fail to LIVE a good sermon. Love must be unconditionial. I can call you "friend" and mean it, atheist or no, and talk to you without a lot of finger pointing and name calling. It's pointless anyway. You won't change me, and I'm unlikely to change you, but it can make a lively conversation! Take care, bud! Dragon out.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Ive been trying to think of an experiment to prove that there arent any hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. Its tricky, especially given that these hobgoblins may not be of material form. So, at the moment, I cannot prove or disprove that there are hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. I dont really think there are any, but thats a position of faith, I suppose.

(Ed Hollox, Guardian)

----------


## Scheherazade

I am reminded of this little poem:

As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish he'd go away.

~Hugh Mearns

----------


## blp

> Thank you for the pearl of wisdom--in my ignorance I thought it was due to human greed,and pomposity.The last Holy war I fought in was in Viet Nam--excuse me that one wasnt about religion.I was to young for the Korean crusade--no no,that one had nothing to do with religion either--the two world wars are exempt.But I'm sure your correct anyhow.I did have belief when I went that I could assist in stopping the "Domino Effect."That would be the Evil spread of Communism(common ownership of property.)Alas,after returning home(minus my right leg)my Gov. seized My Private Property and sold it for back taxes!!Draat,my faith and service to man failed me again.If you put your FAITH in man,your going too get screwd whether its a scientist,Governor,or a"holy man."
> Thanks again,okmit


Brrr, you've got an axe to grind obviously and one that certainly deserves a good grinding, but just because _some_ wars aren't about religion doesn't mean they all aren't. You think holy wars are old hat, therefore not relevant? The people who blew up the Twin Towers may not have agreed with you.

----------


## blp

> Ive been trying to think of an experiment to prove that there arent any hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. Its tricky, especially given that these hobgoblins may not be of material form. So, at the moment, I cannot prove or disprove that there are hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. I dont really think there are any, but thats a position of faith, I suppose.
> 
> (Ed Hollox, Guardian)


I think Wittgenstein once proved by logic to Betrand Russell that there was a hippopotamus in the room, though neither of them could see one.

----------


## Ancestor

Just because something cannot be seen doesn't mean that it never existed or could exist today. Yes it would be nice to have evidence you can see with your eyes and hold in your hand but that is not always going to be possible. I have had some experiences that I cannot prove by showing you but I know them to be true. What do you do? Just keep seeking and sooner or later you may find what you could not back then.

----------


## Jay

Dragons? Unicorns? Fairies? Trolls? and all other mythical beings?

btw, first dragon spotted is spoken for.

----------


## Nightshade

Some scientisits think there is evidence that the dragons really did exsist some kind of desendent of he dinasours, I think.

----------


## Nightshade

Ive been thinking about thi sthread for a while and though I havent acttally read most of the posts in it ( it got a bit complex for me and I sort of left it) so tell me if this has already been said but I Belive in creation. But it may not be as simple as GOd create ecverything just as it is prehaps He created evoloution which is why everything is constantly evolving. Does that make sense?

Recently I was reading (havent finished it yet though) _ The maddness of Adam and Eve: How scizophrinia shaped humanity_ In the book the author puts forward the theory on the evloution of human intelligance as down to the genetic mutation that allows us to become schizophrenic.
Sorry this is a bit random and not thought through properly  :Blush: 

Edit: I see I seem to be repeating Ansestor's ideas But yes that is exactly it If we all evolved from somthing where did that somthing come from?? My opioin is Creation but since we cant exactlly repeat it in experimental conditions And observe right from the begining when there was Nothing I suppose we can never know factually for sure. Im sure there is a theory that says the act of observing somthing changes it, anybody know what Im on about??

----------


## Ancestor

Guess then we should begin a Dragon fossil hunt and look for unicorns, trolls, and any other fable creature ever thought of. Point is anything could have existed and gone existinct long before you or I was born. The adventure is seeking the evidence along with this discussion.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Nightshade

Yes but I think they think they found one a dragon fssisl that is.

----------


## Pendragon

> I think Wittgenstein once proved by logic to Betrand Russell that there was a hippopotamus in the room, though neither of them could see one.


BLB, my friend, I'm not trying to start another argument, just trying to see things from another's POV. Now, if a person could prove, by logic, that something existed where nothing was apparent, why do we even argue the existence of God? Just asking.]

----------


## okmit

> Ive been trying to think of an experiment to prove that there arent any hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. Its tricky, especially given that these hobgoblins may not be of material form. So, at the moment, I cannot prove or disprove that there are hobgoblins at the bottom of my garden. I dont really think there are any, but thats a position of faith, I suppose.
> 
> (Ed Hollox, Guardian)


It appears Ed is an organic gardener that hasn't placed his faith in scientists and placed the hobgoblins,DDT--paraquot--diazinon etc.in the soil!
"Their are some folks that learn by reading,and some by listening,all the rest have too pee on an electric fence and find out for themselves." Will Rogers

----------


## okmit

> Brrr, you've got an axe to grind obviously and one that certainly deserves a good grinding, but just because _some_ wars aren't about religion doesn't mean they all aren't. You think holy wars are old hat, therefore not relevant? The people who blew up the Twin Towers may not have agreed with you.


Killing in the name of God is incongruous.
from the AP--" The man described as fugitive bombmaker Mohammed Deif,described Israel's withdrawl frome the Gaza Strip as a victory for ARMED Resistance,rejected calls for HIS group to disarm,and VOWED to continue attacks on Israel untill the Jewish state is erased from the map."
Would you say this is for God's sake,or Deif's?

Terrorism is based on modern secular modes of "mans self authorization,and not on the teachings of the Quran."Pope Benedict

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon, the problem I have with your position is that Darwin's theory is built around randomness. Just to spell it out for those not clear about it, the process of natural selection is the process by which some of the millions of mutations that happen to organisms for no reason at all, by accident, survive because they render the organism more suited to its environment. Numerous other mutations occur that do not survive. This is what is meant by survival of the fittest - fitness for specific environments, not strength per se.


BLP, it's me again. I guess by now, you think I'm your worst nightmare! I'm still musing over your POV, which is why it took me so long to answer this. The problem I have with randomness (chance) is the sheer mathmatics of it. My college prof. used to say, with his West Virginia wang, "In dealing with chance and probibility, you can run into a hellacious number really fast!" Understand his words, not mine. But if you wish to prove it, a standard deck of cards and four friends. Play Texas Hold-em. What are the chances that you get two aces? On the first deal, one in 13. But on the second deal other factors enter. For one only 48 cards are left. Only 3 aces are. That's assuming you got one on the first deal, and that no one else did. Giving you that, you now have a 3 out of 48 chance of getting that other ace. But wait. To get your chances, you MULTIPLY the two fractions. That comes out to 3 out of 624. And we haven't even factored in the other probabilities, (such as what if one or two others get a ace?!) Make it harder. Try getting the first one red, the second black. Even harder: First a heart, second a spade. Mathmatics takes chance and makes it unlikely. I'm not the only one not to belive in coincidence. Jung published work on the subject. So I'm not being relious nut here, just viewing from another POV, based on.....science

----------


## dejosc

being an atheist i have never understood how you cannot see even with some scientist sitting there waving the facts in your face that the bible is WRONG there may well be a god but he did not make man individually he did not make anything the reason this argument is still raging isbecause many people cant understand that not all things had a beggining, for if the universe never began but just was and always will be there there is no longer the argument the matter was just there and it always has been you did not need a god to create it. Therefore in the universe with an infinity of probabilities it is bound to happen that life is formed and from that life other lifeforms evolve and from them others. I cant see why this is still happening WHY cant people just think for a moment.


this has not been researched but is the feelings of a 15 year-old boy.

----------


## Dyrwen

dejosc, Ockam's Razor tends to agree with your feelings in that "the simplest answer is most often the most probable" in that there is one universe and because there is life in it, that demonstrates a probability that life can occur randomly in such a wide vastness of space, even if it isn't that high a probability. Evolution has been shown to occur and life hasn't been regulated to "God created" by the world's scientific minds, so the probability of such things occurring remains at 1 until all life ceases. In any case, some people prefer to have a god as their creator, rather than the most useful and beautiful universe itself. 

Love the turtle avatar, btw. It's turtles, all the way down...

----------


## Pendragon

In Posting on this forum, and expousing Creationism as a base, then Evolution from there on out (anyone can see that we are not one race as we would be if things hadn't changed since Eden!), I have received plenty of interesting reponse from my friends the Atheists, but none AT ALL from anyone who supposingly supports Creationism. Is this because of my statement that I question everything, including the existence of God (therefore strengthening my belief in Him), and things the Bible says (ditto)? Then allow me:

St. John 5:39 "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me." I John 4:1 "Beloved, belive not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false doctrines have gone out into the world." II Timothy 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needth not be ashamed, rightly deviding the word of truth." St. Matthew 7:7 "Ask, and it shall be given unto you: seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him." NOTE: The word translated as "heareth" also translalates as "understands", which you cannot do unless you ask questions...

Now, am I a hypocrite because I question? Seems to me the scriptures tell me to do just that. You've heard the old saying, "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." As I said before "Blind faith is no faith. Ask yourself why you believe what you believe and don't be so narrow-minded. Oh, and one more scripture, for benefit of those atheist friends who got hate messages. I John 4:20 " If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"

If any get mad at the scriptures, I didn't write them, I just quoted them. If you say you live by them and I stepped on your toes, wear steel toed boots or measured up to what you claim. Sermon over. Dragon out.

----------


## tiny explorer

> In Posting on this forum, and expousing Creationism as a base, then Evolution from there on out (anyone can see that we are not one race as we would be if things hadn't changed since Eden!), I have received plenty of interesting reponse from my friends the Atheists, but none AT ALL from anyone who supposingly supports Creationism. Is this because of my statement that I question everything, including the existence of God (therefore strengthening my belief in Him), and things the Bible says (ditto)? Then allow me:
> 
> St. John 5:39 "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me." I John 4:1 "Beloved, belive not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false doctrines have gone out into the world." II Timothy 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needth not be ashamed, rightly deviding the word of truth." St. Matthew 7:7 "Ask, and it shall be given unto you: seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him." NOTE: The word translated as "heareth" also translalates as "understands", which you cannot do unless you ask questions...
> 
> Now, am I a hypocrite because I question? Seems to me the scriptures tell me to do just that. You've heard the old saying, "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." As I said before "Blind faith is no faith. Ask yourself why you believe what you believe and don't be so narrow-minded. Oh, and one more scripture, for benefit of those atheist friends who got hate messages. I John 4:20 " If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
> 
> If any get mad at the scriptures, I didn't write them, I just quoted them. If you say you live by them and I stepped on your toes, wear steel toed boots or measured up to what you claim. Sermon over. Dragon out.



WOW!!!!
So good there huh!!You're not yet mad aren't you???I agree to you!!!I'm a bible believer and in a matter of ways you proved things right....They shouldn't be mad of the huge truth...it makes this sensible!! But I think you should have done things lightly so they don't have that crazy impact on you but still it's sooooooooo GOOD!  :Thumbs Up:   :Thumbs Up:   :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Adelheid

> Besides, how do we know that God isn't a monkey, after all? Has anybody ever seen him?
> [I know that man was made in God's image and all that, but some people really do look like monkeys  ] Loki


God isn't a monkey. neither is he like any other creatures his created. Man made him to be so. The Bible says He is a Spirit, the Great I AM.

Read this passage, you'll know what I mean:



> "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. " Romans 1:16-23


God is a spirit: 



> "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2


And I don't think I've ever seen anyone look like this before: (see 1st attachment)

And I can imagine that Darwin would change his theory once he saw this:  :FRlol:  (see 2nd attachment)

----------


## Adelheid

> Originally Posted by Pendragon
> In Posting on this forum, and expousing Creationism as a base, then Evolution from there on out (anyone can see that we are not one race as we would be if things hadn't changed since Eden!), I have received plenty of interesting reponse from my friends the Atheists, but none AT ALL from anyone who supposingly supports Creationism.


If you care to look through the 32 pages or so, (which I doubt- then you must take my word for it  :Wink:  ) I have made the same statement before.  :Smile:  I was asking those who voted creation for support, but not much came. heh... I'm glad you came along, though....  :Thumbs Up:   :Biggrin:

----------


## atiguhya padma

Ancestor said:

<I have had some experiences that I cannot prove by showing you but I know them to be true.>

What method did you use to determine they were true?

----------


## Ancestor

Like knowing that my sister had a infection causing her white blood cells to clot and that she would lose a leg before she went into the hospital two days later. I touched her foot and that was all it took for me to know something I never should have known. Another experience was when a woman hugged me and I knew she had terminal cancer throughout her entire body and that she had six months to live. Six months later I was informed that she had died of cancer and talk aobut blowing someone's mind away that did it. Now you tell me was those two experience's false? They came true later and at first I prayed that I was wrong about my sister but I was not. My mother asked if I knew she would lose her leg two days prior to the doctors discison to amputate. I knew and I told my mother what I knew. That is the only way I can determine that it is true or not.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Can you tell me the mechanism you used to determine this information? Your response doesn't give me any clues to a method being used.

----------


## Ancestor

> Can you tell me the mechanism you used to determine this information? Your response doesn't give me any clues to a method being used.


Well, that is a good question and I am not sure I really can answer because I feel it. Do you know what a emapthic person is? I get the feeling you may not believe this line of thinking or the fact I have a ability that feels other peoples emotions, illness, and spiritual energy. I did not use a mechanism because there are not any that I am aware of that can determine my ability is true. I am sorry for being so terrible at explaining this but it is hard because I get this feeling and words form in head and then come true. I am sound like a crazy woman and a arrogant one but I just know. I can touch a check and even know if it is forged or not. It just happens to me and I have always known which kid would die before graduation day. Makes me a bit morbid I do apologize. The method I can say a paranormal method.

----------


## Pendragon

> WOW!!!!
> So good there huh!!You're not yet mad aren't you???I agree to you!!!I'm a bible believer and in a matter of ways you proved things right....They shouldn't be mad of the huge truth...it makes this sensible!! But I think you should have done things lightly so they don't have that crazy impact on you but still it's sooooooooo GOOD!


Mad? No. Just out to make a point. Sometimes I don't know my own power of persuasion.  :Smile:  I thought for a while I had brought this discussion to a screeching halt, which was not my intention. I was beginning to enjoy the intellectual exercise. It's not easy when you at least TRY to see the other man's POV. If I come across as harsh, I'm just being emphatic in what I believe. Thanks for the thumbs up! Dragon out!

----------


## Pendragon

> If you care to look through the 32 pages or so, (which I doubt- then you must take my word for it  ) I have made the same statement before.  I was asking those who voted creation for support, but not much came. heh... I'm glad you came along, though....


Actually, I've read this whole post, beginning to end. That's why I came along. But AFTER I came along, I thought people who espoused Creationism thought me crazy, thus my last post. It's good to know at least SOME of you don't. I'm used to it by now, since I can't help being the Great Questioner, but it's because of those questions and a quest to find the truth that solidified my faith in God and the Bible. And before anyone asks, no, I don't have all the answers, nor do I ever expect to in this world. Dragon out.

----------


## Dyrwen

Thought I'd throw this article out there, since it's rather interesting. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/sc...30profile.html

The wonders of public education has more problems than just evolution and creationism... 
"One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century."

----------


## Pendragon

> Thought I'd throw this article out there, since it's rather interesting. 
> The wonders of public education has more problems than just evolution and creationism... 
> "One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century."


You've got to be kidding me, oh eccentric one! Even the "Great Questioner" doesn't question that...

----------


## blp

Well, the church was very hostile to this one too when it first popped up, I seem to remember.

----------


## Dyrwen

Indeed. Even the texts pointed to a flat earth and the universe revolving around us. It's not all that surprising that some would choose to follow such an ancient belief when the ego is still inside all of us to think the same way.

Considering most folks in the US can't point out any country but Canada, Mexico and maybe "europe" (even though it's a continent) on a map, this sort of thing is par for the course.

----------


## Taliesin

Offtopic, we know, but:



> Considering most folks in the US can't point out any country but Canada, Mexico and maybe "europe" (even though it's a continent) on a map, this sort of thing is par for the course.


This is some kind of joke, yes?
We mean - _majority?_ Well, this could be true for one person in, say 10000 (not counting very young kids) but, most folks? We don't buy it.

----------


## Dyrwen

Okay, so maybe "most" was the wrong word, but it's still too high for all the education we have.

"A recent National Geographic survey found that only one in seven Americans aged between 18 and 24 could find Iraq or Iran on a map. While 58 percent knew about Afghanistan, only 17 percent could find it on a world map.

When asked to find 10 specific states on a map of the U.S., 89 percent could locate California and Texas, but only 51 percent could find New York. On a world map, Americans could only find seven of 16 countries in the quiz. Eleven percent couldn't even find the U.S. on the map, and 29 percent couldn't find the Pacific Ocean. "
Sourced

Buy whatever you want, the facts are pretty stupefying.

----------


## Edmond

I am too feeble minded to grasp the origins of everything, whether god created man, revolution "made" man, I guess the reason I "belive" in evolution is because there is no better thing for me to believe in. 
Our living world can be mostly explained by science, science is from logical reason, therefore my logic is that, if not religion, then it must be evolution, until someone comes up with something else that is more logically persuasive then those above.
In term of logic, creationism is absolutely laughble, I remember once when I went to a church gathering, a relgious person "tried" to somehow convince me (a logician) to believe that creationism makes more logical sense, I laughed in his face. There was another incident, when I was in a christian Chinese gathering, I heard people say that:"god made people from himself". I laughed very hard afterwards, well, then why is he white? What should he be a mix of black asian and white? he can't be a mixture, because we are not alike, in term of logic, this simply makes no sense, so my mind easily abandoned Creationism.
In term of evolution, it was also troubling, because it doesn't explain the 'origin', it says that we evolve through natural selection, fine, we came from chimps, chimps came from smaller mammels, etc. until we say that life emerged as a single cell organism, well, where did that come from, can DNA be engineered ingorganicly? The same problem apply for theoritical physics, I asked my friend once: "what's outside of the universe?" He laughed at me saying:"THere is nothing out of the universe, hence the term UNIVERSE". But, since universe was once created, there must be something outside of the universe, right? and I am at where I started, and there is no point going any further, because we will arrive at the same conclusion anyways, my conclusion is that my brain is to feeble, to grasp the truth.

Why do I believe in Origin of species? Not becasue I believe it's true, because I know it's true, I think people ought to separate Science with religion, the two are like water and fire, they are not meant to be combined, they are much more efficent when separated.
-E. Brume

----------


## Edmond

> Considering most folks in the US can't point out any country but Canada, Mexico and maybe "europe" (even though it's a continent) on a map, this sort of thing is par for the course.


HASTY GENERALIZATION
This is a fallacious argument, have you surveyed 'most folks' in US, I live in US too,(west coast) I can't speak for all americans, I belive that the majority of the Americans are smarter then you think, because on TV, whether is JAY leno or any other show, they tend to make fun of REALLY stupid people, they are a minority, yet when people see them on TV, they (the stupid ones) percieved that "most americans are illiterate, and stupid", this is very wrong, and I thought that this forum is for intelligent people, guess i was wrong.
That's why I suggest everyone, well atleast people who believe they obey the laws of logic, to actualy stuy logic, memorize all the fallacies, because if you can make impeccable logical arguments, it's easier to express your ideas.
-E.Brume

----------


## Dyrwen

> In term of evolution, it was also troubling, because it doesn't explain the 'origin', it says that we evolve through natural selection, fine, we came from chimps, chimps came from smaller mammels, etc. until we say that life emerged as a single cell organism, well, where did that come from, can DNA be engineered ingorganicly?


Those first one-celled organisms came from amino acids, water, and electricity. Put those together and with enough action happening life happens to emerge at times, or at least, it did once. Realistically exobiology and abiogenesis therein would explain this all a lot better, but there's always the more simplistic Miller/Urey experiments, located here.

And to your comment about generalizations, way not to even read the second link I posted when I was questioned about it. It isn't too general, and perhaps if you could comment or critique the second source I gave explaniing how stupid geography guesses are wrong, I would take you more seriously.

----------


## Pendragon

> Indeed. Even the texts pointed to a flat earth and the universe revolving around us. It's not all that surprising that some would choose to follow such an ancient belief when the ego is still inside all of us to think the same way.
> 
> Considering most folks in the US can't point out any country but Canada, Mexico and maybe "europe" (even though it's a continent) on a map, this sort of thing is par for the course.


Putting it that way, from that POV, I have no choice but to agree. But there is one thing I've found by my constant questioning and research. Back when I was in public school, we were taught American History, and indeed, World History, not exactly correctly. I can never remember, but I think it was Oscar Wilde that said the trouble with history is that it is written by those who win...  :Nod:

----------


## coffeestained

> This is a fallacious argument, have you surveyed 'most folks' in US,


Not really, as theres nothing to argue (much like the actually topic of the thread). 




> I belive that the majority of the Americans are smarter then you think, because on TV, whether is JAY leno or any other show, they tend to make fun of REALLY stupid people, they are a minority, yet when people see them on TV, they (the stupid ones) percieved that "most americans are illiterate, and stupid", this is very wrong, and I thought that this forum is for intelligent people, guess i was wrong.


Sorry, kiddo. 1) the simple fact that Jay Leno is a huge, huge star and is considered funny immediately negates your theory of a smarter American. 2) these poles are taken all the time by various newspapers and other venues. Hardly scientific but generally pretty indicative of the idea. 
Needless to say many people a) living in America agree with them b) countless others experience the idiot brigades of the (dreaded) American Tourist c) etc 
2b) I wont bust on your numerous spelling and grammar mistakes in a post trying to cite the brain power of Americans

To those that believe in myths, creator is not necessarily synonymous with god.

----------


## blp

> 2b) I wont bust on your numerous spelling and grammar mistakes in a post trying to cite the brain power of Americans


Yeah right you won't!  :Wink:

----------


## Edmond

> Not really, as theres nothing to argue (much like the actually topic of the thread). 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, kiddo. 1) the simple fact that Jay Leno is a huge, huge star and is considered funny immediately negates your theory of a smarter American. 2) these poles are taken all the time by various newspapers and other venues. Hardly scientific but generally pretty indicative of the idea. 
> Needless to say many people a) living in America agree with them b) countless others experience the idiot brigades of the (dreaded) American Tourist c) etc 
> 2b) I wont bust on your numerous spelling and grammar mistakes in a post trying to cite the brain power of Americans
> 
> To those that believe in myths, creator is not necessarily synonymous with god.



I am really sorry for my informal and mis-use of the english grammar, for I am a very ignorant fool who has not yet master the English language, Perhaps my post will be easier if I write them in Chinese or French, but oops, you can't read Chinese or French, or can you? 

You are right, Jay Leno is not an intellectual, but that doesn't mean that intelligent people dislike him, I like to think that humor has little to do with intelligence, whether you are smart or stupid, you will always be happy to laugh, although I sometimes think Jay Leno makes very foolish jokes, but that entertains me, a program about western history entertains me as well, one intellectually another emotionally, so I don't see why it negates my theory.

I was not born in America, and yes indeed, I have experienced many 'fools' is my life in america, and I did think that most americans are ignorant and couldn't find more than 3 countries on the ATLAS. Then I went to the Highschool that I am currently in, and my past views have been shattered into pieces, i have met more intelligent people in my grade than any other place that I have been to. Perhaps we have a different life experience.

I apologize again for my grammar mistakes, for it is still not up the standard, I am still learning and improving, that's why I am in school right? But, I must say it is kind hard to keep up 3 languages while you are only useing one of them.

Xu Fuzi
"It is the way of the Tao,
that things which expand might also shrink;
that he who is strong, will at some time be weak,
that he who is raised will then be cast down,
and that all men have a need to give,
and also have a need to receive.
The biggest fish stay deep in the pond,
and a country's best weapons
should be kept locked away.
That which is soft and supple,
may overcome the hard and strong." - Lao Tse

----------


## dejosc

> HASTY GENERALIZATION
> This is a fallacious argument, have you surveyed 'most folks' in US, I live in US too,(west coast) I can't speak for all americans, I belive that the majority of the Americans are smarter then you think, because on TV, whether is JAY leno or any other show, they tend to make fun of REALLY stupid people, they are a minority, yet when people see them on TV, they (the stupid ones) percieved that "most americans are illiterate, and stupid", this is very wrong, and I thought that this forum is for intelligent people, guess i was wrong.
> That's why I suggest everyone, well atleast people who believe they obey the laws of logic, to actualy stuy logic, memorize all the fallacies, because if you can make impeccable logical arguments, it's easier to express your ideas.
> -E.Brume


if all americans do have an IQ above 60 would they have voted ia nd illiterate moronic presidnt, i know there are some clever peple but around lets say 51% are complete idiots therfore over half of your populaton arent very bright.

----------


## Scheherazade

Please refrain from bringing current politics into discussion and tyr to stay on topic!  :Wink:

----------


## mono

> In term of logic, creationism is absolutely laughble, I remember once when I went to a church gathering, a relgious person "tried" to somehow convince me (a logician) to believe that creationism makes more logical sense, I laughed in his face. There was another incident, when I was in a christian Chinese gathering, I heard people say that:"god made people from himself". I laughed very hard afterwards, well, then why is he white? What should he be a mix of black asian and white? he can't be a mixture, because we are not alike, in term of logic, this simply makes no sense, so my mind easily abandoned Creationism.
> In term of evolution, it was also troubling, because it doesn't explain the 'origin', it says that we evolve through natural selection, fine, we came from chimps, chimps came from smaller mammels, etc. until we say that life emerged as a single cell organism, well, where did that come from, can DNA be engineered ingorganicly? The same problem apply for theoritical physics, I asked my friend once: "what's outside of the universe?" He laughed at me saying:"THere is nothing out of the universe, hence the term UNIVERSE". But, since universe was once created, there must be something outside of the universe, right? and I am at where I started, and there is no point going any further, because we will arrive at the same conclusion anyways, my conclusion is that my brain is to feeble, to grasp the truth.


Well said, Edmond.
Though, it seems, many passages of _The Bible_ science has empirically dis-proven, I would like to think that any religious text contains its own elements of truth, perhaps through analogy, fables, and the like, despite that I cannot quite "side" with any religion.
In a story (or maybe analogy) like that of Adam and Eve, that Eve allegedly grew from one of the ribs of Adam, does this perhaps imply a very fast example (within a person's lifetime) of an evolving cell? If, indeed, Adam consisted of the first person, and, in a way, another corresponding person literally grew from an odd place of his body, this has much relevance toward a mitosis-like division between two eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells.

----------


## djtru

Just one quick thing, evolution is just as much a question of faith as is creation, or religion in general. When a thing is not proved, it is a leap of faith in either direction.

----------


## Dyrwen

If you say so. 

Evolution: Millions of pieces of evidence pointing towards a common theory.
Creationism: One book, full of testimonies rather than evidence, believed in by many to assume a common idea is correct. 

One of these uses faith, but if you want to think they both do, let's just say the reasoning/probability scale on one of them is a little bit higher.

----------


## Pendragon

More back to the topic. Concerning the fossil evidence for human evolution, it often consists of a single skull. Now I don't deny said skull exists. I'm just wondering if one can infer an entire sub-race of man from one skull. Let us say they had found the skull of one Andre the Giant, for example. Besides his enormous size, Andre also had half again as many teeth as an ordinary man. THAT would have sent the old gong off, no? I recall someone speaking of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, thus making evolution possible. By the same logic, it makes creationism possible. Matter of fact, it makes ANYTHING possible. Somethings are more PROBABLE than others. There is the crux of the matter. I still believe in God, a creator. But evolution is the most PROBABLE reason why we do not all look the same, etc. I belive I posted the math for the probibility above somewhere. It, chance, is UNLIKELY, but still REASONABLE with some limitations. No species changing into another, for example, just each species evolving into a diffrent form.

----------


## coffeestained

> I am really sorry for my informal and mis-use of the english grammar, for I am a very ignorant fool who has not yet master the English language,


Dont be sorry, the first W in www stands for world, I just found it a bit (well, more than a bit) ironic 




> Perhaps my post will be easier if I write them in Chinese or French, but oops, you can't read Chinese or French, or can you?


The irony bell chimes again. 
Another typical American trait. 
If I may suggest: _n assume jamais que_ 
(never assume).
Admittedly, my French is shaky and I have a very cute colleague from China & I wouldnt mind her sitting close and translating, so do whatever you feel comfortable with. 
Maybe Ill respond in German or Italian




> I like to think that humor has little to do with intelligence,


Cant say I agree in the least there




> Then I went to the Highschool that I am currently in, and my past views have been shattered into pieces, i have met more intelligent people in my grade than any other place that I have been to. Perhaps we have a different life experience.


Well, yes, my life experience is based on exactly that, a life experience, not an isolated high school case. Last I heard America was a bit bigger than a high school. 

This, to get it slightly back on-topic, is about as asinine as finding a old chest engraved with Jesus Brother and insisting this is proof of a quasi-fictional (at best) character




> I apologize again for my grammar mistakes, for it is still not up the standard, I am still learning and improving, that's why I am in school right? But, I must say it is kind hard to keep up 3 languages while you are only useing one of them.


No blood, no foul. Youre doing fine. As I said, I just found it quirky




> Please refrain from bringing current politics into discussion and tyr to stay on topic!


It all kinda messes in though, current politics: intelligent design (I tried not to laugh while typing that); American notions/beliefs/stupidity. 




> In a story (or maybe analogy) like that of Adam and Eve, that Eve allegedly grew from one of the ribs of Adam, does this perhaps imply a very fast example (within a person's lifetime) of an evolving cell? If, indeed, Adam consisted of the first person, and, in a way, another corresponding person literally grew from an odd place of his body, this has much relevance toward a mitosis-like division between two eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells.


Aside from thinking childrens tale, tales believed to be The Truth while being *clearly* just borrowed (as the lawyers of the time werent yet established I refrain from stealing or plagiarized) from older texts is outlandish, your thought isinteresting. 




> Just one quick thing, evolution is just as much a question of faith as is creation, or religion in general. When a thing is not proved, it is a leap of faith in either direction.


not proved? 
Um, no. 
And no again. 




> I belive I posted the math for the probibility above somewhere.


No. You posted about a card trick. And called it science. 
Go play your game of cards for ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh billions of years and see what happens.

----------


## Pendragon

> No. You posted about a card trick. And called it science. 
> Go play your game of cards for ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh billions of years and see what happens.


Funny. I got this "card trick" out of a college level math book. Probability math remains the same whether you use cards or whatever you like. With each additional condition that has to be met, the odds get longer. That is no trick, that is scientific fact. Cards was a simple example I felt anyone should be able to understand.

----------


## coffeestained

> Funny. I got this "card trick" out of a college level math book. Probability math remains the same whether you use cards or whatever you like. With each additional condition that has to be met, the odds get longer. That is no trick, that is scientific fact. Cards was a simple example I felt anyone should be able to understand.


You could use some further reading. 
And needless to say you invalid example of cards-to-science is about as hollow as, the bible says its so!
Try reading, for example, _Full House_ by Stephen Jay Gould. 
Theres even some math stuff in there for you (yes, a science book that talks about the death of .400 hitting in baseball.). 
And for the record, you can feel comfortable read SJG, he believes in your invisible people (or person, which is even more warped, as most seem to think) too. 

Biologya deck of cards. Um, no.

----------


## Edmond

The bottom line is, people don't care, Creationism, if you believe in that, fine, if you believe in Evolution Fine, I think the problem is not about where will came from but where we are going to..

The technologies we invented in the last 2-3 centries have disfigured our mother earth, the polluted air in industrial cities, the radiation around former nuclear test sides, factories have helped to created foul smelling and toxic rivers. WE ARE DESTROYING HUMANITY, why are we so selfish? We are not the master race, human race is just like a dogs, or grasshopper or an ant, living on the planet that was not design exclusively for Huamns.(actually no, because animals only eat very few of each other for the purpose of satisfying hunger, People nuke each other for much more sinister reasons and killing thousand times more, so, I guess that's the difference between Human and Animals) it is our home, and theirs also. If you don't wish having a stranger coming into your house and trash your home, then don't do this to mother earth.
The enviorment is vitally important not only to our survial but animals and our descendents as well. Why are here wasting time arguing where we came from, as if it is of any importance, we should argue where we are going to go, is it to doom( the direction we are heading right now), or save our planet, by not wasting too much natural resources.
The Japanese have done a great job in my opinion, they recycle and use wind/solar powers, this is what I hate about the americans: they drive enormous cars that often occupying only one person, and look what is happening now, China is getting onto the energy bandwagon as well, one day there will be no gas left, and no atmosphere, or any living creatures just sand, sand.

 -E.Brume

----------


## Pendragon

> You could use some further reading. 
> And needless to say you invalid example of cards-to-science is about as hollow as, the bible says its so!
> Try reading, for example, _Full House_ by Stephen Jay Gould. 
> Theres even some math stuff in there for you (yes, a science book that talks about the death of .400 hitting in baseball.). 
> And for the record, you can feel comfortable read SJG, he believes in your invisible people (or person, which is even more warped, as most seem to think) too. 
> 
> Biologya deck of cards. Um, no.


For the record, I'm comfortable reading anyone regardless of what they believe. If you look back up the list, I've read Charles Darwin, even posted that I wished people would at least have the deacency to quote the man right. I never claimed to have all the answers. But I think Mendel's reserch would tend to back up that the more factors that must be met to insure a valid result the higher the odds of acheiving said result. If that means I'm living in la-la land, I'm sure trying to see things from other points of view, to further my knowledge. That's why I'm the "Great Questioner." I question first, believe latter.  :Smile:  (if at all).

----------


## Adelheid

Woah!! *whistles*

Where HAS this thread gone to since I last saw it a few days ago???!!!! *drops mouth*  :Biggrin: 

I think sometimes that people tend to look on only ONE side of the argument... and only that which is published... most books (and movies that start off with billions and billions of years ago.... yeah right!  :Rolleyes: ) now take it for a fact that evolution is undisputably true...

Yet there is undenyable a LOT of holes in the theory which can never be patched up by men to make it LOOK credible, simply because it's all a lie from the beginning! Look now.... at your calendar.... for example. If the world did come about as you evolutionists say it did (by a big bang, blah, blah) then obviously the world wouldn't be surviving now.... All men's efforts cannot even produce a little "living planet" then how can you peoples ever suppose a MISTAKE is suppose to accomplish that! Goodness! What blind people are who refuse to believe the truth! 

Then no. 2 mistake..... The days and the seasons have not changed. Imagine that for the first year, your winter might be in June -August (for Aussies) and summer in December-Feb but then asthe years go by, everything is going to change! Summer would be in June-Aug and Winter in Dec-Feb! It isn't a pure chance that can cause such a brillant universe to come about.... come on where is all your scepticism when it cames to this! Believingthe Bible, which has little wording problems (which can be done away easily enough) you pick out as if it means much. Yet all the things your theory is founded upon aren't even that secure in the first place, and yet you use a little rag cloth to bind up the forlorn gap growing bigger each day, frantically trying to sew it all up before it rips apart...

Come on. This won't do. Reality is cruel if like adilyoussef, you live is a land of illusions amd dreams, untiol you wake up to harsh truth one day, which will then demand of you what good did u do with the truth. Then of course, you can't deny and say you never knew the truth, for I'm telling you the truth NOW....

But it's up to all of you. The truth is in your hands. Do what you want with it. Believe or deny. It's your choice. The world is all about choices.  :Nod:

----------


## coffeestained

> The bottom line is, people don't care,


Um, then why is this thread so long? And why is it current semi-Headline News?




> Creationism, if you believe in that, fine, if you believe in Evolution Fine, I think the problem is not about where will came from but where we are going to..


Snideness aside, I do pretty much agree with you. Im open to the idea of past creators (note the plural, as the idea of just one is idiotic to the extreme), but something that is long gone and has absolutely nothing to do with a god that desires subservience. 
The belief in god is a *need*, and says far more about the individual(s) then it does about non-entities. 
But all in all, the creator thing is, to me, unlikely. 
Although the idea that we are a failed experiment does come to mind every time I watch the news or see another human being. 

Science, and much of the course of evolution, is simple fact. But I truly gain nothing from trying to convince anyone of this. They can believe _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ is a true story for all I careand I find the idea of debating someone that subscribes to a literature forum but negates the works of William Shakespeare and the Brontes as dismissible something along the lines of colossally wasting my time. 




> People nuke each other for much more sinister reasons and killing thousand times more, so, I guess that's the difference between Human and Animals)


Well, pesky humans also have this idea of always trying to outdo death. Nature has many ways to cull the population, but humans have found ways to eradicate many of the diseases and plagues that once acted as a population control. 
And breed much, much, much too often. 




> we should argue where we are going to go, is it to doom( the direction we are heading right now), or save our planet, by not wasting too much natural resources.


Hmmm. optimistic. Youre young, aintcha? 
Keep in mind that Bush now has 2 vacancies on the Supreme Court. You want your future? 
****ed sums it up pretty well. 




> If you look back up the list, I've read Charles Darwin, even posted that I wished people would at least have the deacency to quote the man right.


Well, times have changed a bit since Chucky Da believer in a creator, by the by

And anyone contributing to this thread that _hasnt_ read some basics on eolution should shut the hell up.
This notion that everyone has a right to an opinion is really pretty bizarre. And the internet has only added to it. 
The only thing anyone has a right to is an *informed* opinion. 




> But I think Mendel's reserch would tend to back up that the more factors that must be met to insure a valid result the higher the odds of acheiving said result.


Mendels research also accounts for mutations. Which is a key factor in evolution. 
Youre really taking a bunch of isolated scenarios and trying to fit them into the wrong (w)hole. 




> That's why I'm the "Great Questioner." I question first, believe latter.  (if at all).


Every time I read your self-proclamation I get the itches. It seems more that you _think_ yourself some great questioner until you find a theory (or answer) that youre comfortable with. 




> I think sometimes that people tend to look on only ONE side of the argument...


How can that be when there really _is_ no argument? 




> and only that which is published...


Yes. I agree. 
Burn your bibles now. 




> Yet there is undenyable a LOT of holes in the theory which can never be patched up by men to make it LOOK credible,


I agree. Kill your priests now!!




> If the world did come about as you evolutionists say it did (by a big bang, blah, blah) then obviously the world wouldn't be surviving now....


er, um. Based on what asinine theory? 




> What blind people are who refuse to believe the truth!


Please! Only so much irony per post!! 




> The days and the seasons have not changed.


Ah. So because the planet isnt constantly spinning out of alignment is your answer for gawd. Gotcha. 




> Believingthe Bible, which has little wording problems


Aside from blatant theft from older material and a _very_ wide array of contradictions? Are you sure youve read the sodding thing? 




> (which can be done away easily enough) you pick out as if it means much.


Ive always been fond of the scene where a drunk Noah gets porked by his son. Tasty stuffOuch!




> yet you use a little rag cloth to bind up the forlorn gap


The Shroud of Turin? 




> growing bigger each day, frantically trying to sew it all up before it rips apart...


Yes, cuz the bible gang have such solid facts to create holes in ityawn. 




> Come on. This won't do. Reality is cruel if like adilyoussef, you live is a land of illusions amd dreams, untiol you wake up to harsh truth one day, which will then demand of you what good did u do with the truth. Then of course, you can't deny and say you never knew the truth, for I'm telling you the truth NOW....


Fascinating. Id guess your medication wore off before finishing your post. Thanks for documenting it. Utterly fascinating.

----------


## Pendragon

> Although the idea that we are a failed experiment does come to mind every time I watch the news or see another human being.


Then I sincerely hope you are happy in your lonely little world, if you can't even bear the sight of another human being. I gather, then, that you think yourself the epitome of human elovution, the most brilliant mind ever.




> Every time I read your self-proclamation I get the itches. It seems more that you _think_ yourself some great questioner until you find a theory (or answer) that youre comfortable with.


And you I notice throw snide remarks and downright insults at anyone you disagree with. Touching. I question and manage to remain civil, even when disagreeing. You make no secret that you feel everyone else is a dolt for believing anything less that what you proclaim is the truth. All we have a right to is an *informed* opinion? And, I take it, you will inform us what that opinion is? And excuse me, but we are the ones who are supposed to be crazy? Hum...  :FRlol:

----------


## Pendragon

> extreme), 
> and I find the idea of debating someone that subscribes to a literature forum but negates the works of William Shakespeare and the Brontes as dismissible something along the lines of colossally wasting my time.


So I don't like the Brontes' writing and I'm not into Shakespeare. If you disagree with me there, post it on that forum. If you feel you're "colossally wasting" your time debating with me, then don't. You are probably a person who would never step out of the way for a fool. I on the other hand, always do.  :Smile:  Most civilly yours. Dragon out.

----------


## coffeestained

> Then I sincerely hope you are happy in your lonely little world, if you can't even bear the sight of another human being. I gather, then, that you think yourself the epitome of human elovution, the most brilliant mind ever.


Flip back some: never assume. (tis good advice, even for someone always questioning)
And dont paraphrase me. 
My words are right there in front of you. 
Dont just read them: comprehend them. 
No need to create a little back-story or embellish. 




> And you I notice throw snide remarks and downright insults at anyone you disagree with. Touching. I question and manage to remain civil, even when disagreeing.


Interesting that someone cracking your debate open to show you its hollow interior (as if the exterior wasnt malnourished enough) is deemed as uncivil. 




> All we have a right to is an *informed* opinion?


You honestly think anyone should just blab on about anything they know nothing about? (rhetorical question, simply based on your above observations). 

Conversation is already dying out; lets not give any wanker with a modem and a keyboard the right to step on the soapbox. 
Or to put it in more hip terms: if youre gonna come: come correct. 




> And, I take it, you will inform us what that opinion is?


Im not that bold. Nor have the time. 
Informed opinions usually ring a bit stronger than the nonsense. Usually. 

Dont get so slighted, Im not out to get you. intelligent design simply has no content. Since there is no content there is no argument. 
(I think Im paraphrasing (or maybe directly quoting) Dr. Daniel Dennett there)

You kids unearth (pun intended) some, bring it forth.

----------


## sir

quite fascinating the...evolution of this thread.

best quality coffee spilled everywhere, is spreading a fresh aroma...
I light a cigarette and say: "eppur si muove!"

----------


## Scheherazade

Religious discussion are always sensitive, causing the most upset. However, it is good to remember that we all come here to exchange ideas as well sharing our views _and_ it is these opinions that we disagree with. Please do not attack personally those who disagree with your views. We cannot expect others to change their beliefs just because we say so. 

If you cannot accept this and/or do not want your opinions to be criticised by others, please stay away from these threads.

----------


## Pendragon

> Flip back some: never assume. (tis good advice, even for someone always questioning)


Quite right. I apologize. As Sherlock Holmes always said, "It is a mistake to theorize without all the facts."



> Interesting that someone cracking your debate open to show you its hollow interior (as if the exterior wasnt malnourished enough) is deemed as uncivil. 
> Im not out to get you. intelligent design simply has no content. Since there is no content there is no argument. 
> (I think Im paraphrasing (or maybe directly quoting) Dr. Daniel Dennett there)
> 
> You kids unearth (pun intended) some, bring it forth.


Neither am I out to get you. I just don't think you've proved me wrong. Mendel allowed for mutations, yes. A mutation is a variation from the norm, a result other than the one one should expect given a set of circumstances. It just adds another factor into the equation and lengthens the odds of its occurance. That's all I'm trying to say.

----------


## Adelheid

Pshaw.... since when did Mutation ever mutate something for the better as evolution claims to have done? Also, one cannot 'mutate' so far as to change environment and subtances.... like feathers to scales or vise versa.  :Brow:

----------


## atiguhya padma

I doubt very much that evolution claims that mutations mutate for the better. What do you mean by 'better'? It appears to me that mutations persist if they maintain or increase a species fit to its environment.

----------


## coffeestained

> Religious discussion are always sensitive, causing the most upset.


Your sentence is incomplete. Here, Ill finish it for youcausing the most upset by those that possibly/potentially question their beliefs, many (if not all) times because it is based on little-to-nothing.

Nothing to get upset about if one has a foundation to base their opinion on. 




> If you cannot accept this and/or do not want your opinions to be criticised by others, please stay away from these threads.


You should really leave this kind of bunk to the moderators. 
Everyones doing fine here. 
Pendragon took a side-swipe and tried to create an image of me, which is fairly typical of someone with no argument and tries to weight the side in their favour - although I have a big feeling youre addressing your warning to me, which is funny, to say the least. 

Those that have no thesis will interject with Pshaw (for example) from time to time, and while slightly amusing (if not disconcerting), its a no blood, no foul arena. 




> I just don't think you've proved me wrong.


One would have to make a statement based on something to be proved wrong. 
Youre linking Mendels Law of Independent Assortment [let alone a card deck in a closed system] which 1) is only ~150 years old and 2) sorry to say, being shown to have some flaws in certain plant species (I believe it was out of Purdue, I can try to dig up the article if you wish) to an abolishment of evolutionary fact and theory is, as I jested before, trying to hammer the square peg in the round hole. 
Far weaker than Behes in-depth theory that our blood clots (among other things), so there must be a creator. 
Sorry, "irreducibly complex (Behe again) doesnt mean gawd. 




> Pshaw.... since when did Mutation ever mutate something for the better as evolution claims to have done?


Since its been claimed countless times. 
Better meaning survival, Id guess youre meaning
Feel free to read up on some. 
Co-inkly-dinkly, the book I mentioned before by Stephan Jay Gould, _Full House_, subtitle The Spread of Excellence From Plato to Darwin, (1996) has a chapter, entitled, Case Two: Lifes Little Joke, subtitle being, Genuine changes in central tendency are meaningful, but our failure to consider variation has led to a backwards interpretation: the evolution of horses. 

Kind funny how a books chapter title has more words, let alone merit than some posts around here. 
Anyway, I am not always in agreement with SJG, but thats also part of the fun. And needless to say when he counters something I believe (although he was far smarter and experienced than I could ever hope to be) he _does_ come up with something jusssssssssssst a bit more than pshaw (for example). 
Assuming this book is still in print, Ill have Amazon send out a few copies to those interested.

----------


## Scheherazade

> You should really leave this kind of bunk to the moderators.


I am _the_ Moderator, Coffeestained.  :Wink:  (along with Logos)


Now, once again, please read the Forum Rules and try to keep your arguments within these, without resorting to personal attacks and disrespecting others in general.

Thank you!  :Wink:

----------


## coffeestained

> I am _the_ Moderator, Coffeestained.  (along with Logos)
> Now, once again, please read the Forum Rules and try to keep your arguments within these, without resorting to personal attacks and disrespecting others in general.Thank you!


My apologies. 
Usually mods are labeled as such. 
My bad. 

But I still feel I was not the one crossing any linesfeel free to close my account if you feel Ive breeched forum contract

----------


## Pendragon

If anyone feels that I have personally affronted them in any way, please accept my sincere apologies. But I will still defend my beliefs and statements, for I believe they have merit. Once again, for the record, that is that God created everything. Evolution has taken it from there, each species evolving independtly, no "ape into man" type of thing. I base this on the fact that if man hasn't changed since Eden, then why are there so many diffrent races of man? Thus I believe in both, with limitations. I discount chance as mathmatically unsound. That's all.  :Cool:

----------


## Loki

> I discount chance as mathmatically unsound.


Pendragon, I wonder if you've heard of the Uncertainty Principle? Read Hawking or Davies and you're bound to come across it. "God" does play dice, after all.

Loki out

----------


## atiguhya padma

Pendragon,

I presume then that you think that the chances of there being a god are greater than the chances of there not being one? That the chances of there being a god are greater than the chances of there being a purely deductive scientific explanation for the birth of the Universe and the development of life within it?

----------


## coffeestained

> If anyone feels that I have personally affronted them in any way, please accept my sincere apologies.


I hope I made it clear that I didnt feel that way but I _do_ see the fabrication of a person is far more personal than me saying, for example, generally believing in invisible people and fictional places/things is, under several entries in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel for Mental Disorders), nothealthy.




> I base this on the fact that if man hasn't changed since Eden,


Um, what fact are you calling upon when your source material is 1) lifted from far older (and better written, more interesting) texts and 2) completely and utterly mythology

You seem to like to question. 
Sometimes. 
You may actually enjoy reading some religious texts. And here I mean scholarly work, not mythology. 




> I discount chance as mathmatically unsound. That's all


You base your math games in a closed system. 
[looking outside the window, reflectioning on, ohhhhhhhhhh, millions and millions of years of Earth] 
Last I heard Earth is pretty gawdamn open. 
-For those not grasping this open/closed thing, feel free to glance at a textbook that is probably taught (unless the education system has crumbled far more than I speculate) in 7th grade

I respect your **NEED**, and thats all it is (barring any chemical imbalance or misfiring of neurons), to believe in fantasy figures, but please dont place them out as fact.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon, I wonder if you've heard of the Uncertainty Principle? Read Hawking or Davies and you're bound to come across it. "God" does play dice, after all.
> 
> Loki out


Yes, I've read Hawking, with intrest. At one point he stated that there was no room for God in the Universe, and in a later work, seemed to modify the statement, allowing for the possibility. A brilliant man. It's sad to see him trapped in his own body by illness.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon,
> 
> I presume then that you think that the chances of there being a god are greater than the chances of there not being one? That the chances of there being a god are greater than the chances of there being a purely deductive scientific explanation for the birth of the Universe and the development of life within it?


Why not? It's my choice to make, after all. I find no reason to find fault with those who believe the other way. Infinate universe with infinate possibilities.

----------


## Pendragon

> I respect your **NEED**, and thats all it is (barring any chemical imbalance or misfiring of neurons), to believe in fantasy figures, but please dont place them out as fact.


Well, you're persistant, anyway. I will answer no more posts from you, as you seem to think me loony anway. No hard feeling, mon ami. Shall we agree to disagree? I shake hands with a worthy opponet, (in spirit, anyway!) Touche!  :Wink:

----------


## coffeestained

> Shall we agree to disagree? I shake hands with a worthy opponet, (in spirit, anyway!) Touche!


heh. As I said, Im not after you nor would my world be affected in any way if you all of a sudden came to your senses, I mean didnt believe in Elves, Orcs and the Cheshire Cat. (more of a joke than a jab, I just hate smiley-things)

When I said I respect your need, it was truthful, not just a setup for a slag or joke. Hell, the world is one miserable, dark place. To me embracing a baseless theory/figure/book as excuse isnt soothing in the least, to others, many others, it is. 
CNN, which seemingly stands for Christian News Network, broadcasts this pap every day. 

I will probably hold off on this thread myself, Im much more interested in talking books, but even that, sadly, isnt done with much conviction in this Stephen King, Hairy Punter world

Ill close, however, by mentioning some books. 
Id hope at either end of the spectrum of thought on this subject one would like to have some knowledge in the area. Be it out of personal curiosity, the desire to learn or even a more spiteful know youre enemy. 
So, for those that like to read about the potential behind a creator, while this is not an area Im an expert in, Ive read, and I _believe_ hes dubbed as the go-to guy on the subject: 
Michael J. Behes _Darwins Black Box_ ever-present scientific subtitle is The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
For the opposite side, more of the evolution stuff Id say, Daniel Dennetts _Darwins Dangerous Idea_, the you-know-what-being, Evolution and the Meanings of Life. 

These are excellent books in the field(s) and both authors have written others, and the astute reader will, from there, be able to also look into other writers in the respective theories from notes, citations and quotes. 

Cheers

----------


## Logos

> Not really, as theres nothing to argue (much like the actually topic of the thread). 
> 
> I wont bust on your numerous spelling and grammar mistakes in a post trying to cite the brain power of Americans


Well, I won't cite you on your spelling and grammar either as it would be presumptuous and rude of me  :Smile:  we are very happy with the fact that there are many people here with english as secondary language who feel welcomed and comfortable enough to participate in these forums. Please try to discuss _ideas_, not posters.

----------


## coffeestained

> Well, I won't cite you on your spelling and grammar either as it would be presumptuous and rude of me  we are very happy with the fact that there are many people here with english as secondary language who feel welcomed and comfortable enough to participate in these forums. Please try to discuss _ideas_, not posters.


Jezuz, it never stops
If you think I havent been pretty damn on-topic most of the time nor can you pick up the irony of defending Americans while butchering the language (which is an idea, and not a person), along with not noticing yourself as *completely* countering your own request with your very post, especially as I just stated, basically, Ill get out of your hair, I _highly_ question your moderating ability. 

My apologies for being off topic here, but then again ignorance *is* a bit of an issue within this thread

----------


## Logos

> Jezuz, it never stops
> If you think I havent been pretty damn on-topic most of the time nor can you pick up the irony of defending Americans while butchering the language (which is an idea, and not a person), along with not noticing yourself as *completely* countering your own request with your very post, especially as I just stated, basically, Ill get out of your hair, I _highly_ question your moderating ability. 
> 
> My apologies for being off topic here, but then again ignorance *is* a bit of an issue within this thread


And my apologies for not seeing your post above mine as I was in the process of typing mine when you posted yours.

But yes I can point out when someone is out of line with their comments about anothers' grammar and spelling, it's my job here. It is rude and presumptious to make it an issue. A person may have dyslexia, be using vision-impaired software or have english as secondary language and again, we try to have these forums welcoming to all, of all ages. 

Please no more discussion of moderating in topic. If you or anyone ever has an issue or questions with/about the Moderators you can take it up with said Moderator or Admin via PM. We're just trying to maintain an atmosphere of civil, respectful discussion. This is the longest (36 pages) topic in this forum yet and I'm very happy it's mostly been postive and constructive.

----------


## coffeestained

> And my apologies for not seeing your post above mine as I was in the process of typing mine when you posted yours.


As Ive said in the past: no blood, no foul. 




> But yes I can point out when someone is out of line with their comments about anothers' grammar and spelling, it's my job here. It is rude and presumptious to make it an issue. A person may have dyslexia, be using vision-impaired software or have english as secondary language and again, we try to have these forums welcoming to all, of all ages.


If anything, *youve* made it an issue. Adults can generally take care of themselves, and can see the coloured lights (i.e. debating/moderating device). 
The day after my jibe I believe I stated I meant it as no harm and that I was using it in a situation by mentioned that I fully understood the first W in www was for world. 
And I dont think I outright offended anyone as clearly many havent felt the need to re-read their own posts or run them through a spell-checker before hitting post. 
And keep on top on all this I have never stated on a numerical value where English is on my CV; I never will state I am perfect in any way. I do, however, during the course of my work day (as most of us are probably doing, much to our employers chagrin) try to make my posts pretty readable. 
Occasionally, as we all do, I make a flub. 




> Please no more discussion of moderating in topic. If you or anyone ever has an issue or questions with/about the Moderators you can take it up with said Moderator or Admin via PM.


Much like your original post should have been handled? 

[and sorry for keeping at this but I find it intolerable that you try to unjustly (for Id guess that Edmond made no formal complaint and this all happened days before and was pretty much rendered moot) paddle my bottom in public]

Back spot-on topic: heres a bizarre article that takes evolution to silly levels. Evolutionary Psychology

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...la-home-health

----------


## Scheherazade

> Originally Posted by Logos
> 
> Please no more discussion of moderating in topic. If you or anyone ever has an issue or questions with/about the Moderators you can take it up with said Moderator or Admin via PM.
> 
> 
> Much like your original post should have been handled?


You have been PMed, Coffeestained; however, since you have not yet read your PM, we had to bring this matter here.

----------


## coffeestained

> You have been PMed, Coffeestained; however, since you have not yet read your PM, we had to bring this matter here.


Hmmm, indeed. I guess I dont get email alert or a pop-up that there is a new message. 
Although the message is bull****, as CLEARLY argued (although there *is* no argument) within this thread. 

Forget it kids, do me a favour and delete my account or render it to guest. Pretty please. With metaphorical sugar on top.

----------


## Logos

> Forget it kids, do me a favour and delete my account or render it to guest. Pretty please. With metaphorical sugar on top.


If you want your account deleted, you have to PM Admin about it.

----------


## Pendragon

Hello to evryone still interested in this thread. I've learned a lot here, and I kind of hate to see this thread die. Here is what I learned from talking with all of you, and remember, this is only my opinion.
1.) Question everything until you find something you are comfortable with believing.
2.) Once you do this, to quote the Eagles "You better hang on tooth and nail, the wolf is always at the door."
3.) You should consider yourself under no obligation to explain to anyone why you believe what you believe.
4.) If you do try to explain yourself remember this:
a.) There is no proof that will not be called into question by someone
b.) There is no point without a counterpoint
c.) This debate is older than any of us, and will likely survive us all
d.) It is better to agree to disagee and remain friends than agrue pointlessly over what none of us are willing to change, and indeed, should not change, our own convictions. For if we are truly convinced, then we should stand on that, and respect the other's right to do the same.

I wish all of you happiness in all that you do. As Paul says in the Bible, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherein Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Galatians 5:1 Being free to belive what you will, then exercise your freedom, as I will mine. But as I said, I'd hate to see this thread close. It's been so interesting...ya know?  :Smile:

----------


## atiguhya padma

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherein Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." 

Unless that bondage is Christianity itself, I take it.

<3.) You should consider yourself under no obligation to explain to anyone why you believe what you believe.>

No doubt this kind of principle was a contributing factor to the Jonestown Massacre.

Let me give some principles: 

1) Question everything, especially those things you feel most comfortable in believing.
2) If you enter a debate with a belief, you should always feel obliged to give an explanation for your belief, otherwise you are little more than a propagandist.
3) If you are unwilling to change a belief, no matter what, then at least recognise that you have an extreme bias.
4) Never be truly convinced of something, unless you can logically defend your belief. The only open minded question, should be the one that has yet to be logically answered.

----------


## Pendragon

> "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherein Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." 
> 
> Unless that bondage is Christianity itself, I take it.


Please do not put words into my mouth.




> <3.) You should consider yourself under no obligation to explain to anyone why you believe what you believe.>
> 
> No doubt this kind of principle was a contributing factor to the Jonestown Massacre.


The Jonestown Massacre was a shameful and shocking example of what happens when people follow a man who advises them to seperate themselves from society and form their own "utopia." It almost always ends badly, like out in Waco, under similiar circumstances. As to whether my principle 3 would be a factor, I would say isolation and a messiah complex had more to do with it.




> Let me give some principles: 
> 
> 1) Question everything, especially those things you feel most comfortable in believing.
> 2) If you enter a debate with a belief, you should always feel obliged to give an explanation for your belief, otherwise you are little more than a propagandist.
> 3) If you are unwilling to change a belief, no matter what, then at least recognise that you have an extreme bias.
> 4) Never be truly convinced of something, unless you can logically defend your belief. The only open minded question, should be the one that has yet to be logically answered.


I really don't feel that it is propaganda to state what you believe, nor that refusal to change is a show of bias. One thing for certain, there is no proof that will not be questioned by someone, or called "illogical" by someone. Don't take this as a personal attack, for that is not my intention. I will agree to disagree, shake hands, and move on with no hard feelings. We're all adults here, correct? So my best to you, hold on to your beliefs tightly, for who knows but what in the end you may be correct and myself wrong. Cheers! Dragon out.  :Wink:

----------


## Loki

> We're all adults here, correct?


Yes. That's if you count teenagers as adults.... :Brow: 




> Yes, I've read Hawking, with intrest. At one point he stated that there was no room for God in the Universe, and in a later work, seemed to modify the statement, allowing for the possibility.


Ah, yes, *everything* is possible, remember. But it is highly improbable that the Christian god in particular should be true. Maybe some god, who started off the Big Bang and then decided to disappear...but that still doesn't solve the problem, I mean, where did the god come from? If you say "he has always existed" well then it's the same as the universe, the universe has also existed for as long as there has been time.

I'm glad you enjoy Hawking. Have you read his _The Universe in a Nutshell_? Wonderful book, with very interesting concepts. 

What boggles me is, if you have read Hawking, surely you must have come across the Uncertainty Principle...*somewhere*? Or have you perhaps read a more specialised work that didn't go into detail about this? Or were you merely joking when you said that there is no room for chance in this universe...

No time. Must run.

Loki

----------


## Pendragon

> Yes. That's if you count teenagers as adults....


Sure. Who am I to argue with our court system, that consistantly tries them as adults?  :Brow:  



> I'm glad you enjoy Hawking. Have you read his _The Universe in a Nutshell_? Wonderful book, with very interesting concepts. 
> 
> What boggles me is, if you have read Hawking, surely you must have come across the Uncertainty Principle...*somewhere*? Or have you perhaps read a more specialised work that didn't go into detail about this? Or were you merely joking when you said that there is no room for chance in this universe...
> 
> No time. Must run.
> 
> Loki


It was a condensed version of _The Universe in a Nutshell_ that I read first, then an article he wrote for _Science Digest_. What I meant was that chance is not the answer to evolution. If I remember correctly, there are two more schools of thought on evolution other than mere chance. As I said, although I still see no reason to have to defend the statement, I believe God created the earth and everything in it. Then due to the cataclyclisms and things (such as the breaking up of the supercontinent), man and the animals have been forced to adapt to different environments, and so have evolved into what they are today. I was interested to read only yesterday that science now believes that neantherthals and homo sapiens existed at the same time but homo sapiens erradicated them. Can't they ever make up their minds?

----------


## Logos

> We're all adults here, correct?


Actually.. this site has members of all ages, over 13 years of age and younger  :Wink:  a big reason why we try to keep things as civil as possible regarding swearing and flaming/trolling etc.

----------


## Tuana

I said Evolution. Because I prefer evolution rather than saying "God created Adam and Eve"

Best Regards...

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Can't they ever make up their minds?>

Fortunately for us, most of the scientific community are always revising their work, open to new interpretations, etc. Unlike the religious communities whose minds were made up for them 2000/1500/2500/4000+ yrs ago.

----------


## dejosc

yeh i agree with her the thing is no they dont ever make up their minds because theyre always changing unlike your views no matter what peole say

----------


## Pendragon

> Fortunately for us, most of the scientific community are always revising their work, open to new interpretations, etc. Unlike the religious communities whose minds were made up for them 2000/1500/2500/4000+ yrs ago.


You're assuming again, that every religious person has no mind of their own. If this were true, I would not believe in evolution in any form, but I do, just not mere chance. Cheers!  :Smile:

----------


## Stanislaw

Well technically Darwin never stated that he disagreed with a creationist theory, all he said that life was breathed into this matter (paraphrased). So implying a God does exist. AND Genisis does state that God breathed life into man (the breath of life/God into adam. (again paraphrased).
And theoretically Genisis does mirrior the evolutionary stages in the evolution theory. So one is not concrete disproof of the other, however they do coincide. Perhaps Genisis is a metaphor fro creation, putting the concept into simpler terms so that early people could have some grasp of their origins, not to mention the Bible has been translated multiple times, aswell as revised multiple times. So it is possible that our present bible is slightly muddled.

That is why one should prey for disernment before reading the Bible, also another factor is personal interpretation. after all "everything is truee, from a certain point of view"

btw. nice darwin pic!  :Thumbs Up:   :Biggrin: 



> God isn't a monkey. neither is he like any other creatures his created. Man made him to be so. The Bible says He is a Spirit, the Great I AM.
> 
> Read this passage, you'll know what I mean:
> 
> 
> God is a spirit: 
> 
> 
> And I don't think I've ever seen anyone look like this before: (see 1st attachment)
> ...

----------


## Pendragon

There used to be a famous scientific system for the identification of criminals called "The Bertillon System." Bertillion based his system on sound fact--probability mathematics. He postulated that if you took one measurement of a man, his exact height, the possibility of duplication was 1 in 4. But add in another measurement, the circumference of the head, and the odds increase to 16 to 1. His system used 14 measurements, and had odds of 286,435,456 to 1 odds of a duplication. Yet it failed in 1903 when a convict named Will West was being processed for entry into Leavenworth. According to his measurements, he was already behind bars in the prison. When the officals checked, their Will West was in his cell. The two might have been twins. Indeed, it turned out that they were. But their fingerprints were different. This really doesn't bear much on our discussion, but it does demonstrate (hopefully) the point I was trying to make about how the more factors that must come true to make chance come out right, the greater the odds of it ever occuring. But it can, I will concede that. It can, indeed.

----------


## rebekah

I don't think it's right to say that Religion and Science are opposed, in fact I believe that they complement each other. I can't remember who said this, but he was a scientist and a Christian, and he said that 'we once believed that God was so great that he created the world, now we believe he is even greater than that; he created a world that could create itself'.

----------


## Satirical

Centuries ago, I recall reading somewhere, the effects of theology on the comings of science. How the belief in possesion weighed heavily on the minds of the community when anything out of the ordinary happened. Epilepsy, I think, was caused by demonic possesion for your sins. Hammubari's codes were designed so that a woman may be divorced if she was "possesed" because she had sinned. See the process of blaming the victim here?

----------


## Satirical

The contrast here was the scientific community who considered these afflictions of the body. Tell me again that religion and science complement each other. No more than we need a good story.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<'we once believed that God was so great that he created the world, now we believe he is even greater than that; he created a world that could create itself'.>

That's merely a belief. There is nothing scientific about that statement. If a world could create itself, who needs God?

----------


## Adelheid

> <'we once believed that God was so great that he created the world, now we believe he is even greater than that; he created a world that could create itself'.>
> 
> That's merely a belief. There is nothing scientific about that statement. If a world could create itself, who needs God?


Ah... the real wonder though is that God CREATED the world (meaning making something out of nothing- where one could make something out of something but not anything out of nothing) in such a way that it could take care of itself. (reproduction, decomposition, sanitation, etc.) See how even He created instinct in animals, which men marvel at, but refuse to acknowledge the Maker or it all! The Irony!

If I admired an invention of a scientist, could I then say, " Oh! I've never heard of such a scientist before, therefore He couldn't have made this splendid invention" Neither could I claim, "This scientist couldn't have done it" or say, "If you say that the scientist did really make it, then prove it to me. Let me see him at work with it myself." I could also choose to find fault with the machine and say "oh look! there is a fault of operation here... it's all wrong. the manual's wrong. this scientist is a liar!"

How could I presume to say that I, ME and MYSELF should get the honour of watching the scientist at work? How could I claim that since I've never come across of such a scientist before, that one doesn't exist? It is MY fault that I didn't know him before and not the scientist's! Yet all in all, the invention is still there for itself to prove in reality that it was made by the unknown scientist, (whether I choose to believe it or not) and that the scientist really does exist!

You see, it is the same with mankind today and God, He is the Scientist who created the universe out of nothing. He was the scientist's whose invention has lasted thousands of years old, millions of days old. He was the One who caused His work to reproduce after it's own kind and dispose after itself. He is the I AM who made the beauty of the looming majestic mountains that we so admire, and the fragile breath of the lily. It was Himself, indeed who gave us ungrateful wretches life and breath.

Yet after all this, mankind starts to say, "where is such a God, the scientist?" I have never heard of Him, myself! I have never seen Him. He doesn't exist!" They start to say "I've found a fault in the manual- God's Word. He's a liar!" Man has started to doubt the Creator and His Word, even while the creation is still before them! They've put holes in the testimony of the creation where none was before, and spread lies to everyone around... lies that in this world could have been sued after..... 

The creation of the Maker is BEFORE your very eyes, oh blinded people! Tear off the prejudice, cast the lies away and see and hear for yourself the fresh Truth! God is the only God, The Great I AM who made the world Himself. He is the scientist who you so scornfully reject and despise. Look on the world and see for yourself!!

----------


## Scheherazade

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/frankan...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

----------


## Loki

> You see, it is the same with mankind today and God, He is the Scientist who created the universe out of nothing.


But weren't the Ancient Egyptian gods (Atum/Ra in particular), the Norse gods (Odin and his brothers), the Greek gods (especially Prometheus and Epimetheus) P'an-ku (whose fleas became mankind after he died for the world), Kamui, Izanami and Izanagi (the latter couple created the Japanese islands, the first was the divine creator), the Aboriginal ancestors who woke and created themselves out of nothing (especially Ungambikula) and then carved people from the earth, and every other creation god, also scientists? Wasn't even the cow who "un-iced" (licked the primeval ice until he came out) Odin and the first Norse gods also, in a sense, scientists? 




> He was the scientist's whose invention has lasted thousands of years old, millions of days old.


Um, just curious, but do you mean to say that you think this (sorry if a teeny bit large) is "incorrect"?




As I said just curious. And what do you make of million-year-old fossils? Hmm, what about the Stone Age people? From what I remember, humans have only been on earth for three minutes in a 24-hr day (appearing three minutes before midnight)...

Interesting subject,

Loki

----------


## B-Mental

Hey Loki, I am a geologist, and I totally concur with your diagram. The interesting thing is the abundant life that we as humans consider lesser forms (about 95% of your diagram). The evidence of evolution is just overwhelming. Creation is a rationalism of earlier times. When the Book of Genesis was written 7000 years represented an almost inconceivable amount of time.

----------


## Pendragon

I'll say one thing, Loki, mon ami. I am told that to belive that God created everything takes a lot of faith. Perhaps this is so. But for me, to believe in the events recorded on your very carefully drawn out chart takes even more faith...  :Nod:

----------


## subterranean

I once read that it's "easier" to believe that a creator exist and created the whole universe, than to believe the whole process of evolution...





> I'll say one thing, Loki, mon ami. I am told that to belive that God created everything takes a lot of faith. Perhaps this is so. But for me, to believe in the events recorded on your very carefully drawn out chart takes even more faith...

----------


## Stanislaw

Well, logically everything must have a beggining, and the best explenation is a divine being. something must have started it all.

----------


## Adelheid

Loki, How do you know that that chart is true? Evolution is not even a law. It's a theory. I'm even inclined to say it's only a hypothesis, not all of nature agrees with the facts that Evolution claims.

----------


## pea

> ISo it's not that I "Don't know what to think" as the poll suggests, but that I merely havn't decided yet. In anycase I don't believe in biblical creation, but evolution in the sense that we went from fish to lizards to ... etc... until we became humans (I apologize for my increadibly ignorant and superficial analysis of evolution ) still seems a bit suspicious to me. perhaps in a couple years when I'm a bit more stable in my beliefs I'll dig this thread up and post a reply.


i also vote for"Don't know what to think", and my reason is just the same as yours: "havn't decided yet"
my entire knowledge of biology is based on evolution, that's what i was taught to accept. i just took it for granted until i entered college and took a course called western culture. i was extremely interested in the whole "vs" thing and devoured five books on this topic. they shaked my strong hold in evolution, but the whole"God created everyting" concept still seems a bit suspicious to me. so i ended up having no idea which theory to take.
and i also think that creation and evolution are not in sharp contrast.

----------


## Stanislaw

> i also vote for"Don't know what to think", and my reason is just the same as yours: "havn't decided yet"
> my entire knowledge of biology is based on evolution, that's what i was taught to accept. i just took it for granted until i entered college and took a course called western culture. i was extremely interested in the whole "vs" thing and devoured five books on this topic. they shaked my strong hold in evolution, but the whole"God created everyting" concept still seems a bit suspicious to me. so i ended up having no idea which theory to take.
> and i also think that creation and evolution are not in sharp contrast.


well, everything needs a beggining right, so what else could have started it all except for God?

----------


## B-Mental

> well, everything needs a beggining right, so what else could have started it all except for God?



I am not questioning whether or not God created it, but I believe in evolution. The question is 'was everything (including humanity) created by the Almighty in seven days, or did the species Homo sapiens sapiens evolve from slight mutations?'

----------


## B-Mental

> Loki, How do you know that that chart is true? Evolution is not even a law. It's a theory. I'm even inclined to say it's only a hypothesis, not all of nature agrees with the facts that Evolution claims.



Please grant me a couple of these mysterious portions of nature. Better yet offer me one piece of evidence for creation. Just one, without any holes, can you?

----------


## SaintGermain

Well God created the earth and everything on it but used evolution as the way of creating new species....

thats what i believe

----------


## okmit

> Hey Loki, I am a geologist, and I totally concur with your diagram. The interesting thing is the abundant life that we as humans consider lesser forms (about 95% of your diagram). The evidence of evolution is just overwhelming. Creation is a rationalism of earlier times. When the Book of Genesis was written 7000 years represented an almost inconceivable amount of time.


I think the reason people(humans) consider themselves superior in nature to all other species is because of their superior ability to reason which is considered as a Divine gift by some.
On their considering 7000 years representing an almost inconcievable amount of time I must agree,it is.Which is a minute number compared to the number of coincidences required in the evolution theory.

Wasn't it Socrates that was wise because he knew he didn't know...Hmm?

----------


## Stanislaw

> I am not questioning whether or not God created it, but I believe in evolution. The question is 'was everything (including humanity) created by the Almighty in seven days, or did the species Homo Sapiens sapiens evolve from slight mutations?'


well if you follow thge steps of creation, they do follow the same steps as evolution. Maybe Genesis is a metaphor/parrable explaining evolution as it would be explained to someone who could grasp this concept...ie, early man.

----------


## B-Mental

I have noticed some similarities, and they tend to follow similar successions. I totally agree. I guess I just wonder what it is that creationists accept. Is there a fear in evolving? Do they accept some science and not others? How do they justify using science based technology, and then cast doubt on certain fields? Fields with vast volumes supporting evidence of evolution.

----------


## Stanislaw

> I have noticed some similarities, and they tend to follow similar successions. I totally agree. I guess I just wonder what it is that creationists accept. Is there a fear in evolving? Do they accept some science and not others? How do they justify using science based technology, and then cast doubt on certain fields? Fields with vast volumes supporting evidence of evolution.


well, it all depends on the group eh. Well, some people are very stuborn, or are stuck on a superiority complex, me I am always open to something new...unless it is completely stupid.  :Wink:

----------


## B-Mental

touche pronounced "two-shay"

----------


## Pendragon

> I am not questioning whether or not God created it, but I believe in evolution. The question is 'was everything (including humanity) created by the Almighty in seven days, or did the species Homo sapiens sapiens evolve from slight mutations?'


I have said all along that God created everthing, but evolution shaped it into what it is today. Now tell me, B-Mental, kind sir, why that makes me wrong? I do not understand nor see the significance of such charts as posted by Loki, to me that takes a great deal of acceptence on faith alone. I can go get fresh fossil seacreatures from a mountain side not too far from here, where the AT crosses. I've found some very neat ones. But I cannot accept everything evolving from one cell or whatever. Each evolved from the creature God made into the creature they are now. That is how I believe evolution. Was I a rabid, dyed in the wool creationist, I couldn't even accept that. But I can think. We are not all one race, we have evolved and changed, so it stands to reason the animals and plant life have done the same. And I believe the process still continues... How about that? It goes on unstopable every day, changing just a bit. Thank you for your time. God bless.

----------


## querida

If Darwinian evolution is true, then God has nothing to do with the origin of life. Some Christian say that God could have used evolution to bring about life. This is called theistic evolution.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God "created the first spark of life then directed his creation through the vehicle of gradual evolution". How can that coincide with Christian beliefs (God is love,...) if evolutionists refer to the process of evolution as cruel and wasteful (elimination of weakest species,...)?

The roots of modern science are grounded in a Christian view of the world. This is not surprising, since science is based on the assuption that the universe is orderly and lawful; which would seem to be the effect of an intelligent Cause.
One cannot say that the biblical worldview of early modern scientists doesn't apply anymore, and that now "science" has demonstrated that life could evolve on its own. There is evidence of _design_, and hence a _designer_. Science today cannot prove the opposite.

*And who says that evolution is objectively scientifically proven?*
Evolution has 2 main ideas :
*1. Spontaneous generation*. "Life started in awarm pond" 
Researchers have attempted to prove that life could have simply happened. Origin-of-life experiments (the "re-enactments" of how life came to be) have 11 major problems, one of them alone would stop the progress from non-living molecules to living cells.
Evolution says : life comes from non-life
Science says : life comes from life
Professor Dean Kenyon, a biochemist and former chemical evolutionist, now writes, _"When all relevant lines are taken into account, and all the problems squarely faced, I think we must conclude that life owes its inception to a source outside nature."_
*2. Natural selection.* Darwin made a trip to the Galapagos Islands and dicovered birds whose beak sizes we a little different. He thought he had sicovered evolution in action. Evolution assumes that all of the diversity of life came from simpler, less complex forms of life. For this to work though, new complex structures must emerge. For evolution to occur, you have to "add new stuff". What Darwin called "natural selection" was actually "adaptation". 
So what you could call "microevolution" is true and proven: species can change slightly to adapt to their invoronments (it's true with humans too, compare the body of an eskimo to that of an african bushman). But these small adaptive changes have never been observed to lead to whole new structures (=Darwinian evolution).
Edward Deevey Jr. wrote "_Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selectiong inside the speecies, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such a the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can mke cylindical eggs."_

Wow.... I didn't mean for this to be so long.... just wanted to open some eyes to the lacking scientific data on evolution.
I think the reason evolution has lasted so long is that no one has found a better argument against what the Bible says to be true; and milions of people have whole careers based on the "facts of evolution". 
Check out this article analysing a documentary on evolution for more indept stuff.

For those of you who have stuck with me this long, thank you... don't know if I would have!

Good day.

_"Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet of order"_ (so says non-christian physicist Paul Davies). But stirct evolution demands chance rather than a Law-Maker as the guiding force........ hmmmm.

----------


## BigDaddy_GFS

The two theories are not completely exclusive. Beleif in evolution or the Big Bang should not necessarily mean that there is no higher power.
Belief in God, likewise, should not rule out scientific discoveries and theories.
It bugs me that rational people can't see that. It's not an either/or proposition.

----------


## Pendragon

> The roots of modern science are grounded in a Christian view of the world. This is not surprising, since science is based on the assuption that the universe is orderly and lawful; which would seem to be the effect of an intelligent Cause.
> One cannot say that the biblical worldview of early modern scientists doesn't apply anymore, and that now "science" has demonstrated that life could evolve on its own. There is evidence of _design_, and hence a _designer_. Science today cannot prove the opposite.
> 
> *And who says that evolution is objectively scientifically proven?*
> Evolution has 2 main ideas :
> *1. Spontaneous generation*. "Life started in awarm pond" 
> Researchers have attempted to prove that life could have simply happened. Origin-of-life experiments (the "re-enactments" of how life came to be) have 11 major problems, one of them alone would stop the progress from non-living molecules to living cells.
> Evolution says : life comes from non-life
> Science says : life comes from life
> ...


My thanks for stating scientifically what I in my fumbling way, (if you look back over my posts, you'll see it!) have been trying to say. No species change, change within the species in order to adapt to the changing world around us. God bless.

----------


## B-Mental

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------


## querida

> Phylogeny & Ontogeny?


Would you care you elaborate, B-Mental?

----------


## B-Mental

I'll try... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------


## okmit

> I'll try... during the course of embryo development, the embryo shows similarities to other species we "possibly" evolved from. This is most notably witnessed in the development of the nervous system. Perhaps I'll be able to find some demonstrations on the internet. In a nutshell, we share embryonic stages with other species, which evolutionists use to suggest our evolutionary ancestry.


I too have noted some strange similarities with other species.One head,two eyes,two ears,and one nose!...Hmm.,possibly we evolved from them!?

----------


## B-Mental

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------


## MrBojangles

> The two theories are not completely exclusive. Beleif in evolution or the Big Bang should not necessarily mean that there is no higher power.
> Belief in God, likewise, should not rule out scientific discoveries and theories.
> It bugs me that rational people can't see that. It's not an either/or proposition.


When has a religious fanatic been rationally able to understand that??

----------


## B-Mental

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------


## okmit

> Bilateral symmetry, wow you're very observant, your wit is actually the truth. I'm talking about a presence of a notochord in embryos. Prior to lung development embryos show a proto-gill, I'll find some more examples.
> 
> In general, the embryos do not display certain attributes of lets say starfish, so we can rule out starfish as your predecessor if that makes you feel better. Did you notice a head, reffered to as encephalization. Animals that don't have heads are generally believed to have ancestors that evolved prior to cephalization. Keep up the good work okmit, you might stumble across something else.


Thank you,I do believe I just may have stumbled across another observation at that!In every attempt to explain how the cake in the oven came out a pie the proof offered always consists of the hard facts of ,generaly BELIEVED,similarities suggest,it appears possible,etc.But the missing link is still missing!Unless one believes the link is an omnipotant creator.In which case one needn't consider how a komodo dragon may have evolved from a crockodile,or a human from a star fish,or ape.

----------


## B-Mental

as per PMxxxxxxxxx

----------


## okmit

> I've ruled out starfish for you, but feel free to keep looking. I'm going to stay off of this thread, I've decided I've been convinced and am now a die-hard cretonationist. I can now go about my life with my head held high. Thank you all for your comments.


Hmm...Creationist vs Idiots?A challenge to the mentally deficient?

I thank you for ruling out star fish for my benifit but it really isn't my quest to establish a missing link.But I would caution any geologist to go through life with their head held high...Hmm.

B-Mental,till our paths cross again,B-Cool

----------


## Stanislaw

well, you can't go callign evolutionists (???) idiots. It's bad arguing...called poisoning yonder well.

----------


## okmit

> well, you can't go callign evolutionists (???) idiots. It's bad arguing...called poisoning yonder well.


And down right rude I might add.

----------


## mono

> I too have noted some strange similarities with other species.One head,two eyes,two ears,and one nose!...Hmm.,possibly we evolved from them!?


While trying to remain relatively unbiased to a humane limit, I think it essential to note that the human embryo first begins, particularly in the first trimester and early second trimester, with a tail-like appearance from what form as later the lumbar region, sacrum, and coccyx. Of course its development relies much on intake of folic acid, the spine and tail-like appearance elongate in slower proportions to the rest of the fetal figure in late second trimester and third trimester, reducing the tail.
Not that I meant to correct you, okmit, I think this a very important similarity that, perhaps, B-Mental aimed.

----------


## Stanislaw

well, there is only so many ways a ball of cells can be thrown together, we are all organisms shaped by earth, so why not share similr characteristics (fro ye evolusionists out there)

and well, there is only so many ways a ball of cells can be thrown together... ever paint a fence, the procedure is pretty much the same, just the fini9shed product is different. (for all you creationists out there)

----------


## Adelheid

There is no link between the 'apeman' and the humans we see today.

Even scientists who expouse evolution say so. The Homo Erectus and upward are (what scientists all agree) true humans, there has not been found a link for apeman. Both creationists and evolutionist believes that the 'ape man' was either an extinct ape or extinct human.

----------


## Pendragon

In the intrests of peace on this thread, I would like to point out that calling each other "religious fanatics", "scientific fanatics", and "idiots" is doing nothing to further either cause. The question is which belief does one choose to go with, and can they validate that belief in any way. What we have here is two groups of people who absolutely refuse to listen to anything the other has to say. It is not a discussion if you only choose to hear your own side, and your own view, and dismiss everything else without even thinking about it. I personally feel God created the world, but evolution (adaptation) has changed and shaped it. Does that me I must force everyone else to see it my way? No. Can I learn from an opposing view? Likely. Can they learn from me? If they are open-minded, likely. But fussing and fighting and name calling is getting us nowhere!

----------


## okmit

> While trying to remain relatively unbiased to a humane limit, I think it essential to note that the human embryo first begins, particularly in the first trimester and early second trimester, with a tail-like appearance from what form as later the lumbar region, sacrum, and coccyx. Of course its development relies much on intake of folic acid, the spine and tail-like appearance elongate in slower proportions to the rest of the fetal figure in late second trimester and third trimester, reducing the tail.
> Not that I meant to correct you, okmit, I think this a very important similarity that, perhaps, B-Mental aimed.


Thank you,but I am aware of the coccyx .However,I have a close friend that was born with webed toes an fingers but can not conclude it is because she evolved from a Duck or frog...Hmm?Platypus perhaps...just kidding Carol.

----------


## Chava

> In the intrests of peace on this thread, I would like to point out that calling each other "religious fanatics", "scientific fanatics", and "idiots" is doing nothing to further either cause. The question is which belief does one choose to go with, and can they validate that belief in any way. What we have here is two groups of people who absolutely refuse to listen to anything the other has to say. It is not a discussion if you only choose to hear your own side, and your own view, and dismiss everything else without even thinking about it. I personally feel God created the world, but evolution (adaptation) has changed and shaped it. Does that me I must force everyone else to see it my way? No. Can I learn from an opposing view? Likely. Can they learn from me? If they are open-minded, likely. But fussing and fighting and name calling is getting us nowhere!


I think one of the most challenging things about discussing religion is the mutual understanding. The other day, a favourite debator was rounding the corner, (at my school mind you) and her being in deep argument with another bloke, i thought i would join in the fun. However, that was to be a thouroughly mind wrenching experience. I'm used to people disagreeing with me, but i've never felt, hated. At this point, this girl rounds on me, and all of a suden, i feel as if the whole last year in which myself and another mate have discussed religion with her, us being atheists, and her being a muslim, has been misguided and perhaps cruel. Naturally, and shortsightedly, my mate and me have always presumed ourselves to be right, but i was of the opinion, that I had a completely credible understanding when it came to religion. Respecting the individuals right to choose a religion, but always pointing out that i found religion ridiculous, and blindfolding to it's people, if not downright illogical. 
Now, the point is, this girl gives me hell... All of a sudden, i'm confronted with everything I didn't realise i was doing, like the arrogant smirk i put on when discussing, and my lack of respect for her (which i disagree with, it's got nothing to do with religion mind you) and so forth. Apart from being shocked beyond words, and after having sincerely appologised for my previous behaviour, and then crawling under a rock to hide for all eternity, i have learned that regardless of good intentions, and the belief that one is clear with respect, how awfull to acknowledge, that perhaps, after all, one wasn't as open minded as one had always assumed... and boy... does it hurt to have that smacked in your face!

----------


## Chava

Brave New World

----------


## Pendragon

> I'm used to people disagreeing with me, but i've never felt, hated. 
> 
> 
> i have learned that regardless of good intentions, and the belief that one is clear with respect, how awfull to acknowledge, that perhaps, after all, one wasn't as open minded as one had always assumed... and boy... does it hurt to have that smacked in your face!


Hi Chava. You shouldn't have to feel hated for how you believe. If I'm talking about Jesus over here and then hating you the next second that doesn't scan in my Bible. We may disagree perhaps, but you can ask the other atheists on the forum if Pendragon ever posts any type of hate letters. Doesn't happen. I've had to swallow my own medicine before, when a lady pointed out that I was acting inappropiately and I was forced to go to someone, tell them what I had done (which was to mimic them behind their back) and apologize. That was probably the hardest thing I ever did in my life, but it was the right thing to do. Anytime you feel like a discussion, drop me a PM or a post. Take care now. Dragon out.  :Smile:

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

If I may say so, the problem isnt neccessarily "Evolution vs. Creationism," but its a small fringe thats growing wider, unfortunately, by certain individuals that can't understand that religion isn't science. The problem is, that certain devoutly religious individuals in politics or otherwise, are trying to find scientific validity for their unscientific beliefs, and when science, complying with the rules of science, prove them wrong, they then feel the need to "cheat" and appeal to the government that they have been ousted. I think of it like two children are arguing, one gets hurt because the other won a fight by fair means, so he cries to his mother to be proven right. 

You want to believe that God created the Earth in 7 24-hour days? Fine. But let science alone.

----------


## querida

I think the whole 7 24-hour days thing has been very confusing for many people.
I personally believe that God created the universe through longer periods of time, that 7 days is a way of putting it... the Bible is full of such imagery, metaphors and such things. Many Christians have acknowledge that.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean, misanthrope. In my opinion, if anyone, atheists have appealed to the govornment: I'll use the example of the united states constitution. Did you know that whole parts of it have been cut out of it in most textbooks used in public schools? 

I personally don't see a distinction between what I believe (the Bible) and what is scientifically proven today. Any attempts at "finding the truth" (contradicting the Bible) has only led to solidifying and re-confirming what was written up to 3450 years ago. 

Prof. Henry Margeneau (taught physics at Yale for over 40 years, worked with A. Einstein) said: "If you ask scientists who have a mild training in science... you do get the impressiong that there is a conflict between science and religion. But if you ask really good scientists... leading scientists, the people who have made contributions which have made science grow so vastly in the last fifty years, these sientists are all religions in their beliefs."

After looking into evolution more indepth, this is what I see: The belief that God created all things requires faith. But the evolutionary theory requires more faith, since evolution runs contrary to reason, science and history... think about it....

As always, this is my personal opinion.
That's all from me today.

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

I dont neccessarily mean the federal gov't, but local school boards in Pennsylvania and a lot of the Southern states have had appeals to school boards by religious parents trying to "control" the teaching of evolution. The Christian fringe has, numerous times, tried to stop the acceptance of Evolution because they, quite honestly, have their heads buried deepest in the sand are quite uncapable of thinking in reasonable terms. They see scientific thought as their enemy, calling athiests like myself and scientists "God-hating liberals." You see, these people use the idea of God not as a loving and compassionate figure, but as a hateful bigot whose purpose is for the manipulation of any bigoted theologian. The "most devout Christians," it seems, refuse to acknowledge Jesus' altruistic teachings, and fall back onto the explicitly hateful OT God that mirrors their hate. They use God solly as a weapon against anyone they disagree with, damning them to Hell. The God of the Christian Right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Jimmy Swaggart, Harriet Meirs, Hitler would be one if he were alive, his 3rd Reich speech about "Positive Christianity," etc), is deeply hateful , and, for thirty years, his followers have campaigned aginst the rights of gays, countered the civil rights movement, and recently called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are particularly, wrongfully famous for the airing of Robertson's 700 Club on September 13th 2001, where they blamed gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the ACLU, among other groups for the WTC attack. Google it.

----------


## IrishCanadian

Misanthrope< quotos to you for argueing so well and so enthusiastically for reason in the face of so many God-fearing people on this site. I just want to clarify a few things: it is not so that the best Christians fear God as a hateful bigot. Yes, we do fear God. But one must read the psalms as well as Revelation to understand our fear of the Lord (look at psalm 103, its pretty short). Furthermore, i'm not in any way blaiming you for this idea: the media tends to pick out all the liberally negative things that an institution does: this includes exlpoiting the antisame-sex marraige in an anti gay way (yes amny good Christians are anti gay but not Christianity itself is anti gay- see the beatitudes), other examples to show this about the media is that the only animal rights activists we hear about are the ones who toss paint on people's coats; the only only huge institution i can think of right now that gets off easy by the media is the govornment. Maybe this i because many television stations and newspapers are run by or motord by govorments.
As far as evolution is concerned I tend to lean towards genesis. The concept of "day" was not created until the fifth day so all that time before could have been any space of time. Furthermore, All scientists know that spontanious generation does not exist. Animals simply don't pop out of no where. The same goes for bone structur on a protazoa. I don't deny that the calouses on my feet are a form of evolution, but an ameaba cannot grow a leg and crawl out of the water: the idea is simply obsurd.

I would love to learn more about the subject of evolution vs creation and i know there are some excelent texts out there. In the mean time I have no quam with the southern schools of United States banning evolution from the cerriculum. (i'm bad at spelling). The kids there would benifit from the theory, yes it is only a theory, but not much more than they would from learning historical based ideas on this scientific issue.
Once again I really admire you for standing up for what you believe in, I hope to talk to you more on such matters.
Keep up the good work

----------


## Logos

I know it's difficult not to sometimes, but there is to be _no discussion_ of current politics in these forums.

----------


## IrishCanadian

sorry about that, thanks a lot for the reminder.

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

I like your open-mindedness, IrishCanadian  :Smile:  First, you must understand that the aomeba didnt spawn into a human, thats impossible on all fronts :-p. Evolution, according to Darwin, was very, very, gradual, the birth of the earth, 6.5 BILLION years ago, then after that, I believe 3.5 billion years ago, single-celled organisms spawned out of a random mutation whose molectular structure changed in such a way as to provide the formula for living, DNA. These mutations probably were not sudden or significant, it probably took many mutations to get the combination correct. The theory holds that life started in the sea, single-celled organisms to small multi-celled aquatic organisms. Then the fish grew more diverse as time went on, and eventually formed into amphibians who can live out of the water for some time but are still dependent on it. Amphibians to reptiles, and the list grows exponentially, taking maybe several hundred thousand to a million years for each stage. 6.5 million years ago, the first human ancestor formed from chimpanzees, our closest relative. Anyone heard of Lucy, or Australopithecus afarensis? The humans, it is believed, originated in Africa, but due to their small brain size and relatively unstable bipedal movement, it was unable to move very far away and had little intelligence. Soon (at 1.8 mya), Homo habilis became from the Australopithacus Africanus in Africa, and from our friend habilis came Homo erectus, who had a better posture, larger brain, and more developed feet. It is believed that Erectus spread from Africa into Asia minor and southern Europe, and that perhaps the groups evolved independently in different areas of the world, with different traits to cope with the sun (Asians have the eyelids to cope with the bright eastern sun, black people have black skin to stop overabsorption of UV rays because of their exposure to direct sunlight). After one more stage, the Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis around 40,000 ya, finally, we, Homo Sapiens, were formed around 3,500 ya. We and the Neanderthals supposedly existed for some time together, but they were wiped out either because of climate change or competition between the species. 

You can certainly integrate God into the picture if you wanted, saying that "he tried different forms to find which work best," or "conditions on Earth wouldnt allow him to spawn species spontaneously," or "God's Time and our Time are completely different because of his omnipotence and/or immortality."

Evolution is still happening. Our pinkie fingers are smaller than those in the 1700s, we are fairer and, dare I say, more attractive than people back then, there was an experiment conducted recently involving E.Coli and a group of them, according to the researcher, developed a different method to process proteins than another group. The flu is an excellent example of evolution. Every year we must create a new vaccine to counteract the new variant. Exterminators alter their insecticide formula because of insects' immunity to it. You see, it is impossible for literal creationism to be correct. God's "Static World" wouldnt be able to account for forces that we know exist, such as interspecies competition and climate change.

----------


## IrishCanadian

Well I still am a little scepticle, I don't think I will take evolution as the ultimate truth on the matter ... but its really nice to have this information. I am told by a friend that the similarity between an ape's dna and my dna is only a small amount consisting of little more than one or two strands (or whatever you call them). Is this true? I may be an arts student, but a student nonetheless. Do you know of any decent texts that take the Darwinian thery into greater detail than this forum? 
I want to have the whole story from both sides before i make a final descision on weather or not i believe evolution took place (or is taking place rather).

----------


## Aurek_Waverly

Have you ever read "The Case for A Creator" by Lee Strobel? If not, you really should. It has a very fast-paced journalistic agenda on creation vs. evolution. It really helped me understand my faith better.

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

The truth is, we share 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Have you ever seen a young child throw a temper tantrum? Chimp behavior. Mother-infant relationships? Primate behavior. How we find mates? Primates and humans are strikingly similar. We have hair on our bodies, though not as much as primates, a chimpanzee can recognize himself in front of a mirror, they can communicate through language. Though primates can't communicate verbally because their larynxes arent developed enough for precise sounds like ours, they are able, if we train them, they can learn sign language, and a week ago in Anthroplogy, we saw a video on chimpanzee and their responses to our language. The chimpanzee actually understood the commands given to him by the researcher, and some of these commands were quite complex. "Put the fern in the refridgerator." "Take the vacuum cleaner outside." "Pour the coke into the water." "Stop." "Get the fern from out of the refridgerator." Wouldnt you say that we're similar?

I took Anthroplogy (the study of humanity's origins and social structures, what we can say about humanity as a whole, from the US to the Yanomamo) last year in high school and I'm taking it again this year, so I pretty much know a lot about evolution. Last year I had to memorize every homonid from A. Afarensis to Homo Sapien Sapien.

----------


## IrishCanadian

But I'm talking about the actual DNA. The mathamatical scince. Everyhting you said (besides the sign language) also applies to foxes. We don't resemble foxes so no one considers us like them. Parrots (actaully crows can do it better) are able to carry conversations, I know ths first hand. I want to know the "how" not the "what". I don't mean how long it took and what happened, but the nitty gritty stuff like the exact chances of it happening and so on. Aurek, I wil chack out that book, thanks, but right no i don't have time. In the meanwhile this conversation between me and Misanthrope would be like me telling her (him?) that the Holy Spirit is real. That is something I believe as strongly as you do evolution. But each of us is harder to please on the foreign subject than ourselves because the subject is foriegn.

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html for chromosomal relationships between humans and chimps

----------


## IrishCanadian

Thanks Misanthrope

----------


## Satirical

I tell you something that helped with my "faith",reading the Origin of the Species, now that beats Strobel's appealing to those that want to hear it, any day.

----------


## Adelheid

The ONE book that has helped my faith is the Bible....lol

----------


## Scheherazade

> The ONE book that has helped my faith is the Bible....lol


There is a shocker... 

 :Wink:

----------


## Adelheid

Every year it has managed to be the bestseller. God is keeping His Word throughout all generations, as He said He would. How many countless time has Emperors, Dictators, Monarchs, etc. Tried to destroy that one Book? In China, I've read of mny rulers who have tried to get rid of every trace of that Book but burning it, and prohibiting imports of that book, and persecuting Missionaries and others who tries to bring in the Bible. I read of an account where a school teacher held up a black book in School one day, and announced to the classroom of students, "If your parents have a book like this, please bring it in tomorrow. I was give you money for it (or something like that)" A girl went home, and found the Bible her parents had hidden. She brought it to school the next day, and that was the last she ever saw her parents again. There are many other such accounts, of the Bible being burned, used as toilet paper, and all sorts of other ways unimaginable. 

Yet here is still is today surviving- not only that, thrashing every other book too! There is no book that has ever been written or ever will be written that can compare with the Bible: Simply because it is the Inspired Word of God.

Don't you think then, if something has lasted for hundreds of years, and preserved by God, that there MUST be something to it? In this case, where people give testimonies, and all of nature gives solid evidence on there being a Creator, and the Bible being the Truth and not a Myth, shouldn't you give a heed to it? It has not been like the other books written by men which have dies ages ago, is long forgotten. No! it is still here, because God is gracious and merciful toward YOU, to give you a chance to find and accept the Truth for yourself, before it is too late.

----------


## Pendragon

> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html for chromosomal relationships between humans and chimps


Now, you must have come across my own views on this thread somewhere and know where I stand. Now, for just a moment, allow yourself to imagine God as the ultimate scientific experimenter. What does a scientist do as he/she experiments? They work from simple experiments to the more complex. So let us imagine as God creates life on earth. He moves from the simple to the more complex until He crowns His creation by creating man. Would it then be odd that there are chromosomal relationships between man and what is generally accepted as the closest thing to man? I advocate the type of evolution called "adaptation", for if man had not changed since creation, we would all be one race, and we are not, for different people adapted to life in different lands. And what has man done, but destroy many of the species that were here? But "chance" I cannot believe for the variables that would have to be satisfied to make it take place would make the mathmatics of it happening astronomical.

----------


## IrishCanadian

As you can see above I've been doing a lot of thinking and research on the subjuect and I think I stand with Pendragon. Well thats my two cents.
Take it easy.

----------


## Adelheid

All of mankind knows that there is a God. They just choose to deny it. Why deny the truth and reality, you might ask? Well, all I can say is that without a God, they would be justified for doing many of the wicked acts that they would not otherwise be able to.

This is the foundation for my first statement.
"[That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9

----------


## atiguhya padma

I can assure you Adelheid, that I do not know of God's existence. Unless you want to call me a liar, I suggest you modify your above statement.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<But "chance" I cannot believe for the variables that would have to be satisfied to make it take place would make the mathmatics of it happening astronomical.>

Would the mathematics be as astronomical as the chances of there being a god? If there is more chance of there being a god than there is of the Universe and all within being mere chance, then I imagine all physicists, biologists and mathematicians would believe in God.

----------


## Loki

Like AP, I don't know of the existence of any god(s), Adelheid. If I knew of the existence of a god - seen some evidence, or perhaps the being personally - then don't you think I'd believe in him or her?

----------


## blp

> Every year it has managed to be the bestseller. God is keeping His Word throughout all generations, as He said He would. How many countless time has Emperors, Dictators, Monarchs, etc. Tried to destroy that one Book? In China, I've read of mny rulers who have tried to get rid of every trace of that Book but burning it, and prohibiting imports of that book, and persecuting Missionaries and others who tries to bring in the Bible. I read of an account where a school teacher held up a black book in School one day, and announced to the classroom of students, "If your parents have a book like this, please bring it in tomorrow. I was give you money for it (or something like that)" A girl went home, and found the Bible her parents had hidden. She brought it to school the next day, and that was the last she ever saw her parents again. There are many other such accounts, of the Bible being burned, used as toilet paper, and all sorts of other ways unimaginable. 
> 
> Yet here is still is today surviving- not only that, thrashing every other book too! There is no book that has ever been written or ever will be written that can compare with the Bible: Simply because it is the Inspired Word of God.
> 
> Don't you think then, if something has lasted for hundreds of years, and preserved by God, that there MUST be something to it? In this case, where people give testimonies, and all of nature gives solid evidence on there being a Creator, and the Bible being the Truth and not a Myth, shouldn't you give a heed to it? It has not been like the other books written by men which have dies ages ago, is long forgotten. No! it is still here, because God is gracious and merciful toward YOU, to give you a chance to find and accept the Truth for yourself, before it is too late.


There are plenty of books older than the Christian Bible that are still around today and many of them are religious. 

Insisting that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God is simply not argumentative evidence. It's just your opinion.

----------


## Pendragon

> Would the mathematics be as astronomical as the chances of there being a god? If there is more chance of there being a god than there is of the Universe and all within being mere chance, then I imagine all physicists, biologists and mathematicians would believe in God.


Your question is fair enough, AP. If we are talking the chances of some bizzare "accident" causing a few cells in the primordial soup to eventually become a thinking person, then yes, the chances of there being a God are greater. But as I pointed out once before, everybody is talking and nobody is really listening. I try to meet evolutionists at some point of agreement, but they want everything or nothing. In or out. We should be trying to find middle ground instead of insulting one another. Yes, some are so rabid as to never change, no matter what. But others are searching for that middle ground and offering no offense to the other side. I have never called an athesist names, nor insulted them in any way. I always try to ground an argument on something other than just "that's the way it is." If we cannot agree, we can at least agree to disagree, shake hands, and go on in friendship.

----------


## Logos

If you believe "A" that's fine. If you believe "B" that's fine. 

If "Z" believes "A", don't call them stupid for doing so. 

If "M" believes "B" don't call them stupid for doing so. 

There have been a lot of personal insults and veiled personal derogatory comments directed at other posters in this topic and I'm tired of seeing it. 

If you don't understand what a "flame" is you can ask me.  :Smile:  

I really really don't want to, but, if I see anymore flamey type content in posts I will edit or delete them.

----------


## blp

> I really really don't want to, but, if I see anymore flamey type content in posts I will edit or delete them.


I guess this is directed at me in this instance, since I used the word 'stupid'. Sorry if I overstepped the mark. I'll edit myself.

----------


## Logos

Thank you for doing that blp  :Smile:  

But actually there have been others too calling names you're not the first. But I doubt they will all apologise or edit their own posts. *sigh*

*not directed at anyone in particular* 

People, they're words, text on a screen. If you feel you're getting too emotionally attached to your computer screen I suggest you turn your computer off, stand up, and go find the nearest human being and give them a big old hug.

*no I'm not a hippy  :Tongue:

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

What is the purpose of a Creator? If "God" can be self-caused, cant Nature, too, be self-caused? Nature "selects" which organims will survive and which wont in any specific environment, and those that arent fit change or die. 

Definition of "Fit:" Which organism has the most offspring, has nothing to do with any single trait, such as strength, intelligence, height, agility, etc. 

No trait appears out of nowhere, it is either genetically dormant or active. You may be aware of someone carrying the gene for breast cancer, but she does not have breast cancer. The same goes for everything else. The trait originated in a certain genetic configuration and during conception of the sex cells, the body determines which trait it will use and which it will not. 

About the Bible, one cannot _completely_ trust the Bible. You must understand that there are passages and "laws" in that book which are so primitive compared to todays society. 

Example: "Thou shalt not eat hoofed animals. They are detestable." Do you know why hoofed animals are detestable? Until the 1950s, they had no way of cleaning the carcasses of hoofed animals, and one must be very careful eating pork because they were diseased. But the authors of the Bible had little to no scientific or medical knowledge and displayed that ignorance in the form of "God."

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21: Essaentially, one may slaughter his children if they misbehave. Have you ever seen a devout Christian murder his children? Yes, sometime in history, pious people did. Ritualistic, religiously-driven child/spouse abuse was prevalent in the Middle-Ages, and it is today in isolated theocratic villages, such as Warren Jeffs' Christian community in Arizona. The beatings were almost always perpetrated by men to their wives and children. Sometimes the wife would beat the children.

Is "God" really "good"? Granted, if God does exist, why didn't he denounce even the most horrible atrocities committed in his name, such as the Holocaust, the Crusades, the anti-gay movement and Matthew Sheperd's religiously-motivated murder, or the bombing of abortion clinics? Why were there no more miracles after the Bible was written? Given His lack of response to these things done by people supposedly on His side, representing Him, there are two distinct possibilities for God: 1) God is Evil, or 2) God does not exist.

----------


## Pendragon

I do not, and would NEVER condone evil that is done in the name of God. Sadly, it exists and always has. But one cannot single out the Bible as an example of people abusing religous power, it was always done, even when they worshiped idols that were made by the most skillful artists among the people. The priests of the idols made the laws and woe betide whomsoever failed to obey. But if you use the hypocrite as a reason to dismiss the existence of God, it is a poor argument. For if that person really believed in God, he or she would not act like a hypocrite. Certainly, times have changed since the law of the Old Testament. The incidents you have pointed out are wrong, and I cannot condone those who do wrong, regardless of what they may preach. But letting a hypocrite get between you and God--think about it. They don't believe what they say they do and yet they are preventing you from believing as well!

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

It is the fact that their God has not shown them that they are wrong. Political Christians believe that Jesus will return if we revert to the laws of the Old Testament and totalitarian theocracy. 

What is God's love really worth? As a living human being here and now, what is God's love worth to you? You cannot touch it, show physical affection in return, or sense anything from it and events provide continual evidence against that love, in the form of cancer, sudden death, violence, hatred, and ignorance. How do you explain God's love to a child whose mother has breast cancer?

----------


## RusSpencer

Could someone tell me what all the fuss is about? Exactly what difference does it make? If it's creation, then there are enough concepts of the Creator that we can all find one (or many) compatible with our beliefs--or else create a new Creator to suit our fancy. That's what mankind has always done.

However, I am opposed to teaching creationism in public, tax-supported schools. There is no scientific evidence to back it up; whereas evolution has tons of evidence to support it. If people want to believe in creationism or any other kind of mysticism, they should do it on their on time --or on my tax dollars that go to religious schools: "faith-based" political organizations. But I could go on and on about that. Nowadays it is hard to define exactly what a "public school" is, as religion continually and inexorably encroaches on Government. It they accept tax dollars, they should stick to teaching pure science, excluding the Bible, Koran, Talmud, etc., as textbooks.

----------


## Pendragon

> It is the fact that their God has not shown them that they are wrong. Political Christians believe that Jesus will return if we revert to the laws of the Old Testament and totalitarian theocracy. 
> 
> What is God's love really worth? As a living human being here and now, what is God's love worth to you? You cannot touch it, show physical affection in return, or sense anything from it and events provide continual evidence against that love, in the form of cancer, sudden death, violence, hatred, and ignorance. How do you explain God's love to a child whose mother has breast cancer?


Meanwhile, Political Christians do not represent all of us. As for explaining God's love to the child whose mother has breast cancer, it would be a difficult task. But I have had to face explaining how someone who has been a minister since 1982 is now disabled due to bipolar illness which I inherited from my dad (who was not a Christian). I do not blame God because I have this illness, there are medicines here to help control it, and most of the time I do very well. When I start having episodes, we have to change medications or doses until we reach an even keel again. The reason for the disability is that no one can predict the episode cycles. For every illness there is a cure here somewhere, man just has to find it. I thank God that such dedicated men exist, who will try with everything within them to find the cures for illness that have none as of yet! Bad things do happen to good people, as in the book of Job. If anyone had a right to lose their faith, I did. People kicked me out of churches saying I was devil possessed since they could not understand the illness or why it struck me down. But I only became stonger for it. What does the love of God mean to me, as a mere human? More than you can imagine. I can love anyone, even those who do not understand me or love me in return. But I had to learn it by going through the fires I have been through. This is not a "pity me" post nor a "look at me" post. This is just saying that all who believe in God and the Bible are not the same. God bless.  :Angel:

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

Do you love out of the goodness of your conscience or because God instructed you to do so?

----------


## Pendragon

> Do you love out of the goodness of your conscience or because God instructed you to do so?


That is a fair enough question. To be perfectly honest, a little of both. People who go through what I've been through these past 11 years usually do one of two things:
1.) They become so hard-hearted that nothing moves them
2.) They become very tender hearted

I became so tender hearted that I seriously would not wish what I have faced on my worst enemy, nor do I think anyone could do anything to me bad enough for me to wish it on them. And yes, I believe God would have me love everyone. So it's a bit of both, really. I make friends easily before religion is ever discussed, and I try to not hurt feelings--I've been hurt so badly myself that I don't want anyone hurt by me.  :Smile:

----------


## DTrent

Greetings, posters. I've just joined. Interesting topics, the lot of 'em!

My take on this subject? After investigating both sides - evolution & creation - I've come to find that many scientists do not even agree with each other on evolution.
There are also many people who feel that becuz there are soooooooo many books written on the subject of the theory of evolution that is MUST be true! Not so.
Whether a person is highly educated or not, both have plenty of info available to them to check it out for themselves so they can be properly informed. And since this is such an important subject to be sure about becuz our very lives are involved, it would do us ALL good to be informed so that we can make an informed choice. I applaud everyone's right to freedom of choice re:faith - Faith in evolution or faith in a Creator.

Now what about all those drawings of 'ape men' in school books, etc? Well, it seems the farther back they say something came from in history, the more 'monkey-like' the artists' conception becomes.
And since there are still monkeys, apes, gorillas & the like here on earth, mankind could not have evolved from them. Why? Becuz they are still here. They have not changed & neither have we humans.
Also, there could not ever have been a 'bridging of the gap' between man & ape becuz they cannot mate; they are of different 'kinds'. For ex: A lion & a tiger are of the cat family; they are of the same 'kind'. They can mate & you would get a "liger". (It's been done.) But you cannot mate a dog & a cat becuz they are of 2 different 'kinds'. But you CAN mate a wolf & a dog. Why? Becuz they are both of the dog family. But humans & apes are not of the same family or 'kind'.

I've found that believing in a Creator is just too simple for many 'highly educated' people to accept. Many also do not WANT to believe it becuz then they would be accountable to Someone & this, they do not want! 

Has anyone else here found this to be true?

----------


## Adelheid

> Like AP, I don't know of the existence of any god(s), Adelheid. If I knew of the existence of a god - seen some evidence, or perhaps the being personally - then don't you think I'd believe in him or her?


Isn't the earth around you the flowers, animals, plants, planets, stars all evidence of an unseen God who rules in the universe?

Isn't God's warning that Jesus is coming back soon through the Tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, war and rumors of war evidence that God is keeping His Word? I don't know about you, Loki, but thats my opinion.  :Nod: 

No. People can be stubborn. I can be too.  :Biggrin:  But not everyone who believes that there is a God will choose to believe in Him. And that is for several reasons. Firstly, it may be that choosing to believe in a God will necessarily mean ceasation of several activities which are displeasing to God. Not everyone is eager to do that, therefore, they choose the easier option. Believing evolution. Don't you think that Evolution has holes in the theory? If you read both sides carefully, you will see it. The 'holes' in creation can be explained away. But the holes in the evolution theory cannot be.

I watched a documentary recently. There were several archeologists and scientists interviewed. from both the evolution and creation sides. And the amazing thing in that show was that even the evolutionists AGREED with the Creationists that were no link between apes and humans nowadays. The fossils were either humans or apes. Not in-betweens. How can you explain that away? That is what I mean by having no evidence. Besides, how do you know that the Lucy is not another fraud? Also, it could be an extinct human.

See, the holes in Creation... the strata of bones. Obviously according to the Bible, people only spread out AFTER the animals. so their bones would lie on top of the animals, which would have spread out long before the humans did. That is a totally explainable reason, and the hole is patched. But I can't find a way to patch the Evolution holes without compromising the Bible AND the evidence we find.

That is why any conclusion I make will be in favour of the view which involves a Creator God.  :Nod: 

P.S. I hope I did not offend anyone in this post.  :Angel:

----------


## kramraq

Well, evolution is the same with "cause and effect", assuming Big Bang Theory is right which they say it's the beginning of time, what causes it by the way? or is it WHO causes everything to exist? think about it guys

----------


## Miss Darcy

It's not that easy, kramraq. Say there was a creator who "set off" the Big Bang.
Where did the creator come from?

----------


## Pendragon

I kind of feel like Yoda, here, but there is something I'm sensing in our posts--FEAR. Everyone seems to be afraid to listen to the other person for a moment. The most positive theological statement I ever read was in "Peanuts". Snoopy is writing a theological book entitled "Has It Ever Occured To You That YOU Could Be Wrong?" That is what none of us seem to want to face, that we could be proven wrong. That is the crux of the matter. If we listen the other person might make sense to some degree that might shake the foundations of the walls we have built around ourselves, regardless of what we may believe or disbelieve. So we choose the path of least resistance, which is to totally ignore anything that doesn't perfectly match our already decided belief. I ask all of us, creationest and evolutionist alike, is this an impartial, scientific approach? Man is capable of thought in order to question and think things through. If we were not, then we would believe whatever simply because we could not think of a reason not to do so. But we are not hearing each other, we are dismissing each other. It's doesn't become "let's explore that line of reasoning", it becomes "toss that out". How are we to learn from each other if everyone already has a made-up mind, and not a open one?

----------


## kilted exile

A question for those who believe in a "creator":

To what extent do agree with the idea of Pangea;Tectonic plate movement; age of the planet as 4.6billion years etc?

Are earthquakes;tsunamis;volcanic eruptions geologic processes or are they caused by a god-figure to punish/warn the population?

----------


## Adelheid

An answer to your last question, Kilted exile: both.

It is a warning from God using geological processes (because that seems to be the only things that gets to man) to warn and punish mankind accordingly. It is also a message from the God of Love for unbelievers to repent and believe.

The disasters can be a punishment. Israel was punished by disasters, so was Egypt, when Pharaoh refused to allow the Hebrew slaves to go free.

----------


## Pendragon

> A question for those who believe in a "creator":
> 
> To what extent do agree with the idea of Pangea;Tectonic plate movement; age of the planet as 4.6billion years etc?
> 
> Are earthquakes;tsunamis;volcanic eruptions geologic processes or are they caused by a god-figure to punish/warn the population?


A fair enough question. Let's see if I can answer without dismissing it as "unbiblical" and "toss it out."

That Pangea the "supercontinent" once existed I have no doubt. In Genesis, God says "Let the waters gather together in one place and let the dry land appear." Sounds very familiar. Then came the cataclysam of the flood, the destruction of the anceint world. Teutonic Plate Movement occured as a result and is still in measurable process, that I do not question. My family was so poor, that if we were not the poorest in town, I feel for whoever was! Jigsaw puzzles were cheap and good entertaintment. I can see where the peices fit together, and the rock strata matches. As for the age of the _PLANET_ as 4.6 billion years, consider this from Genesis. "In the begining, God created the heavens and the Earth." Note that period, it's very important. "And the Earth was without form, and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep". Note the second period, also important. "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Third period. "And God said, let there be light, and there was light." See, the Earth was made before the six day (six thousand year) period of creation ever began! How long did it hang there before God got around to finishing it? You'll notice that rock is not one of the things mentioned in the days of creation. Why? It had already been made! The unfinished Earth hung in space a formless mass, perhaps of volcanic upheavals, for are not all births a mess? for how long? We don't know from a Biblical account. So a Scientific account that says rocks are 4.6 billion years old is perfectly acceptable. Nice chatting with you.  :Nod:

----------


## Satirical

Pendragon you are using the same line of reasoning that the church fathers used originally. If it fits into what you want to believe, then change it. You are attempting to take apart scientific theories so you may have LOGICAL evidence for what you are defending. Let us take a break from this for a moment.
The bible is a very poetic group of books. They are all different in their own right, and should never be looked at as a whole(that is just blind zeal). If you would like to be LOGICAL about the bible then you would have to take into account the writing in that first book, and attempt to see whether or not the author was being metaphorical or sincere, much like any other work. Genesis, to me seems as though it was written to be sincere, we must keep in mind that it is a creation myth, and they have always tended to be outlandish(Anglo-Saxons, Bushmen et cetera...). They have for the most part meant to be true by their letters, no sign of figurative. This is what has happened in the chapter of Genesis, but no one says this, it doesn't fit into the church "granchildrens" game plan!

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon you are using the same line of reasoning that the church fathers used originally. If it fits into what you want to believe, then change it. You are attempting to take apart scientific theories so you may have LOGICAL evidence for what you are defending. Let us take a break from this for a moment.
> The bible is a very poetic group of books. They are all different in their own right, and should never be looked at as a whole(that is just blind zeal). If you would like to be LOGICAL about the bible then you would have to take into account the writing in that first book, and attempt to see whether or not the author was being metaphorical or sincere, much like any other work. Genesis, to me seems as though it was written to be sincere, we must keep in mind that it is a creation myth, and they have always tended to be outlandish(Anglo-Saxons, Bushmen et cetera...). They have for the most part meant to be true by their letters, no sign of figurative. This is what has happened in the chapter of Genesis, but no one says this, it doesn't fit into the church "granchildrens" game plan!


And, boom--that lasted a long time, didn't it? I make no questions on what others believe and discuss them intead of tossing them out. Now this post calls creation a myth, questions the author of Genesis' sincerity, refers to outlandish beliefs, etc. Do I do that to you? Do I ever say anything at all about evolution in this way? I have questioned the science behind certain branches of evolution, but in a polite manner. I even accept a form of evolution, that of adaptation of species to the environment. You want all or none. I will not give up my faith for anyone. You put in 25 or more years into studying the Bible, breaking it down book by book. I have a bookshelf dedicated to this study, with reference books and various translations. I always question everything. That's why I believe in God and the Bible. Some of it is, as you say, metaphorical, there for us to learn from, not as true happenings. But consider this for a moment: most myths are rooted in truth somewhere...I have said far too much. God bless.  :Angel:   :Wave:

----------


## Satirical

So if most myths are rooted in truth somewhere does that mean that L.Ron Hubbard is sometimes right? I was not meaning to offend you which I am sure I did by the cyber tone, and fallacious response, so hey....now harm no foul. By the way, I was truly responding to the concept and not to you so don't go making everything personal (do I do this to you blah). Most bible backers do question everything that you mentioned above, and do not think twice about saying they did not. As for your 25 years of study, some people spend their whole lives doing the same thing and come to different conclusions, what do you say about that? Go ahead and feed that ego, they just missed something that your great big brain caught, right? 
(FYI) I am one of those that has spent the majority of my life studying the bible book by book as you so nicely put it. And believe me, you have said nothing that I have not heard before. Too bad it in itself is a myth. Proposition no.1

Oh and one more thing, I think that in you transferred your want for everything to be all or none to me, problem is that it is obvious that this is what you are looking for.

----------


## Pendragon

> So if most myths are rooted in truth somewhere does that mean that L.Ron Hubbard is sometimes right? I was not meaning to offend you which I am sure I did by the cyber tone, and fallacious response, so hey....now harm no foul. By the way, I was truly responding to the concept and not to you so don't go making everything personal (do I do this to you blah). Most bible backers do question everything that you mentioned above, and do not think twice about saying they did not. As for your 25 years of study, some people spend their whole lives doing the same thing and come to different conclusions, what do you say about that? Go ahead and feed that ego, they just missed something that your great big brain caught, right? 
> (FYI) I am one of those that has spent the majority of my life studying the bible book by book as you so nicely put it. And believe me, you have said nothing that I have not heard before. Too bad it in itself is a myth. Proposition no.1
> 
> Oh and one more thing, I think that in you transferred your want for everything to be all or none to me, problem is that it is obvious that this is what you are looking for.


For the record, I apologize to you personally, and to anyone else that may have been offended by my post. I try to follow peace with all men (and women). No, I don't have all the answers, I'm no "big brain", I have no "ego" left to bruise. I make myself no more or no less than just human, prone to the same mistakes and fallices of the whole race. I don't call evolution a "myth" or science "of the devil". If I disagree with it, so be it. Everyone should be settled in their own mind. But please allow me the same. If I believe the Bible, so be it. It doesn't harm anyone who wishes to not believe in it. I do not want all or none. If not for science, my life would be unbearable, since the illness I have requires medicine that I must take daily. You might ask "Couldn't God heal you?" Yes. But it is a burden that I carry and if He would heal me right now that would not be my request of Him, for the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the one. I extend a palm leaf in friendship. How will you respond?  :Smile:

----------


## Logos

Please don't make me edit posts to remove the comments in them that are pointedly directed personally at another member. And yes Satirical your post caused me to post this.

----------


## Satirical

Yet the abstraction was not enough. I understand and apologize. Let us have the leaf.

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

> An answer to your last question, Kilted exile: both.
> 
> It is a warning from God using geological processes (because that seems to be the only things that gets to man) to warn and punish mankind accordingly. It is also a message from the God of Love for unbelievers to repent and believe.
> 
> The disasters can be a punishment. Israel was punished by disasters, so was Egypt, when Pharaoh refused to allow the Hebrew slaves to go free.


I smell a threat to believe, a tactic a lot of Christians use to get others to believe. Shame on you. "God will punish you." Those stories are myths and folklore, no one knows if the Medeterranian Sea was really morphed into a sea of blood or Moses' staff transformed into a snake. And if God was one of "Love" would he use threats and his power as a weapon against unbelievers? Job was a devout believer, and look what his God let Satan do to him! It looks like you, Alheid, follow Pat Robertson, using God to predict and provide vengeful explanations for natural occurances. God loves humanity, and I'm the Queen of Britain!

Heres the problem with ID, clearly and nicely stated in _Time_ this week: ID halts the adventure to discover things. They throw their hands in the air and say "I dont know! God did it!" It provides nothing for science. We want to know the natural reasons and causes for our existence, how DNA works and how/why mutations and changes occur. ID will not provide any of that. 
In Philosophy we covered the ID argument, and there are countless objections:

1) If God was self-caused, couldnt nature be self-caused also?
2) What caused God?
3) God could have done better (appendixes, pancreas, 2 kidneys, tonsils, we are full of things we really dont need that "God" could have omitted.)

Is God really moral? Oh I wrote a 3-page paper on all of the things His followers did throughout history, and a book on morality called The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer provided most of the paper. Suggested reading if you want to know about how a lot atheists can be more moral than some Christians. Shermer used data from many Christian poll organizations on various topics like being a good samaritan, divorce rates, intolerance, cheating on exams, (these were all completed by self-proclaimed Chistians) and concluded that "Not only does religion not necessarily make on more moral, but it can also lead to greater amounts of racism, sexism, and an erosion of cherished values that are so important to a democratic society" (236).

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

The thing about this subject is that one part of you can believe in evolution but another have total faith that God is the cause of this and scientists have no idea what they are talking about. Or at least this is the case with me. My mind says its evolution that no other reason is plausible but, my faith and my heart object. I guess we only really find out when we die.

----------


## clandestine

> Originally posted by RusSpencer
> _I am opposed to teaching creationism in public, tax-supported schools. There is no scientific evidence to back it up; whereas evolution has tons of evidence to support it._


I don't see a problem in teaching creationism in public schools. However, I don't think it should be taught in biology class. Many of the proposals for introducing creationism into public schools call for it to be taught in science classes right along side evolutionism, and as an alternative to it. Therein lies the problem: there is no scientific evidence, to back up 'intelligent design' theories. Creationism does not belong in a science class, but in a philosophy class. It is not based in science; rather, it is based in faith. Creationism would be just as much out of place in a biology class as it would be in an algebra or geometry class.

----------


## Pendragon

> Is God really moral? Oh I wrote a 3-page paper on all of the things His followers did throughout history, and a book on morality called The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer provided most of the paper. Suggested reading if you want to know about how a lot atheists can be more moral than some Christians. Shermer used data from many Christian poll organizations on various topics like being a good samaritan, divorce rates, intolerance, cheating on exams, (these were all completed by self-proclaimed Chistians) and concluded that "Not only does religion not necessarily make on more moral, but it can also lead to greater amounts of racism, sexism, and an erosion of cherished values that are so important to a democratic society" (236).


A question, please. You and I have spoken before, so you know I do NOT condone evil done in the name of Christianity or in the name of God, whatever religion people may follow. But does teaching evolution do anything to stem the tide of this same flow of evil? And if there have been people through out history, (and there have) who have used the name of God and religion for hypocritical purposes, does that mean everyone is to be tarred with the same brush? It is like finding a counterfeit $20. You don't then throw out every one you have, but you do examine them closely. Why do people make counterfeits? Because there is something real out there that people may mistake it for to give it value. It's just something to think about. Not everyone who holds a Bible and talks the talk actually walks the walk unfortunately, and it makes it hard for anyone to trust someone who talks about the Bible. Olive branch?

----------


## ThatIndividual

clandestine is right. teaching creationism in biology would be as bad as teaching the ten commandments in ethics class -- or something. actually, no, it would be quite worse, because ethics is a branch of philosophy, whereas, science is supposed to be empirical. If creationism must be included, and i don't see why it should in any class but a religion course, it should be taught in a philosophy of biology class, or even just plain philosophy. (but in a class in just plain philosophy I'm sure there is no time to cover such a trifle)

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

"But does teaching evolution do anything to stem the tide of this same flow of evil?" This "flow of evil" is not associated with science or secularism, I can assure you. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...8944-2,00.html The study that the article refers to is here: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

From _Why People Believe Weird Things_ by Michael Shermer, Creationism/ID "'would be like the Flat Earth Society insisting their theory be taught in the public schools'" (166).

There are a lot of weird theories about the world and people. Why arent scientologists rallying for public acceptance of their theories as well (that we were created by aliens)? 

We recently tackled the teleological argument (the ID/Creationism argument for Gods existence) in Philosophy, and despite popular opinion in the class (that "Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church" [Tina Fey, Weekend Update on SNL]), the idea fell flat on its face. You cant teach something in science class that cant even hold its own in Philosophy. In fact, none of the proofs of the existence of God held up. It's all about legitimizing bad science, and scientists wont have it. Science is the search for applicable and objective truths. You can believe that Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church all you want, but science will continue as science.

----------


## ThatIndividual

It is actually high time that Christians embrace evolution. Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Genesis can certainly be read, and quite reasonably, as a metaphor for what science supports as the actual history of our universe/world. Furthermore, God having caused evolution to occur, could have still sent a son to sacrifice to the sinners of the world. (Do note, in case you are unfamiliar with my frequent posts concerning christianity, I am not a christian.) 
Shunning evolution, and clinging to the asinine belief that the world is no more than 10,000 years old, only causes the learned community to disregard Christian beliefs as unfounded and outrageous, and Christianity as no more than a highly successful cult. 
Science is not a collection of "flaming darts" shot from the sling of the "evil one." It is science. It is mathematical. Christ or no Christ, God gave man a rational mind, and may in fact be quite offended if we were to shun the use thereof.

----------


## Pendragon

You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism. Philosophy doesn't really deal with absolutes, but with gray areas. Still many philosophers and many scientists do believe in a devine being. And they have no real problem with that being starting the whole thing off, as it were. The problem seems to lie with the Bible itself, they have trouble accepting anything written therein as devinely inspired, or anything but retold myths. If that be their stand, then OK, let them act as they see fit, I believe in freedom and the first admendment. But I will expect the same from them in return, my freedom to believe as I will. And even if we disagree, I still would defend their right to have no religion or any that they choose as strongly as I defend my own! And you can go to the bank with that!

----------


## ThatIndividual

[QUOTE=Pendragon]You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism. 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Would you kindly clarify?

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

Pendragon, do you know what philosophy is?

Philo - Love 
Sophia - of knowledge

While philosophers do deal predominantly with grey areas, it does hold that the Scientific Method of Belief is the best method of belief. They seek to find out what things are defended best, to believe whatever has the _most_ evidence to support it. Philosophy could, in my opinion, be called an "intellectual science."

Of course some scientists believe in a divine being, but that doesnt lead to a strict, rigid adherence to some ancient book. The Founding Fathers believed in a Creator, but had no respect for the Bible.

With that being said, lets look at Evolution and Creationism:

Creationism: A 10,000 year old book of ancient laws and myths, a few billion followers (which doesnt count as "evidence")

Evolution: Fossil records, physical data, DNA, geneology, behavioral similarities between species which one can observe and many have written about, real species variation (Flu variants, adaptation to insecticides, etc).

Which do you think the philosopher will be more likely to believe?

----------


## greenburke

The problem with Evolution is that Evolution is more than a theory based upon science. "Science," by definition is what we can study and observe. 

What can we study and observe.
First, in order for our observable, tangible Universe- (by the way Universe in Latin means single spoken sentence) -three things need to come into existence simultaneously.
1. Time 2. Space 3. Matter

The Evolution Theory does not account for the true start, the absolute beginning of the Universe, because Evolution fails to solve how time and space came into existence.
The theory of evolution only accounts for matter, and at that Evolution claims that all the matter of the Universe was once rolled up into a dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence (Paraphrased from Stephen Goul). This Big Bang Theory also claims that this really heavy dot (In the Greek that is an "Infinitesimal Region), this dot that contained all the matter necessary to make me and you, evolved from literally nothing. Not only is the Big Bang Theory fanciful, it is flatly contradicted by Modern Science. "Matter can not arise from non-matter." Something can't come from nothing.
Even if it was "Billions and Billions of years ago."

The only way the known Universe could have come into existence was if Time, Space, and Matter we brought into being simultaneously. 

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Beginning- time Heavens- space Earth- matter

As for the young Earth, take a couple quick examples:

The Earths core is cooling down, if the Earth was a billion years old, the Earths core would be cold, done, no magnetic fields. In fact all the stars are cooling down and they could not be millions of years old.

The moon is getting farther and farther away from the Earth, which means at one time it was closer. If the Earth was millions of years old the moon would have been so close that the tides would have continually flooded the earth.

The Earths rotation is slowing down, which means it was spinning faster before, of the Earth was millions of years old, the Coriolis Effect would have been out of control, the wind would have over 500 miles an hour.

If people had been around for 3 million years there would be tenthousand people per square inch of the planet, the current Population curves down close to zero 0 around 4,400 years ago (roughly the time of the Biblical Flood).

The oldest Tree isnt older than 4,000 years old; the biggest desert isnt older than 4,400 years old.

The Evolutionist believes, in the beginning was DIRT, but they cant explain how it got there.
The Bible teaches that God created the heavens and earth in seven days, and I cant tell how God got there, but Gods very character is eternal.

Evolution is a crumbling theory (2nd law of Thermodynamics, everything goes from order to chaos), take Evolution out of Science classes and put it in the world religions or philosophy class.

For more and more precise facts, check out drdino.com

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

There are flaws with what you say. It doesnt matter how "big" something is, its how much matter (atoms) are contained in it. It didnt contain the material to make "me and you," that came much later, when atoms bonded together, as the first step, to form DNA, then came single-celled organisms, which asexually reproduced, etc.

Your theory with population is incorrect because you are not accounting for diease, climate change, or natural disasters or interspecies competition. There are many factors that contribute to population size, and no population steadily increases from start to extinction.

The biggest tree is 4,000 years old. So? Disease, natural disasters, etc. It also depends on the species of tree and its life span. As long as trees live, they dont live forever.

Dirt: Lava to molten rock which erodes by the sea always putting steady pressure on it (seven wonders are bizarre rock formations due to water), rock degrades to sand, and dirt is sand mixed with other elements.

If you can't determine what Time is, how are you supposed to define "Eternal?"

----------


## Oblivion437

Do you have any hard facts to support that?

Besides, if the 2nd law of thermodynamics directly applied to biology* how could the universe have lasted even eight thousand years?

*Law 2 of thermodynamics (Entropy) doesn't directly apply to the field of biology or to the Earth, the Earth is not a closed system of matter or energy, and biological systems behave in distinctly anti-thermodynamic behaviors. The formation of gastrula from ovum, and that gastrula's eventual development into a human being is proof of this. Hell, there are even examples of counter-entropy in theoretically entropic systems, namely the formation of crystalline structures. Osmosis and leveling aren't constants, merely common. To confuse the two elements, or to over-broadly attempt to implicate information's probative value, is one mistake science itself seeks to correct.

If anything, the real flaw with Darwinian evolution is its racism. Darwin himself was highly racist, and a supporter of fellow racist biologists. That was why a primarily Christian intelligentsia bought into it. They were also hard-core bigots. The term 'unapologetically racist' is typically reserved for that movie (I know the name of the damn movie, but I don't want to drop it needlessly, and potentially derail the thread) by DW Griffith, the writings of FW Nietszche, and the 'typical' attitude in 'white' America. However, all those pale in comparison to people who frothed at multiple orifaces to justify their self-serving notions of ethnic superiority, which they as court historians to powerful kings did sell for centuries.

----------


## Satirical

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

You need to read up on your history, you seem to be pulling from Anglo-Saxon resources only. There are at least two continents with differing opinions.

The Earths core is cooling down, if the Earth was a billion years old, the Earths core would be cold, done, no magnetic fields. In fact all the stars are cooling down and they could not be millions of years old.

Understanding what I do of physics, this is nothing to even look at. It takes millions of years for the combination to run its course. For the stars we must also take into account that our closest star is 4.4 light-years away from us, which means we have a later look on things, so come on, what is time in that sense. You are going to have to bring some hard credibility to pull this one off.

The moon is getting farther and farther away from the Earth, which means at one time it was closer. If the Earth was millions of years old the moon would have been so close that the tides would have continually flooded the earth.

I am almost sick of Kepler by now. The moon comes and goes, that is known. Elliptical!

If people had been around for 3 million years there would be tenthousand people per square inch of the planet, the current Population curves down close to zero 0 around 4,400 years ago (roughly the time of the Biblical Flood).

Cite your facts, and good facts not some creationist website, this is just wrong on so many levels. BYW evolution from common descent.lol


The Evolutionist believes, in the beginning was DIRT, but they cant explain how it got there.

Neither can you. Does that make evolution wrong? Ad hominum TO ad absurdum.


Evolution is a crumbling theory (2nd law of Thermodynamics, everything goes from order to chaos), take Evolution out of Science classes and put it in the world religions or philosophy class.

Superfluous if you were right. He said and she said does not hold up, but I am not Aristotle. 

I do not mean to step on toes, but not anyone here is a scientist on the topics and all I seem to be reading is speculation. This is the reason that people that come to the internet looking for information are so confused, "there are as many opinions as there are people"(Cicero) When will we learn that misinformation is not the solution, it just hides the problem with a veil of arrogance. Take the works of your favorite author and gather their opinion on the world, but don't espouse it as the end-all of history, are you Lucretuis? are you Saul? were they right? are they not authors themselves? and, saying that, are we not merely readers?

----------


## bluewire

Even if someone knew what happened in the beginning of the universe, there would still be people who would doubt. There is no such thing as truth. <---Get this into your head. If enough people believe in something does it make it true? No. If you can logically explain why this or that point of view is true does it make it true? No. We live in a world where it is possible to doubt the very existence of yourself. Truth is a point of view. Scientific facts have done as much for society as any religion's point of view on creation.

----------


## Pendragon

[QUOTE=ThatIndividual]


> You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism. 
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Would you kindly clarify?


I simply meant that philosophy doen't negate creationism in and of itself. That philosophy will argue more with the Bible than with whether or not a creator was involved in the begining of things. It's the Biblical record that people question most of all. Using philospophy, you may prove to everyone's satisfaction that everything is just an illusion and nothing really exists. However, others do not appear to agree. I am content to leave it lay and believe as I choose and allow them to do the same. This bickering gives me a headache.  :Wave:

----------


## MiSaNtHrOpE

Even if you could prove Evolution wrong, that in no way makes creationism right (_Why People Believe Weird Things_ by Michael Shermer).

If evolution is wrong, biologists will pick up the adventure again. Dont ever think scientists will resort to mysticism to explain the origins of life.

----------


## ThatIndividual

Pendragon, I see what you are saying about philosophy, but the thing is that that is the point!

Evolution doesn't dispute that there is a creator, it disputes the literal interpretation of Genesis. It doesn't even dispute Christianity. It disputes beliefs such as the one that states that the world is not more than 10,000 years old.

I believe in God AND evolution. Natural selection, by the way, is more than provable. No one who has ever studied science with an open mind would dispute this 'theory.' It's to be seen. Only look, and you will see.

----------


## greenburke

On Truth- 
The men and women with the greatest breadth of mental capacity are those who recognize and willingly accept truth when they see it, and are willing to identify underlying principles and trace from cause and effect. Vance Ferrell

One man says, There is no truth! Ahah! I have found truth. 
To say that there is no truth does sound very philosophically relevant and post-modern, unless you look at the definition of truth.
I typed in truth at dictionary.com and I was given the following definition

truth 
1.	Conformity to fact or actuality. 
2.	A statement proven to be or accepted as true. 
3.	Sincerity; integrity. 
4.	Fidelity to an original or standard. 
5.	
a.	Reality; actuality. 
b.	often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate 
When I typed in truth the definition was not No such queries found, no available matches or does not presently exist or none.
So when you say there is no truth, you have a different definition of truth than stated by the common dictionary.
To sate that mans doubt alone dictates truth is shallow and irrelevant. Doubt does exist, it is observable, but doubt itself does not determine if there are facts, facts determine if there should be doubt, indecision, and skepticism. And if you show me that there is no truth by trying to verify it you are digging yourself into a bigger hole that you started with. When one states there is no truth and one sincerely believe the integrity of the statement, one conforms to the facts, the reality, the truth their statement, than they are caught by their own statement. One cannot logically travel outside this statement. If there is no truth (validity), then there is no space to argue against truth, without conformity to your own truth (although a gross misnomer) that there is no truth.

----------


## greenburke

You need to read up on your history, you seem to be pulling from Anglo-Saxon resources only. There are at least two continents with differing opinions.

On Anglo-Saxon resources-

1. The Bible was written by Jewish authors.

2. The Bible is just as much an Anglo-Saxon resource as the Koran, the sayings of Confucius or Karma-Sutra, just because they are popular among Anglo-Saxons does not make the text Anglo-Saxon.

3. Anglo-Saxons have shown a history of despising Jews, the main cast of the Bible, Anglo-Saxons have shown a history of not reading the Bible and making mystic creeds and un-Biblical doctrines (prayer to Mary, assigning who became a saint). 
Adam was not an Anglo-Saxon, neither the prophet Isaiah, Jesus is not an Anglo-Saxon. Anglo-Saxons became distinguished after the Bible was written. 

5. Russia and its Orthodox Church follow the Bible, they are not Anglo-Saxon.
Many Africans haves followed the Bible ever since Phillip preached to that eunuch in the book of Acts. 
And more importantly than just following the Bible they found salvation from the words of Christ, from His death and Resurrection.
In the case of the Biblical worldwide flood, it is found in the folklore of 120 tribes worldwide.

----------


## greenburke

Besides, if the 2nd law of thermodynamics directly applied to biology* how could the universe have lasted even eight thousand years?

[B]iological systems behave in distinctly anti-thermodynamic behaviors.

On the Second law of Thermodynamics-
All systems will tend to the most mathematically probable state, and will eventually become totally random and disorganized. Ferrell

Energy + Time does not = Bigger and Better and more complex. 

Energy is destructive when it is without purpose.

The suns rays are destructive to everything on Earth. The sun will peel the paint of your designed car, the suns energy will wreck the roof of your designed house, crumble the grand designs of the Pantheon (Ancient Ruins need energy and time to crumble). Except one tiny molecule chlorophyll, that helps plants grow, but even plants whither.

Bigger is not always better, smaller is more complex. There is a picture of an Ant holding a microchip in its mouth, the complexities of a microscopic amoeba are astounding. Man is smaller than any dinosaur. The earth is smaller than the sun.

There is a natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation-the law of increasing entropy.-R.R. Kinsday, Physics to What extent is It Deterministic, in American Science 56 (1968) 

There should have been a lot of evolution going on in the stars, because they are best open systems. This open system argument effectively negates the 2nd law anywhere in the universe, except the cold reaches of outer space, and cold planets distant from stars.

The Earths moon receives as much energy from the sun as Earth does, but it just turn to dust. If sunlight disclaimed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, physicists and scientists like Einstein would have discarded it.

Energy by itself increases entropy, so random heat or energy will increase entropy.

But, energy that is brought into a system from the outside, and which is intelligently controlled and directed can temporarily interfere with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It can for a time apparently stop entropy. Still, deliberate ongoing effort has to be expended to accomplish this feat.

Ordered systems such as maintaining the human body, are working within the Second law, not outside it.

Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. John Ross, Chemical Engineering news, July 7, 1980, p.4 [Harvard University reasearcher].

----------


## Satirical

The Bible is just as much an Anglo-Saxon resource as the Koran, the sayings of Confucius or Karma-Sutra, just because they are popular among Anglo-Saxons does not make the text Anglo-Saxon.

Most of everything else you have written were off base, but this is unacceptable! What are you saying here. Ethnocentrisim is rampant.

----------


## Satirical

The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

There are several other places where this can be explained in several other countries in several other continents. This was not the only place that this could and has been explained, that is what I meant by Anglo-Saxon resources. In fact, if I recall correctly the universe was created prior to the writing of the Old testemant, which is, for me, another way of saying that it had been written about previously.

BTW, do you know what I mean when I say Anglo-Saxon? I think you are confused.

----------


## greenburke

By the by Satirical
Your complete Anglo Saxon point is utterly Ad Hominem,
and your ethnocentric arguement is a complete fallacy.

Even if the Bible and me were catagorized as "Anglo-Saxon,"
that does not mean my argument does not hold water, simply on that.

"Most of everything else you have written were off base" -Satirical

"...you seem to be pulling from Anglo-Saxon resources only. There are at least two continents with differing opinions." -Satirical

If I was pulling only from Anglo-Saxon sources (which I'm not),
that does not discredit my arguemnt, please check your fallacies.
I don't need to contend with it, beacuase it's irrelevant.

Of course their are differing opinions of Creation and Evolution on other continents, even on this same continent, that does not discredit my argument, you discredit your self by making the claim. 

Using the Bible does make my arguement any less strong, although unpopular.
Can you show eqaully strong, supportive facts, for evolution? 
Without jabbing at irrelevancies? I made a claim, now support yours own.

"It takes millions of years for the combination to run its course" -Satirical

Can you make back-up your claim? Can you even logically show that the earth is more than 10,000 years old without calling names?

*As for the rest of you- I beg for facts, not just disagreements.*

"It doesnt matter how "big" something is, its how much matter (atoms) are contained in it." -misanthrope

Evolution is completely concerned with how "big" something is, to the evolutionsist, things get bigger and better, it's you who have to prove how all the matter in the Universe, obviously the more matter there is the more space it takes up. Atoms or otherwise. 

It's up to you to prove how more matter magically grew from less matter, and less complex matter without design, try to adequetly show and convince me with reason, and disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics, "matter does not arise from not matter." Somply stated you can't get more from less. Atoms, Matter, Hamburgers, light bulbs, you can't get more from less.
You have to work with what you already have.

----------


## greenburke

I did account for all that, you assume too much. I am stating that Creationism is right,
I never stood on the foundation that if evolution was wrong Creation suddenly becomes right. 
You are the one who said, "if you could prove Evolution wrong, that in no way makes creationism right" -Misanthrope.

You haven't made any clear argument against Creation, you simply used the old fashion ad hominem fallacy,
by calling creation mysticism, and claiming scientists as authorities without giving any sound reason for why they are authorities, and why what they say should be the benchmark. Give me facts, not the old "evolution is science" (even though you don't know why), no evolution is religion, it takes faith to believe , and at many points does not rely on science.

----------


## Loki

For firsts, welcome to the forum, greenburke.  :Biggrin: 

For seconds...I suppose if you've grown up with Christianity all this God business is hard to avoid believing. I guess it's also easy to believe that a scientific theory with a solid record of fossils, DNA proof (btw did you know that we share 99.4 % of the DNA with chimpanzees? Physiologically, we are a member of the Great Apes, African ones at that), adaptation, and so much more is no more supported by facts than a rather old piece of literature that states the world is flat, pi=3, snakes talk, etc.

Earlier on, you stated that evolution is a flawed theory due to the fact that 




> The Evolution Theory does not account for the true start, the absolute beginning of the Universe, because Evolution fails to solve how time and space came into existence.


No offence, but evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe! Evolution is merely a theory describing life and how it evolves.




> Evolution: The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.


The beginning of the universe - the beginning of spacetime (time is the fourth dimension of space, there is no such thing as "absolute" time...time is elastic and can be warped by gravity) is described by the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory and Theory of Evolution are two very different things.

It is useless to ask what happened "before" the Big Bang because there was, in effect, no before - the Big Bang was the beginning of time and space, there was nothing, no time and no space, before this.




> The only place that is explained is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


I'm curious, where did this God of yours _come from_? 

I know that real science is a bit difficult to swallow after reading a lot of sweet-tasting creationist hogwash, but as a rational human being surely you must question the validity of the "science" of creationism? (If you're interested in one of the many reasons I'm not being really polite about this so-called science then I'd recommend you to read "Telling Lies for God" by Ian Plimer.)

If you'd like to be exposed to some real science then I'd recommend Richard Dawkins' _A Devil's Chaplain_ (a collection of essays) or _River Out of Eden_, which are most applicable to the subjects being discussed. If you're interested in a more general background on science, then I'd recommend Paul Davies or Stephen Hawking. My personal favourites.  :Smile: 

Just an interesting off-side, did you know that according to new neurology research, our brains are still evolving?

Loki

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon, I see what you are saying about philosophy, but the thing is that that is the point!
> 
> Evolution doesn't dispute that there is a creator, it disputes the literal interpretation of Genesis. It doesn't even dispute Christianity. It disputes beliefs such as the one that states that the world is not more than 10,000 years old.
> 
> I believe in God AND evolution. Natural selection, by the way, is more than provable. No one who has ever studied science with an open mind would dispute this 'theory.' It's to be seen. Only look, and you will see.


Let's go all the way back here:



> #651 
> Pendragon 
> You know, a philosophy class doesn't make the best platform for throwing out creationism. Philosophy doesn't really deal with absolutes, but with gray areas. Still many philosophers and many scientists do believe in a devine being. And they have no real problem with that being starting the whole thing off, as it were. The problem seems to lie with the Bible itself, they have trouble accepting anything written therein as devinely inspired, or anything but retold myths. If that be their stand, then OK, let them act as they see fit, I believe in freedom and the first admendment. But I will expect the same from them in return, my freedom to believe as I will. And even if we disagree, I still would defend their right to have no religion or any that they choose as strongly as I defend my own! And you can go to the bank with that!


Is it possible that you failed to catch the part where I said that the problem seems to lie with the fact that philosophers and scientists can't accept the Biblical records as written? And if we go even further back you will find that I believe in Evolution, the type known as adaptation of species to environment, which causes changes. But my faith in God as the Creator remains unshaken. I will admit that the age of the Earth and the animals remains a mystery, and that since time itself means nothing to God, the time measurements in Genesis are arbitrary. One thing that struck me recently though, was the National Geographic Special on the chimpanze that had always walked upright like a man. His head was also shaped differently. Science began to wonder if he were perhaps a crossbreed. DNA proved he was a chimp, but had an extra chromozone. His face and head reminded me a lot of the "Lucy" being. He was that one in a million chance that is possible, but not probable. Still, he existed, and they have pictures, film footage, his DNA, and his skeleton for proof. But it makes me wonder about some fossil evidence where they only have 1 skull or so. Do they really have a complete species, or is it that same one in a million chance repeated?

----------


## greenburke

> No offence, but evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe! Evolution is merely a theory describing life and how it evolves.
> 
> 
> 
> The beginning of the universe - the beginning of spacetime (time is the fourth dimension of space, there is no such thing as "absolute" time...time is elastic and can be warped by gravity) is described by the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory and Theory of Evolution are two very different things.
> 
> Loki


1. *Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.* 


2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 

3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets. 

4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter. 

5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds. 

6. *Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious.* They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayers expense. 

When I use the word *evolution*, I am not referring to the *minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution).*  I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God: 

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 

Planets and stars formed from space dust. 

Matter created life by itself. 

Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. 

Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

----------


## Adelheid

Loki,

Nowhere in the Bible is written that the earth is flat.

----------


## Jesuswillcome

Chaotic stasis!(calling out across the universe's) 'somebody find us and help us PLEASE!!!!!!!!'.(TeArS)

----------


## Stanislaw

Most proof for and against the existence of God /creationism is a fallacy:
ad ignorantium, the appeal to ignorance:
God/creationism exists because you can't prove he doesn't and vice versa, God/creationism doesn't exist because you can't prove he does.

think about it when forming a post.

----------


## greenburke

[QUOTE=God/creationism exists because you can't prove he doesn't and vice versa, God/creationism doesn't exist because you can't prove he does.

think about it when forming a post[/QUOTE]


This topic is about facts supporting or denying, Creationism and Evolution.
This argument isn't about the existence of God, specifically, although implied.

You presented the existence of God, which is off topic.
You presented that fallacy, nobody on this thread has argued that way.
You negate your own post, but not the rest of ours.

Simply stated your argument and fallacy aren't relevant, it is almost narrow minded, and dismissive.

----------


## ThatIndividual

Greenburke, you say that when you use the term 'evolution' you are referring to the theory that those 5 phenomena take place "without God" however, those theories don't say anything about taking place "without God." They just propose natural explanations for natural phenomena, but they never say that God didn't set it in motion. 

My question for you is, don't you believe that God and evolution could quite possibly co-exist?

----------


## ThatIndividual

Pendragon, I have a feeling that you and I are in total agreement of God and evolution -- now I see what it is you're saying. 

I'm also a creationist. However, I'm a creative-evolutionist. (I just coined that term. Nice, huh?) 

I know that evolution occurs. I'm quite certain that the world is more than 10,000 years old. I am also quite certain that God exists and created all of this. 

There are no contradictions or inconsistancies here.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon, I have a feeling that you and I are in total agreement of God and evolution -- now I see what it is you're saying. 
> 
> I'm also a creationist. However, I'm a creative-evolutionist. (I just coined that term. Nice, huh?) 
> 
> I know that evolution occurs. I'm quite certain that the world is more than 10,000 years old. I am also quite certain that God exists and created all of this. 
> 
> There are no contradictions or inconsistancies here.


Thank you. It just occured to me, that if you can conceive a being of such power as to create all of this around us, that trying to put said being into time such as we know it is ridiculious. To such a being, time is nothing, so we have no way of saying how long this or that took. Genesis speaks of days, which we are later told are as a thousand years to God. But to the writer, a thousand years was probably unimaginable. The truth is God doesn't fit into human time. So how long did it take? I'll let the scientists try to figure that out. I still wonder about some fossil evidence, as I said, given the things that seem to never evolve, that crazy fish they thought was extinct, aligators and crocidiles, etc. And then there's that weird chimp... it's food for thought anyway.  :Wave:

----------


## Miss Darcy

> Nowhere in the Bible is written that the earth is flat.


Just for clarity, Adelheid  :Smile:  Loki may have  :Biggrin:  been referring to




> Isaiah 11:12 
> 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.


Well, nothing round has corners, does it?




> Daniel 4:11 
> 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:


Perhaps this is only metaphorical??

But how about this:




> Matthew 4:8 
> 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV) 
> 
> _Commentary:__ Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed._


Therefore the Christian Bible implies the earth is flat.
Well it's not really surprising, seeing as the Bible was written such a long time ago; this was the school of thought they had back then, and thus we have it preserved.




> He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)


The famous line (or one of them) that got poor old Galileo into trouble. The Catholic Church only formally forgave him in 1992.

Just my little bit of silver.

 :Wink: 

Darcy

----------


## greenburke

*Quote:
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)*  
Flat earth? Just beacuase it's set on foundations? Just beacause it can never be moved from these foundations?

I've heard the expression for corners, that never made me think the earth was flat. Although it is a powerful expression, a daunting image. Ends of the earth, powerful expression as well. Moving along...


I like Psalms.

Quote: 
*Psalms 103 vs.11 and 12

"11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, 
so great is his love for those who fear him; 

12 as far as the east is from the west, 
so far has he removed our transgressions from us."* 

"As far as the east is from the west," pretty far, immposibly far if the earth is round, beacause east and west don't meet up. South and north meet, but not east and west.

I like the Book of Job too.

Quote:
*Job 26 vs.6 and 7

"6 Death is naked before God; 
Destruction lies uncovered. 

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; 
he suspends the earth over nothing."*  

Wait, so the earth has foundations and it suspends over nothing!
East and West don't meet?
Sounds like a globe to me.

----------


## greenburke

> Greenburke, you say that when you use the term 'evolution' you are referring to the theory that those 5 phenomena take place "without God" however, those theories don't say anything about taking place "without God." They just propose natural explanations for natural phenomena, but they never say that God didn't set it in motion. 
> 
> My question for you is, don't you believe that God and evolution could quite possibly co-exist?



Either man brought death into the world (creation, fall, death),
or death brought man into the world (evolution).

Besides why would a perfect God, use such a ridiculous method when he could speak everything into being, and breath life into a pile of dirt.
Man is made in God's image, not monkeys.

...more on this when I'm less sleepy.

----------


## Satirical

Sounds like your examples, are you grasping at metaphoric straws. At least she gave the "mountain top" example.

----------


## Miss Darcy

> Quote:
> "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5) 
> Flat earth? Just beacuase it's set on foundations? Just beacause it can never be moved from these foundations?


Sorry for being ambiguous, but I wasn't talking about a flat earth here, only about an "immoveable" one. And we all know the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, don't we. So either God was being highly metaphorical or just plainly didn't have his science right.




> I've heard the expression for corners, that never made me think the earth was flat.


Are you implying that God was being metaphorical again?

Darcy

----------


## greenburke

Say I'm some weirdo, easy enough.
And I supperglue cats to couchs.
And I tell you in prose,

"The cat sits on the couch, it can never be moved."

You gawk at what I said,
When suddenly, from around the corner, comes a couch on wheels,
ZOOMING past us at 50 miles an hour. Sure enough, there's a cat superglued to the couch.

You say to me, "I thought you said that cat could never be moved!"

I say,
"I did, that cat can't move. But that couch sure hauls asss." 

-----------------------------
So what if the eath's stuck on foundations (the earth we all live on rests on a matle and core), that doesn't mean this planet isn't hurtling through space,
suspended over nothing.



By the way the KJV words it differently.

Psalm 104:5 KJV 
"Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

----------


## Satirical

Modern Hebrew
יסד־ארץ על־מכוניה 
בל־תמוט עולם ועד׃


Hebrew Transliterated
104:5 YSD-'aUrTSh 'yL-MKVNYH BL-ThMVT 'yVLM V'yD.


Latin Vulgate
104:5 qui fundasti terram super basem suam non commovebitur in saeculum et in saeculum


King James Version
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.


American Standard Version
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, That it should not be moved for ever.


Bible in Basic English
104:5 He has made the earth strong on its bases, so that it may not be moved for ever and ever;


Darby's English Translation
104:5 He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever.


Douay Rheims Bible
104:5 Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.


Noah Webster Bible
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.


World English Bible
104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, That it should not be moved forever.


Young's Literal Translation
104:5 He hath founded earth on its bases, It is not moved to the age and for ever.

----------


## Satirical

Oh, and you must work on your prose, everyone knows that cats and couches don't mix. In fact, couches revolve around cats, the whole universe does!

Psalms 92: "He has made the CAT firm, not to be moved." 
Psalms 103: "You fixed the CAT upon its foundation, not to be moved forever." 
And how about in Joshua 10:12: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, COUCH, stand thou still upon Gibeon." 

Luther used to write against Galileo using this argument, I believe.

----------


## greenburke

Yess, the famous cat and couch.

The earth is resting on foundations (crust, matle, core). 
None of these (crust, mantle core) move around the universe by themself, but as a globe, as a whole.

So the earth does rest on a foundation, and it shall never move, be removed.


And the KJV came out in 1611, the time when your arguement would be more valid, and the NIV came out when everybody knew the earth moved. "Removed" (KJV), "moved" (NIV).

Cat's superglued to couches, yes indeed.

----------


## Satirical

Those straws are getting shorter, eh?

----------


## greenburke

Naw, 
how bout you show me when the earth ever moved off it's foundation.
Your holding the short straw.

----------


## Loki

> The basis on which something stands or is supported; a base.


Sorry, but on what does the Earth stand? Around its own core, I suppose you'll say. But what about the part,

"cannot be moved"?

That does not necessarily imply it doesn't move from its "foundations" as "God" calls it. From what I see "He" meant _cannot be moved whatsoever_.

Words, words, words.

Or we could say, concepts, concepts, concepts. Did the Christian god ever realise that words and concepts are not the real thing? That a book of words can never be a sampling of the divine?

----------


## Loki

> Foundation: the basis on which something stands or is supported; a base.


Sorry, but on what does the Earth stand? Around its own core, I suppose you'll say. But what about the part,

"cannot be moved"?

That does not necessarily imply it doesn't move from its "foundations" as "God" calls it. From what I see "He" meant _cannot be moved whatsoever_.

Words, words, words.

Or we could say, concepts, concepts, concepts. Did the Christian god ever realise that words and concepts are not the real thing? That a book of words can never be a sampling of the divine?

----------


## Pendragon

Back to "the four corners of the Earth" being evidence that The Bible teaches that the world is flat, remember these people were noted for their ability as sailors. They navigated by the stars, since things such as compasses and sextants were yet to be invented. But they knew there were four basic directions. Even we today, knowing full well that the Earth is round and that it goes around the Sun and spins on its axis tend to devide the world into those four basic directions: North, South, East, and West, the major points of the compass. But since the Earth is round, exactly where does North end and South begin? At the Equator, an imaginary line around the center of the Earth. Where does East become West? There's the Prime Meridian another imaginarly line from North to South. Unable to see the whole globe (remember the America's were undiscovered), we may perhaps excuse the lessened view of the world. But since anyone at the ocean's edge can, if they look, see the curve of the Earth, I don't really buy the flat Earth theory. People interpeted it that way, of course, and perscuted anyone who had enough sense to disagee. But it didn't mean that was what it said or meant.

----------


## Adelheid

you should visit this website: www.trueorigin.org

----------


## Taliesin

This is a good one too: http://www.venganza.org  



We just couldn't resist. Sorry.

----------


## Adelheid

well, at LEAST we have the truth being heard in the schools, so that whatever decision the kids make to choose their belief, it will be with the whole picture. Else they will be biased. I should like it that way rather than the way it is NOW.

 :FRlol:  People just don't buy the alien thing...... say what you will  :Wink:

----------


## Loki

On the same line of...links...I'd like to add:

http://www.churchofvirus.org/

Wonderful website.  :Wink:

----------


## Pendragon

> well, at LEAST we have the truth being heard in the schools, so that whatever decision the kids make to choose their belief, it will be with the whole picture. Else they will be biased. I should like it that way rather than the way it is NOW.
> 
>  People just don't buy the alien thing...... say what you will


Adelheid, as you know, I strongly support God creating the world and believe the Bible. Yet I'm going to say something here that I hope doesn't shake your faith in me. I think it a shame that our churches have become so lax in their teaching of the Bible that children would have to depend on school to tell them that God created the world. When I was a kid, I was desperately poor, from the "wrong side of town", yet my siblings and I attended Bible school every summer at one of the biggest Baptist Churches in town, when mostly rich people were members. Then, Bible School lasted six weeks, was an all-day activity, and we were taught the Bible. My ability to name all books of the Bible in order comes from back then, as does a lot of scripture I can quote by heart. Now, no one has that kind of time to invest in young people. Some that have come here have told me that their youth pastor was more interested in teaching them to play rock guitar than anything else. Always young people would seek me out, because I would make time for them. That's what is sad. I learned about God creating the world in church, and church school in the summer. The church is failing to do its job. Realisticly, I don't think the private sector is going to do it for them either willingly or acurately.

----------


## Adelheid

no, no!!!!

I perfectly agree with you, Pen, and it has won even more admiration.  :Nod:  I think you are right about the church not teaching the kids that sort of thing enough, that is why I am always grateful to the Lord for bringing us and directing us to a church (even though it is small) that upholds the Bible, and believes in it as the Inspired Word of God. 

Nowadays, the churches (at least the big ones) [I am not referring to ALL the churches] are more interested in gaining all the members they can get, no matter what they have to do or teach... I believe that is wrong. Pastors or ministers should only teach what is right and Biblical. Also, the music in Church is so wrong! Music is supposed to be harmonious and melodious, to bring the people of God into worship. Yet... how can one worship with rock music making you deaf???? The spirit of the World has got into the churches, and I'm getting very worried. Surely this is another sign of the End Times. There will be a great falling away before Christ comes.

I agree with you.  :Nod:

----------


## emily655321

> Also, the music in Church is so wrong! Music is supposed to be harmonious and melodious, to bring the people of God into worship. Yet... how can one worship with rock music making you deaf????


I've seen this stuff on TV. If you'd like to take it as an upside, it isn't very _good_ rock.  :Tongue:

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Pendragon, I agree that the early indoctrination of youth into a certain school of thought or ideology more thoroughly cements their opinions and ideas. Thats why I wish public schools would teach evolutionary theory at an earlier age, preferrably at the elementary level. If we learned anything from the Nazi Party's Hitler Youth Program and the Big Brother Youth League from George Orwells's "1984", its that children, not adults, are fundamental in establishing the foundation for a system of beliefs predicated on ingnoring things we do not understand rather than questioning the unknown and upsetting the status quo.

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Oh, and yes I am a proud member of http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

----------


## emily655321

> Oh, and yes I am a proud member of http://www.landoverbaptist.org/


That is...rather funny.  :FRlol:  I dig the Jesus thong. But perhaps this isn't the best forum for posting satire.  :Confused:

----------


## Satirical

Satire.....where?

----------


## greenburke

something to agree on, Contemporary Christian music.... gag me!

----------


## Pendragon

I would like to return all the way back here to what was post #670


> Is it possible that you failed to catch the part where I said that the problem seems to lie with the fact that philosophers and scientists can't accept the Biblical records as written? And if we go even further back you will find that I believe in Evolution, the type known as adaptation of species to environment, which causes changes. But my faith in God as the Creator remains unshaken. I will admit that the age of the Earth and the animals remains a mystery, and that since time itself means nothing to God, the time measurements in Genesis are arbitrary. One thing that struck me recently though, was the National Geographic Special on the chimpanze that had always walked upright like a man. His head was also shaped differently. Science began to wonder if he were perhaps a crossbreed. DNA proved he was a chimp, but had an extra chromozone. His face and head reminded me a lot of the "Lucy" being. He was that one in a million chance that is possible, but not probable. Still, he existed, and they have pictures, film footage, his DNA, and his skeleton for proof. But it makes me wonder about some fossil evidence where they only have 1 skull or so. Do they really have a complete species, or is it that same one in a million chance repeated?


 As you may notice, I ask a question based on scientific reaserch here. It was never even discussed. Had I based the question on the Bible, I believe the expression "the fur would have flown" would fit the bill very well. Later I asked about the coelacanth, thought extinct for millions of years yet alive and virtually unchaged, and why evolution seems to have skipped aligators and crocidiles. Again no answer. Be ready at anytime to answer those who question, even if you must say an honest "I don't know. Let me do some research." Otherwise, it appears that you do the same thing you accuse the religious people of doing--ignore what doesn't fit.  :Smile:

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Not every species evolves, species will only evolve when they _need_ to. Modern alligators and crocodiles are much the same as they were millions of years ago because they are able to function quite well in their environments. Also, species dont necessarily evolve drastically. Its like the finches Darwin discovered in the Galapagos, most looked exactly the same except for small variations in the beak structures which enabled one species to better catch insects and another to better crunch seeds. The coelacanth was obviously able to survive in its environment but not necessarily thrive. Conditions for evolution have to be stable for very long periods of time with subtle changes in the environment. Exceptions are organisms that breed at an extremely high rate such as virus, bacteria, dandelions etc. Lucy was a different species. A chimpanzee will never evolve into a human being no matter how long you give it becasue it is a different species. We did not evolve from monkeys, we are our own separate species. It sounds like that chimp you were referring to was the result of a mutation, having an extra or not enough chromosones.

----------


## starrwriter

> Conditions for evolution have to be stable for very long periods of time with subtle changes in the environment ...


Recently-uncovered evidence shows there are two kinds of evolution: slow evolution that takes place over a long period of time and evolutionary leaps in an extremely short time. One example of an evolutionary leap was the increase of human brain size and the consequent development of sophisticated tools, art and language. This occurred about the time of a near-extinction event caused by rapid climate change in Africa 200,000 years ago and eventually led to waves of migration to the Middle East, Europe and Asia.

----------


## Pendragon

> Not every species evolves, species will only evolve when they _need_ to. Modern alligators and crocodiles are much the same as they were millions of years ago because they are able to function quite well in their environments. Also, species dont necessarily evolve drastically. Its like the finches Darwin discovered in the Galapagos, most looked exactly the same except for small variations in the beak structures which enabled one species to better catch insects and another to better crunch seeds. The coelacanth was obviously able to survive in its environment but not necessarily thrive. Conditions for evolution have to be stable for very long periods of time with subtle changes in the environment. Exceptions are organisms that breed at an extremely high rate such as virus, bacteria, dandelions etc. Lucy was a different species. A chimpanzee will never evolve into a human being no matter how long you give it becasue it is a different species. We did not evolve from monkeys, we are our own separate species. It sounds like that chimp you were referring to was the result of a mutation, having an extra or not enough chromosones.


Thank you, Chuck. You have confirmed the point I've been trying in my feeble way to say. Species don't evolve into other species. But each species evolves in order to adapt to changes in environment. This is survival of the fittest, and why there are different kinds of the same species, the old "different strokes for different folks."  :Smile:  Yeah, as I said, the chimp was tested and found to have an extra chromosone, that one in a million, possible, but not probable.

----------


## rhei_27

evolution or creation? I was raised to believe on creation rather than evolution. My parents disagree with the evolution theory. I have to admit that evolution is a plausible theory. Besides, do you really believe that we came from apes...that we originated from them. We may have some resemblance but it is not enough. Another thing, where did those apes came from? Now, Creation comes in...
I have a firm stand on creation...

----------


## starrwriter

> ...do you really believe that we came from apes...that we originated from them. We may have some resemblance but it is not enough. Another thing, where did those apes came from?


Why don't you creationists read a book on evolution theory so you'll understand what you are against?

Evolution does NOT teach that humans evolved from apes. Humans and great apes came from a common ancestor that is long extinct. We are one branch of the anthropoid family tree, great apes are another branch.

Now a question for you. If God made man in his own image, how come so many people are ugly?

----------


## Nanci Rubin

As a Christian I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and in the book of Beginning's it is written, In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. Gen.1:1 (Amp) Even as a child when I was taught Evolution in school, I never in my spirit believed it, it just seemed too far a leap in faith.

----------


## ChuckBukowski

A far leap in faith!?!? Are you kidding me? Believing in the Bible and that God created the earth in a seven day period after which he created Adam and all the animals, then used one of Adams ribs to make him a girlfriend but later sentenced them to eternal damnation fro eating an apple that was offered to them by a talking snake is the ultimate definition of "a far leap in faith". The only thing that creationists can offer as proof to their argument is "faith". Evolution is supported by facts. If you could show me just one talking snake I would at the very least describe the "evolution vs creation" argument as a "debate", but as far as I'm concerned it's like trying to describe what a sunset looks like to Helen Keller, no matter what you say, she's just never gonna really get it because she's too freegin blind.

----------


## starrwriter

> As a Christian I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and in the book of Beginning's it is written, In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. Gen.1:1 (Amp) Even as a child when I was taught Evolution in school, I never in my spirit believed it, it just seemed too far a leap in faith.


As Chuck indicated in his frenzy, there is no faith involved in evolution. It's based on the scientific method which uses observable data and logic to test the validity of a theory. This (not faith) is the best way ever invented to separate true facts from illusions.

----------


## imaditzyreader

HMPH. i just wrote an essay about this in school today. I firmly belive in evolution, but i belive that God could have had a hand in it (intellegent design), but i think that it is hard to not look at all of the evidence that is put out there by the evolutionists. A book that i liked on this topic was "Confessing a Murder" Nicholas Drayson. iIt opened my eyes to how the world worked. i thought it pressed some very valid points. I also really like the view expressed by Henry Drummond in "Inherit the Wind" (a play about the scopes-monkey trial, whos author i cannot find at the moment). He said that as there was no sun or moon the first day(s?) of the world, how could we be sure that it was a 24 hour day. why couldnt it have been 25 hours, two weeks, ten years, or a few million years?? and in this time it could have been enough for evolution, so in essence both could be correct.

_Think about it_

----------


## Pendragon

> Why don't you creationists read a book on evolution theory so you'll understand what you are against?
> 
> Evolution does NOT teach that humans evolved from apes. Humans and great apes came from a common ancestor that is long extinct. We are one branch of the anthropoid family tree, great apes are another branch.
> 
> Now a question for you. If God made man in his own image, how come so many people are ugly?


I believe in both creation and evolution and see not conflict as I have often stated. Creation for a beginning and evolution from there on. I have read Darwin and said long ago in this thread that evolution speaks of a common ancestor not man from ape.

Now with that in mind, right back at you: Since God created man in His own image, why do we not all look alike? Because God is a spirit. That part of us does all look alike. These bodies? "Formed from the dust of the Earth" spirit placed inside. Evolution could have given us four arms by now, if it really worked on "see a need, fill it." I mean, who among us hasn't wished they had an extra hand or pair of hands when doing their job? Come in handy, wouldn't it? Why are so many people ugly? Well, a wise man said once that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe to someone else's eyes they aren't THAT ugly!  :Biggrin:   :FRlol:

----------


## Taliesin

> evolution or creation? I was raised to believe on creation rather than evolution. My parents disagree with the evolution theory. I have to admit that evolution is a plausible theory. Besides, do you really believe that we came from apes...that we originated from them. We may have some resemblance but it is not enough. Another thing, where did those apes came from? Now, Creation comes in...
> I have a firm stand on creation...


Another thing, if God made humans, where did God come from?

----------


## Basil

> Another thing, if God made humans, where did God come from?


From the apes?

----------


## Adelheid

God was always there, and is there, and always will be there. He existed, exists, and will exist. He is Omnipresence, Omniscience.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Evolution could have given us four arms by now, if it really worked on "see a need, fill it.">

Having four arms would make us clumsy and inefficient.

<God was always there, and is there, and always will be there. He existed, exists, and will exist. He is Omnipresence, Omniscience.>

Your language makes no sense. How can you use 'was','is' and 'always' when god is supposedly outside time? How can you say god was here or there, when god is supposedly non-corporeal? Omnipresence leaves no room for other presence - can two things occupy the exact same space? And how can god be present anywhere without having a body? To be present, is to physically occupy a spatial area, is it not? Is god present in my blood? in my urine? in my faeces? Was god present in Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?

----------


## greenburke

> Why don't you creationists read a book on evolution theory so you'll understand what you are against?
> 
> Evolution does NOT teach that humans evolved from apes. Humans and great apes came from a common ancestor that is long extinct. We are one branch of the anthropoid family tree, great apes are another branch.
> 
> Now a question for you. If God made man in his own image, how come so many people are ugly?



"Darwin made a keen observation but he drew a poor conclusion. 
He thought that since natural selection can and does produce slight variations within animal populations it should therefore be able to explain all of the variety we observe in biology. 

He concluded that since natural selection explains variety, all life must somehow be related, everything ultimately having evolved from some sort of common ancestor. 

"It is a truly wonderful fact-the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity-that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other" [Origin of Species] 

Darwinists have even gone so far as to suggest that this common ancestor somehow evolved from non-living matter (which they presume to be some kind of dirty-water soup-like composition). Well, this whole idea of the birds and bananas, the fish and the flowers, all being related, and life evolving from non-life may have seemed remotely plausible back in the 1800s. 

Modern biology was still in its infancy and the living cell was still thought to be nothing more than a simple blob of protoplasm. Gregor Mendell (1822-1884) had only just begun exploring the principles of heredity and it wasn't until the late 1850's that Luis Pasteur (1822-1895) sought to disprove the abiogenesis fallacy 

...and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics, especially over these past fifty years, the flaws in Darwin's theory standout quite clearly. 

*For example, we've established that genetic barriers exist.* Pigs will never fly! *Yes, there are degrees of variation.* 

Different skin tones, facial features, eyes colors, hair types, etc. You could have a big dog or a small dog, a dog with long or short hair. 

*But no kind of dog will ever produce a non-dog! Birds and bananas aren't distant cousins!* As far as life arising from non-life (abiogenesis), the mechanisms are fairly well known and the bottom line is this: certain chemical constraints make abiogenesis an impossible event." 

http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-species.htm



p.s. God is spirit, when he made man in his likeness he gave him a living soul.

People are to blame for "ugly" people. Eating the forbidden fruit brought sin, death, and disease into our world.

----------


## greenburke

> Another thing, if God made humans, where did God come from?


If primordial soup made humans, where did primordial soup come from?

Oh that's right, when nothing exploded and made the universe.

Course it was *BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO* so that must be observable and studiable... I call it a fairytale.

----------


## greenburke

> A far leap in faith!?!? Are you kidding me? Believing in the Bible and that God created the earth in a seven day period after which he created Adam and all the animals, then used one of Adams ribs to make him a girlfriend but later sentenced them to eternal damnation fro eating an apple that was offered to them by a talking snake is the ultimate definition of "a far leap in faith". The only thing that creationists can offer as proof to their argument is "faith". Evolution is supported by facts. If you could show me just one talking snake I would at the very least describe the "evolution vs creation" argument as a "debate", but as far as I'm concerned it's like trying to describe what a sunset looks like to Helen Keller, no matter what you say, she's just never gonna really get it because she's too freegin blind.


Hellen Keller? Was she an evolutionist?

Facts... like the fact that our observable universe blew up from nothing?

Or that life arose from non-life?

How bout benificial mutations. 

Or that animals suddenly evovled over a in one generation? Like a snake hatching a baby bird?

Wait never seen any of those.

How bout finches off the coast of south America, or central or wherever adapting to the enviroment?
Yah that one's scientific.

Cosmic, stellar, chemical, life from no life, changing from species to another? Those aren't observable.

Adaptation is observable, course all the information's pre-packaged.

Evoulionists need faith to believe in....
. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.

The only factual one is this...
6. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayers expense. 


Ummm.. if you are an evolutionist and don't believe in the first five, where's your faith man?

----------


## greenburke

> As Chuck indicated in his frenzy, there is no faith involved in evolution. It's based on the scientific method which uses observable data and logic to test the validity of a theory. This (not faith) is the best way ever invented to separate true facts from illusions.



The best way ever? 

Are you defending the theory that nothing exploded billions of years ago?

Or just the theory that you descended from cooling lava?

Or the theory that "everthing in time and space is related"-Charles Darwin

Are you using a thought through, fact based arguement to say everything came from chance? 
Well then, your chance made brain is probably spewing accidents, not arguements.

----------


## greenburke

> HMPH. i just wrote an essay about this in school today. I firmly belive in evolution, but i belive that God could have had a hand in it (intellegent design), but i think that it is hard to not look at all of the evidence that is put out there by the evolutionists. A book that i liked on this topic was "Confessing a Murder" Nicholas Drayson. iIt opened my eyes to how the world worked. i thought it pressed some very valid points. I also really like the view expressed by Henry Drummond in "Inherit the Wind" (a play about the scopes-monkey trial, whos author i cannot find at the moment). He said that as there was no sun or moon the first day(s?) of the world, how could we be sure that it was a 24 hour day. why couldnt it have been 25 hours, two weeks, ten years, or a few million years?? and in this time it could have been enough for evolution, so in essence both could be correct.
> 
> _Think about it_



what facts to support evolution?

----------


## greenburke

> <Evolution could have given us four arms by now, if it really worked on "see a need, fill it.">
> 
> Having four arms would make us clumsy and inefficient.
> 
> <God was always there, and is there, and always will be there. He existed, exists, and will exist. He is Omnipresence, Omniscience.>
> 
> Your language makes no sense. How can you use 'was','is' and 'always' when god is supposedly outside time? How can you say god was here or there, when god is supposedly non-corporeal? Omnipresence leaves no room for other presence - can two things occupy the exact same space? And how can god be present anywhere without having a body? To be present, is to physically occupy a spatial area, is it not? Is god present in my blood? in my urine? in my faeces? Was god present in Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?



God is evrywhere, look up the word transcendent, it should help.

"To be present, is to physically occupy a spatial area, is it not?" 

Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.

Does something have to have a body to exist?


When nothing exploded and made the universe, did that nothing have a body?

----------


## Pendragon

> Having four arms would make us clumsy and inefficient.


Really? Think about it the next time you have your hands full and have to do anything from answering a phone to holding a flashlight to see the insides of a computer while you delicately solder wires that you also could use another hand to hold, but the solder gun's in one, one wire's in the other and the flashlight is in your mouth and you are proping the other wire up with a popcicle stick. Sounds real efficient and deft to me. But now a monkey, who doesn't have to do this type of task, would have extra hands AND a prehensile tail! Maybe I could get him to help me with my tasks, he's got more hands than I do!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## atiguhya padma

<People are to blame for "ugly" people. Eating the forbidden fruit brought sin, death, and disease into our world.>

Creating the forbidden fruit when the omniscient god knew it would be eaten was even uglier.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<God is evrywhere, look up the word transcendent, it should help>

I've looked up the word transcendent. It would only help someone like you. Read Wittgenstein. It should help.

<Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.>

I think you need to look up the term present. If something is present, it is present somewhere. If something is present somewhere, then only that something is present precisely there. Do you think you can occupy exactly the same space that someone else does? 

How can space occupy space? What on earth are you talking about? Light and darkness are not occupational presences. Where do ideas have a presence? Ideas are states. Does sadness have a presence? It makes no sense to talk of states of being as presences. And as for promises??? They occupy space??? 

You rant on about observation as evidence: what observational evidence do you have for god?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.>

Do you think that air is not physical? Do you think that all of the above can exist without physicality? Ever seen an idea promise or memory that never had a relation to something physical? light and darkness are physical. Shadows are dependent upon light and bodies. Wind is a physical manifestation.

----------


## greenburke

> <People are to blame for "ugly" people. Eating the forbidden fruit brought sin, death, and disease into our world.>
> 
> Creating the forbidden fruit when the omniscient god knew it would be eaten was even uglier.


This omnscient God, gave man his/her own freewill, freedom to choose.


"...but that the will
And high permission of all-ruling Heaven
Left him at large to his own dark designs,
That with reiterated crimes he might
Heap on himself damnation, while he sought
Evil to others, and enraged might see
How all his malice served but to bring forth
Infinite goodness, grace, and mercy, shewn
On Man by him seduced, but on himself
Treble confusion, wrath, and vengeance poured."

-Milton

----------


## greenburke

> <God is evrywhere, look up the word transcendent, it should help>
> 
> I've looked up the word transcendent. It would only help someone like you. Read Wittgenstein. It should help.
> 
> <Come on, try air, space, wind, shadow, light, darkness, ideas, promises, memories... other stuff.>
> 
> I think you need to look up the term present. If something is present, it is present somewhere. If something is present somewhere, then only that something is present precisely there. Do you think you can occupy exactly the same space that someone else does? 
> 
> How can space occupy space? What on earth are you talking about? Light and darkness are not occupational presences. Where do ideas have a presence? Ideas are states. Does sadness have a presence? It makes no sense to talk of states of being as presences. And as for promises??? They occupy space??? 
> ...



I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, when you said, "And how can god be present anywhere without having a body?"
I listed off present things w/out a body.

I did not mean that God was present physically like the wind or light. 
Rather that God made wind and light, that God transcends (To exist above and independent of material experience or the universe) his own creation, and that God is indeed Spirit. 


When You said, "And how can god be present anywhere without having a body? To be present, is to physically occupy a spatial area, is it not? Is god present in my blood? in my urine? in my faeces? Was god present in Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?" 

I did not reply that God was physically present, only that there are physical manifestations which do not have a body, and do indeed exsist. Simply stated, matter does not need a body (much less a human body) to exist. 

"...how can god be present anywhere without having a body?"
I wasn't saying that God has a body, but that physical manifestations do not need a body to exist.

----------


## greenburke

> I've looked up the word transcendent. It would only help someone like you.


By the way when you said "someone like you", what did you mean?

African American, Norwegian, Palestinian, Iraqi, a Jew? Democrat, bald, handicapped, eplipetic, dislexic. Single, blind, male? Religous thinker, someone who believes in a god? A Shiite, a Sunni, a Hindu, a Catholic, a Protestant a Greek Orthodox, Angelican?

Did you mean one of the 2.1 billion Christian followers?
Or one of the 1.3 billion Muslim followers?
One of the 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheists?
One of the 900 mollion Hindus?

Or are you just making a *stereotye of people like me*.

If your just calling me a jerk that's fine, but don't make discminate "people like me" based on pre-concived notions. An intellectual debate is not the place for that.

----------


## starrwriter

> I'm assuming by someone like me you meant someone who believes in God, or a higher being. If so, you are dangerously *stereotyping people like me*. If your just calling me a jerk, that's OK.


I think it's an accurate description and not a stereotype. The world can be fairly divided into religious believers and non-believers.

If I were you, I wouldn't pre-emptively call myself a jerk. atiguhya padma never used that word and it doesn't help you explain your position on this topic.

----------


## greenburke

I apologize for pre-emptively call myself a jerk.

Still, the phrase "people like you" is a vague, often derogatory lumping of individuals. 

A last-ditch character attack when facts are sparse. Used by people like you.....

----------


## starrwriter

> I apologize for pre-emptively call myself a jerk. Still, the phrase "people like you" is a vague, often derogatory lumping of individuals. A last-ditch character attack when facts are sparse. Used by people like you....


The facts are on atiguhya padma's side. You merely have faith.

----------


## greenburke

> The facts are on atiguhya padma's side. You merely have faith.


Again an ad hominem fallacy falling short of it's mark. If I have faith- (Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing) -does that make my arguement weaker? Rather confident.

Atiguhya Padma's facts have faith (trust in things), and leads to more faith (in things and ideas beyond one's limited understanding). 

Whether that faith manifests itself as trust in God, 
or one's faith is in exploding nothingness billions and billions of years ago.
It is still faith.
Whether a faith in Truth.
Or a willfully ignorant, self-depricating nihillism. 
Which would make perfect nonsense out an argument,
since arguements seek truth.
Relativistic ideas based on limited human experiences can't claim to know Truth or even be convinced of their own claims. Since one can't be convinced in not being convinced. 

I say there is truth, you say there is no truth. 
Why have you argued if truth isn't present?
If there's no truth then there's no room to judge. 
Then "everything is lawful."- Dostoyevsky
What foundation can you argue from?

I argue from Truth.

----------


## jamuscubed

Didn't you here the news? God is dead, and you killed him. 

What truly is more important philosophically is now. Here we are, now what? Do you often find time to argue the archaic meanings of words? Let us further examine the word dumb...When's the last time you used it to mean mute? It's irrelevant. But the origin of man should shed insight as to what we are. Isn't that one of the fundamental questions of philosophy? I'll indulge because it is rather stimulating. 

So to answer. Evolution happens, not only is it a good theory (Equally good is Creationism, or intelligent design), but we have watched it happen. I've seen the arguments about truth you've had. Dostoevsky/greenburke (but you spelled his name wrong) was right, we need to draw a line. We can't answer anything if we can't agree on the terms. 

Truth is empirical!

Yet we have not seen everything, here lies the argument. How do we know what we can't see or fathom. And we can't. Never can we disprove the presence of God. He is "hearsay" or omnipresent or transcendent or whatever you shall have. As a scientist there is much in research that will make you pause and wonder AND take a leap of faith to believe. So you are all right so far. Science DOES have faith. Not all lines of thinking are straight (or have a communicative property. A=B, B=C, so A must = C) so much is left to assume. 

The real problem you struggle with is that with how can something be created out of nothing? The easy answer is a supreme being with powers we cannot understand. Doesn't take much rationalization to create that truth. Almost all civilizations have had gods to rationalize the inexplicable. The harder answer is science. The big bang theory does sound very plausible. To create a universe would take a lot of energy. I can barely create a sandwich without passing out. And well the Hubble space telescope has proven that the universe is expanding still. WE HAVE SEEN IT. 
The hardest answer is left for only Zarathustra to understand. Possibly the universe has always been. There was never a "singularity" (A singularity proves the FAITH in science, nobody comprehends a singularity) there was always IS. And from this everything has its roots. 

We are composed genetically 99.9% alike the chimpanzee. We have metabolic pathways related to bacteria. Development pathways follow a conserved sequence in many mammals. EVOLUTION EXISTS!!! All of you that don't yet believe have not yet opened your eyes. Hide behind your half truths and faith, close your eyes and go back to sleep. This thread doesnt even have it right. The debate is Intelligent Design over Evolution. Creationism over Big Bang. Not creationism vs. evolution. 

God created evolution. Morally though, you killed God. It's a shame, he was doing such a good job. 

P.S. Please don't respond with rhetorical questions. Prove to me something and I'll debate, and let us not digress into morals, I was just playing around.

----------


## greenburke

Signet Classics says you spell it wrong...

http://www.signetclassics.com/nf/Sea...id=dostoyevsky

But 'ey, potato, dostoevksy.



Search Results Sort by: Relevance Title Author Series Date 

Your search for "dostoyevsky" produced 6 results.
Results 1-6 sorted by relevance. 

Search within results 



Crime and Punishment
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Leonard Stanton
$7.95|add to cart
Book: Paperback | 4.48 x 6.69in | 560 pages | ISBN 0451527232 | 01 Feb 1999 | Signet Classic
More... 



Notes from Underground, The Grand Inquisitor
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Constance Garnett
$13.00|add to cart
Book: Paperback | 5.43 x 7.99in | 272 pages | ISBN 0452285585 | 07 Nov 2003 | Plume
More... 



Notes from the Underground
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
$4.95|add to cart
Book: Paperback | 4.33 x 6.73in | 240 | ISBN 0451529553 | 02 Nov 2004 | Signet Classic
More... 



The Idiot
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
$6.95|add to cart
Book: Paperback | 4.33 x 6.77in | 688 pages | ISBN 0451528387 | 01 Jun 2002 | Signet Classic
More... 



The Brothers Karamazov
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
$8.95|add to cart
Book: Paperback | 4.29 x 6.85in | 752 pages | ISBN 0451527348 | 01 Jun 1999 | Signet Classic
More...

----------


## Pendragon

> I think it's an accurate description and not a stereotype. The world can be fairly divided into religious believers and non-believers.
> 
> If I were you, I wouldn't pre-emptively call myself a jerk. atiguhya padma never used that word and it doesn't help you explain your position on this topic.


Thank you. Even being in the "religious believers" camp does not blind me to the fairness of your statement. That's what we have long needed. Athiguthya and I have discussed things often and if we've disagreed, which we have, I don't ever recall it breaking out into name calling, which I have pointed out before futhers neither cause. This time I used humor to dispel any sign of hard feelings and we go on. Athiguthya has (her?) opinion on evolution and I have my own because I could use that extra hand!  :FRlol:  Thanks for peace keeping duties, Star. It's often a thankless job, but it does help when forum members try to remind each other that we are here for a discussion not a brawl. Cheers!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Logos

(not directed at anyone in particular..) 

Please remember to discuss _ideas_ and not direct personal negative comments to fellow members.

----------


## jamuscubed

I'm sorry greenburke...
It truly wasn't my intention to start this quibble about the spelling of an authors name. In fact I was agreeing with you with your point.

Sadly my copy of crime and punishment has it spelt my way. Hence probably how I came to think it was spelled like that. This very website that we have a forum on also has it spelt like me. I am sure it was americanized, as was my last name from Italy.

Hey so we are both right, and the quote was nice. 

Pendragon, the extra arms you speak of are a possibility. It happens in flys when a certain gene gets duplicated. These hox genes are similar to the genes us humans use. If a blastula during development somehow would go under a mutation that causes a duplication to one of these genes, there would be extra sets of arms. In theory because usually in the fly the whole thorax gets duplicated, so at least a double body cavity would develop in humans. I don't know if the gene is located yet, but i'm sure there is intense study looking for it, especially funded by the military. 

I also would bet that there has been humans born with extra arms, (maybe how the hindus fashioned their God), but since they would be considered a freak (and probably sexually undesirable), they probably didn't breed a next generation of people with multiple arms. This is how evolution works. Genes need to be passed down from generation to generation.

----------


## starrwriter

> Signet Classics says you spell it wrong...
> http://www.signetclassics.com/nf/Sea...id=dostoyevsky
> But 'ey, potato, dostoevksy.


There is no "toy" in Dostoevsky. I hate that spelling and refuse to acknowledge it as legitimate.

----------


## greenburke

Well, Randomhouse agrees with you Mr. Writer.


Title Author Price Date Imprint Binding ISBN Buy Off the Page 
The Double and The Gambler Fyodor Dostoevsky £10.99 01/09/2005 Everyman Hardback 1857152956
(9781857152951) 


I didn't know there was such a contreversy over a long Russian name,
by the way does anyone else have any clue as how to pronounce all those long Russian naemes, it's been bugging me, and I don't have a Russian on hand. Besides Dostoevsky himself, Mishkin, and Raskolnikov, those are pretty elementary. The rest of the names all have like 12 letters and lots of paired consonants. (I know this is off the topic...)

----------


## starrwriter

> ...by the way does anyone else have any clue as how to pronounce all those long Russian naemes, it's been bugging me, and I don't have a Russian on hand. Besides Dostoevsky himself, Mishkin, and Raskolnikov, those are pretty elementary.


Not for me. For years I mispronounced Raskolnikov. Maybe because he was such a rascal, I put the accent on the syllable Raskol and later I discovered the correct pronunciation was Ras-kol-ni-kov with the accent on kol.

----------


## greenburke

.
.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarcks (1744-1829) concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. In his 1809 book Philosophie zoologique, in which Lamarck declared that a giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches. Also, if you decided in your mind to do so you can grow hair on your bald head and your offspring will never be bald.

In 1891 August Weisman disproved the *Lamarckism* theory, when Weisman cut off the tails of 19 successive generations of rats and they still grew tails.
There are other obvious acquired traits that were never passed down from generation to generation.

-Hebrews have circumcised their boys for thousands of years, yet none are born uncircumcised.
-Chinese women bound the feet of their infant girls for thousands of years, yet Chinese girls are still born with normal sized feet.
-The Flat-head Indians of the Northwest United states bound the heads of their children to give them unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice their babies continued to be born with normal shape heads.


Charles Darwin dropped out of medical school, and the only real degree he had was in theology which he obtained during his three years of theological studies at Christ's College, Cambridge. Yet, today he is deemed as a naturalist and scientist with no formal education in these areas.

Darwin theorized that this process [Natural Selection] could account for changes in the characteristic traits of species over time and eventually produce wholly new species and different types of organisms.--- ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy

Darwin wrote, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. ---Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species...," 1859, p. 162.


Darwin did admit, In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations When we descend on details, we can prove that no one species has changednor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.---- Charles Darwin, Life &Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25. 

Later in life, in his 1871 book Descent of Man, Charles Darwin repudiated natural selection as hopeless and returned to *Lamarckism*. 


Since Charles Darwins book only sited example that were merely changes within a species, Neo-Darwinists have picked up the pieces have picked up the pieces and have been trying to piece them together ever since.

However, conventional Darwinian theory rationalizes most adaptations by assuming that sufficient time has transpired during evolution for natural selection to provide us with all the biological adaptations we see on earth today, but in reality the adaptive process must by necessity occur rather quickly (in one or at most two breeding generations).--- E. Steele, Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution.

So the simultaneous of two or more molecules of any given enzyme purley by chance is fantastically improbable.---W. Thorpe, Reductionism in Biology, on Studies in the Philosophy of Biology 

From the probability standpoint the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.---Homer Jacobson, Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life, American Scientist

Still scientists have hope, natural selection and mutations.
It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material for natural selection to work upon.--- E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution

However, The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given. Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis

A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene). If it occurs in a somatic (body) gene, it only injures the individual, but if to a gametic (reproductive) gene, this damage will be passed on to its descendents.

Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is relatively a rare event. --- F.J. Ayala, Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American

Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. Evolution requires improvement, yet mutations do not help they only damage cells, weaken and injure the creature.

A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear. ---Julian Huxely, Evolution in Action 

Hundreds of thousands of unnatural mutation experiments have been done, in the determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. Not once has there been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a latent reshuffling of latent characteristics), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to the next.

Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity, they also affect the viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organisms central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing? 
--- C.P. Martin, A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, in American Scientist

As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. *Why do we not find them* embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species? ---Charles Darwin

Not one change of species into another is on record we cannot prove that a single species has been changed. ---Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters

----------


## Noais_Dantes

ok someone who is an evolutionist please answer these questions... If we are animals then why are we being punished for acting like animals? Why are the public schools having problems with gun fights and the such when they have been taught evolution all their lives, meaning they are just shooting another animal? Please i am at a loss as too how to understand that you can say that we are animals, but when some acts like one they get in trouble.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon, the extra arms you speak of are a possibility. It happens in flys when a certain gene gets duplicated. These hox genes are similar to the genes us humans use. If a blastula during development somehow would go under a mutation that causes a duplication to one of these genes, there would be extra sets of arms. In theory because usually in the fly the whole thorax gets duplicated, so at least a double body cavity would develop in humans. I don't know if the gene is located yet, but i'm sure there is intense study looking for it, especially funded by the military. 
> 
> I also would bet that there has been humans born with extra arms, (maybe how the hindus fashioned their God), but since they would be considered a freak (and probably sexually undesirable), they probably didn't breed a next generation of people with multiple arms. This is how evolution works. Genes need to be passed down from generation to generation.


I couldn't say about the research part, but yes, there is a book entitled *Very Special People* out there somewhere which I have read, and people have been born with extra limbs, both arms and legs. Some did, indeed, marry and have children, the gene just didn't pass on. You may recall the famous Siamese Twins Eng and Chang. They married, and had something like 22? children betwwen them and no twins of any type. It happens that way. On the other hand, I have a cousin by marriage whose 17 siblings include three sets of twins. Genetics can be funny. Still, sometimes when I have a computer torn apart I'd really like that extra hand!  :FRlol:  They make a tool for wire soldering called "extra hand" that is basically mounted alligater clips on ball joints at the ends of a short piece of pipe. I'd love to have the tool for my tool bag, but a friend here in VA was pulled over by a Trooper. I don't know whether the trooper was in a bad mood or what, but my friend, a liecened electrician, had alligater clips sticking out off his work bag and if not for other officers called to the scence would have been arrested for "drug parapanalia". So I don't take any chances. Besides, I'm disabled and do any computer repair as a favor for friends. So I definately don't need trouble.  :Biggrin:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Scheherazade

> By Robert Winston 
> 
> If you look carefully, you might see one of those slim, elongated boxes attached to the front doorpost of one of the houses near you. They appear on houses across the world - wherever Jews have lived. 
> 
> The box contains a tightly rolled parchment on which a qualified scribe will have written Hebrew letters in special ink. 
> 
> The text contains a commandment from Deuteronomy to attach a sign to all doorposts of your house. It starts with an affirmation, central to Jewish faith, of the existence of a single God. 
> 
> The little box is called a mezuzah in Hebrew. My house bears such a box, and when I leave home on a workday morning, my head crammed with the usual worldly thoughts and worries, I occasionally touch it. 
> ...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4488328.stm

----------


## starrwriter

> If I have faith- (Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing) -does that make my arguement weaker?


Yes. Faith is an appeal to emotions, not a logical argument.




> Atiguhya Padma's facts have faith (trust in things), and leads to more faith (in things and ideas beyond one's limited understanding).


As I said before, there is no faith involved in scientifically-based facts. And things exist independently of faith in them. 




> I say there is truth, you say there is no truth. 
> Why have you argued if truth isn't present?
> If there's no truth then there's no room to judge. 
> Then "everything is lawful."- Dostoyevsky
> What foundation can you argue from?


Your thinking is as confused as your memory. I never said there is no truth. I just don't agree with you that truth can be found by faith and so-called religious revelations. Logic and the scientific method are much better tools.

If you will bother to read "The Brothers Karamazov" carefully, you will see that Doestoevsky was ridiculing as nonsense the idea that everything is lawful if there is no God. The brother who uttered those words was looking for any excuse to do whatever he wanted.

----------


## Vaultking

someone please explain to me how evolution can explain the development of the eye. Its way too complex to be made by one freak mutation, and if one little thing goes wrong, then the eye becomes a completely useless mass of flesh.

----------


## emily655321

> "But we must not confuse religion with God, or technology with science. Religion stands in relationship to God as technology does in relation to science. Both the conduct of religion and the pursuit of technology are capable of leading mankind into evil; but both can prompt great good."


I like this. That sounds like a really interesting book.




> Its way too complex to be made by one freak mutation


That's your opinion. In fact, it was millions and millions and millions of freak mutations.




> ok someone who is an evolutionist please answer these questions... If we are animals then why are we being punished for acting like animals? Why are the public schools having problems with gun fights and the such when they have been taught evolution all their lives, meaning they are just shooting another animal? Please i am at a loss as too how to understand that you can say that we are animals, but when some acts like one they get in trouble.


Well, first, as an opponent of hunting for sport, I would take issue with anyone shooting an animal.  :Tongue:  Your argument seems to be rooted in the supposition that the life of an animal is not as important as that of a human being. I, who, even as a religious child, was always taught that human beings are a kind of animal, see no reason why that should make their lives less valuable. I see it as an unfortunate side-affect of the belief in Creationism, that some people view human beings as vastly superior to other kinds of animals, and therefore, when introduced to the idea that humans are also animals, are offended based on their belief that "animal" is an inherently negative term. If all living creatures are animals, then animals can't be "worse" than another form of creature, can they, being that there's only one? Unless you choose to believe that plants are superior to us.

But, secondly, I have to return to the point that has been made time and again in this thread: Why should the hypothetical truth of evolution/falseness of God negate the the importance of moral action? I understand, I think, the point that you're trying to make; that if morality is a God-given trait, and violence is a natural, or animalistic, trait, then the removal of God should leave no argument against our naturally violent tendencies. I would point out a common flaw of such reasoning, as I suggested earlier: you attribute morality and other "civilized" traits to religion alone, and assume that those who don't credit God with giving them to us would also reject the ideas themselves. Well, there are certainly *violent and cruel people on this earth who like to reject them to excuse their actions, but most people, religious or not, don't. I think that moral ideas are inherent to the human brain, then got attributed to God with the advent of religion. People who don't believe in God still believe in acting morally (*with the noted exceptions, which occur within the religious population as well). Being an animal doesn't mean being stupid. Human beings are intelligent, emotional animals, with an advanced notion of how to keep peace within their social circles, which often involves suppressing our more primative violent tendencies. Not shooting each other isn't a religious idea; it's a human idea. Although, there is mounting evidence that we may not be alone in that:

An old BBC article addressing animal sentience
A cool, cool website about animal sentience
A Cool Social Morality Quiz

----------


## starrwriter

> someone please explain to me how evolution can explain the development of the eye. Its way too complex to be made by one freak mutation, and if one little thing goes wrong, then the eye becomes a completely useless mass of flesh.


If I recall an experiment correctly, scientists were able to make one eye of a simple animal grow on its foot instead of its head by tampering with its genes.

Genetics is a very complicated science. Humans have something like 130,000 genes and it was recently discovered that each gene has more than one function.

Don't forget that evolution is driven by natural selection as well as random (genetic) mutation. There is nothing "freakish" about the whole process.

----------


## greenburke

I wasn't sure whteher to put ---Ivan after that quote.
And yes, I do realize that Dostoyevsky thought Father Zossima's ideas far out-weighed Ivan's cynicism. Dostoyevsky thought that Russia would be saved by the youth following Father Zossima's ideas and Aloyasha's care. Still, he wrote about Dmitri, Ivan and Alexey; they all had their own diverse, individual ideas.

I gave a quote, not a sysnopsis of the novel.

Still, science is rather convincing, I even get jazzed on the facts.
Luckily, my religous faith isn't based on me, or my emotions.
A promise is a promise despite my own passing emotions. Feelings are real, but they're not always true

----------


## Noais_Dantes

> I like this. That sounds like a really interesting book.
> 
> 
> Well, first, as an opponent of hunting for sport, I would take issue with anyone shooting an animal.  Your argument seems to be rooted in the supposition that the life of an animal is not as important as that of a human being. I, who, even as a religious child, was always taught that human beings are a kind of animal, see no reason why that should make their lives less valuable. I see it as an unfortunate side-affect of the belief in Creationism, that some people view human beings as vastly superior to other kinds of animals, and therefore, when introduced to the idea that humans are also animals, are offended based on their belief that "animal" is an inherently negative term. If all living creatures are animals, then animals can't be "worse" than another form of creature, can they, being that there's only one? Unless you choose to believe that plants are superior to us.
> 
> But, secondly, I have to return to the point that has been made time and again in this thread: Why should the hypothetical truth of evolution/falseness of God negate the the importance of moral action? I understand, I think, the point that you're trying to make; that if morality is a God-given trait, and violence is a natural, or animalistic, trait, then the removal of God should leave no argument against our naturally violent tendencies. I would point out a common flaw of such reasoning, as I suggested earlier: you attribute morality and other "civilized" traits to religion alone, and assume that those who don't credit God with giving them to us would also reject the ideas themselves. Well, there are certainly *violent and cruel people on this earth who like to reject them to excuse their actions, but most people, religious or not, don't. I think that moral ideas are inherent to the human brain, then got attributed to God with the advent of religion. People who don't believe in God still believe in acting morally (*with the noted exceptions, which occur within the religious population as well). Being an animal doesn't mean being stupid. Human beings are intelligent, emotional animals, with an advanced notion of how to keep peace within their social circles, which often involves suppressing our more primative violent tendencies. Not shooting each other isn't a religious idea; it's a human idea. Although, there is mounting evidence that we may not be alone in that:
> 
> An old BBC article addressing animal sentience
> A cool, cool website about animal sentience
> A Cool Social Morality Quiz


Well animals kill each other all the time. So if we are animals then why is it wrong to kill each other? Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God? the only sensible explanation i can get is that God and ONLY God could have given it to us. you see animals and humans have noticably differantes. such as an animal doesn't talk. they make sounds. they do not have their own language or anything like that. but humans do! humans have a soul, animals do not, and animals have NEVER thought about right or wrong. they just act on instances. so how can there NOT be a God with all this delicate artifacts that He has left us, but believe in something totally confussing? oh, BTW, did you know that Hilter believed in evolution and here is his evolutionary scale of the last 2. Jews were all ape and blacks were mainly ape. (this is NOT my thinking but Hilter's. this does NOT reflect my beliefes that that last statement!) he considered the Jews worse ANY body and he just forced his beliefs on everyone he could. also don't forget how France fell.

----------


## jamuscubed

Greenburke,
Maybe it would help if you knew what the forces of speciation are..
1.) Non random mating (Consanguineous mating, Assortative mating)
2.) mutations 
3.) migration 
4.) natural selection (Fitness of offspring to reproduce)
5.) genetic drift (Alleles that no longer exist)

These are the forces that drive speciation, not just mutations. 

I don't agree with most of the stuff you posted but I can't rebut now because i just saw something worse...

"ok someone who is an evolutionist please answer these questions... If we are animals then why are we being punished for acting like animals? Why are the public schools having problems with gun fights and the such when they have been taught evolution all their lives, meaning they are just shooting another animal? Please i am at a loss as too how to understand that you can say that we are animals, but when some acts like one they get in trouble."


 :Rage:  WE ENTERED INTO SOCIETY, WE HAVE A SOCIAL CONTRACT TO FULFILL. WE HAVE FREAKIN LAWS!!!!  :Rage:  


It's that simple. Common man, this isn't a real question...is it? Don't make me bring out Rousseau, John Locke, Neitzsche etc... 

Kudos to emily for answering his question with a level headed approach. Very eloquent. I would say though that there is probably a heirarchy to the animal kingdom, as there is in human affairs. I don't know about the morality of it all though either but we are digressing fast. Morality to me is such an ugly term.

----------


## starrwriter

> Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God? the only sensible explanation i can get is that God and ONLY God could have given it to us.


Humans had morality long before monotheism. The earliest humans lived in small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers, valued cooperation over competition, shunned murder and violence and shared resources with each other. This was a moral system that didn't come from God.

----------


## Logos

> such as an animal doesn't talk. they make sounds. they do not have their own language or anything like that.


Actually, if you've ever observed any two or more mammals for any length of time, you may come to realise that they do have a language all their own. Wolves in packs or horses in herds are easy examples. They use complicated systems of body language and sounds to communicate just fine.

Just because the world revolves around humans and our `intelligence' shouldn't negate other sentient beings' importance or worth. 

I think most humans could expand their `intelligence' quota by understanding animals more  :Smile:

----------


## B-Mental

Animals communicate through body language also... Its amusing that many are similar to humans, such as the bluff, or signs of anger. 




> I think most humans could expand their `intelligence' quota by understanding animals more.


Logos that is a beautiful statement!

----------


## Logos

I've trained horses for 25 years, and I've learned +much+ about people because of  :Biggrin:  and the similarities in body language are uncanny.

+ haha! ok so I'm a little biased +

----------


## B-Mental

Horses can read a human's personality, and take advantage if one is given. I used to live just outside Yellowstone. Its amazing that people can't see when an animal is telling them to back off. I worked with horses for a couple of seasons, and I couldn't continue. Some people just should not be around animals.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God?>

Co-operation is a benefit. Society relies on co-operation (as well as competition). For society to flourish, it needs to have moral codes endorsed by the population. It seems to me that morality is far more comprehensible as a product of social cohesion than as some gift from a man-made concept we call god. One might as well say that Santa Claus gave us morality. (Of course, the idea of Santa Claus could contribute to moral development, and some primitive concept like Santa from the depths of prehistory could have inspired the birth of moral development, but that wouldn't mean that Santa or his predecessors ever existed as autonomous entities)

----------


## greenburke

> Greenburke,
> Maybe it would help if you knew what the forces of speciation are..
> 1.) Non random mating (Consanguineous mating, Assortative mating)
> 2.) mutations 
> 3.) migration 
> 4.) natural selection (Fitness of offspring to reproduce)
> 5.) genetic drift (Alleles that no longer exist)
> 
> These are the forces that drive speciation, not just mutations.



Everyone has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our "family tree," with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another. The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?

"Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all directions, is closer to our current idea of evolutionary history."*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution

All it really consists of is separate twigs, with each twig a separate species.

Classification is only the box species are put in, not the proof of evolution.

Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) look just like each other in every way, and freely interbreed. Yet they have different songs! Although they have been classified as two different species, we have here one species with two alternate gene factors.

Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L) as a different species than winter wheat (T. hybernum L). Yet they are both strains of the same wheat. They will cross and produce fertile hybrids. They should have been classified as sub-species.

Song sparrows. For over two centuries four species of sparrows in North America had been listed (Lincoln, fox, swamp, and song). Gradually this number increased as taxonomists moved westward and found additional sparrows. Soon we had lots of sparrow "species." But as more and more were discovered, it was recognized that they were but intermediates between the others! So the experts finally got together and reclassified them all as sub-species of but one species, the song sparrow (Passereila melodía).

Cattle. There are several different subspecies of cattle (Bos taurus L). Although the American bison (Bison bison L) and the European bison (Bison bonasus L) have a similar morphology (appearance), they will still generally crossbreed with cattle. In addition, it has been discovered that the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) also interbreeds with themyet the bison and cattle have been placed in totally different genera.
Corn. One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn), while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one species.




Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring.
But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier.

There are many different sub-species in some species while there are but few for others. A key factor seems to be the ability of the creature to travel (migrate) migrate whether by seed, spore, or in person.
For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot travel very far, so there are many varieties of them. The animal with the most sub-species appears to be the southern pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus) with 214 subspecies and, next to it, the northern pocket gopher (T. talpoides) with 66. Another highly isolated species is the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.
"There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics
Yes, variations are limited by the species barrier,but immense variations are possible within a given species!
New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not evolution.

----------


## greenburke

LIMITS OF VARIABILITY-
"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual, continuous change, species could (in Wallaces phrase) depart indefinitely from the original type. Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the pure line research of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they depart indefinitely from the original type, or are there built-in limits and constraints?

"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwins theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or pure lines) of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect.

"Johnannsens work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, as unyielding as iron.

"Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long.

"He found you could breed some super-layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selectionby breeding from lower than maximum producers."*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)but no exit through that wall.

"Darwins gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution


LOSS OF FITNESSNot only is there a limiting wall that will always be reached,but as the researcher nears that outer wall, the subjects being bred become weaker. The variations made within those borders do not actually bring overall improvements in the corn, cows, and chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at the expense of overall fitness for life. Gish explains why this is so:

"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete well with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.

"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."*O.S. Falconer, introduction to Quantitative Genetics

----------


## greenburke

.
GENE DEPLETIONThe scientific name for this loss of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective breeding always weakens a speciesand never strengthens it.

"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through the passage of time are always within strict boundary lines."John C. Whitcomb

In addition, with the passing of time, genes are damaged through random radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are also weakening, and gradually a genetic load is built up.

*EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW*It is an astounding fact that evolutionary theory, if true, could only produce ever weaker creatures with continually narrowed adaptive traits. A Dutch zoologist, *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors!" (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology)

*If we had actually descended from an earlier mammal, then we would have less genetic potential than they have!* Our anatomy, physiology, brains, hormones, etc. would be less competent than that of our anscetors.

*"Selection" requires intelligence, planning, and consistent effort by someone who is not the rose, corn, or cow. Random action is not "selection." Therefore "natural selection" is a misnomer. It should be called "random activity." The word "selection" implies intelligent decision-making. "Meaningless muddling" would better fit the parameters the evolutionists have in mind.*
Selective breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it is intelligent, careful, planned activity; whereas evolution, by definition, is random occurrences.

Although random accidents could never produce new species,neither can intelligent selective breeding! Selective breeding never, never produces new species. But if it cannot effect trans-species changes, we can have no hope that evolutionary chance operations could do it.

*Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool*; although it may have produce a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism.

Because of this weakening factor, national and international organizations are now collecting and storing "seed banks" of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to be able to go back and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, etc.

"Genetic Drift" is frequently spoken of as another "evidence" of evolution, but even confirmed evolutionists admit it proves nothing in regard to evolution. *Genetic drift is changes in small groups of sub-species that, over a period of time, have become separated from the rest of their species*. Oddities in their DNA code factors became more prominent, *yet they all remained in the same species.*

Frank Rhodes (Evolution) explains that all that "genetic drift" refers to is changes in a "sub-species" of a plant or animal (or in a "race," which is a sub-species among human beings). Even Rhodes recognizes that genetic drift provides no evidence of change from one species to another. All the drift has been found to be within species and never across them.

And all Consanguineous mating is, is _A mating in which male and female are related by descent._

----------


## jamuscubed

Very Good,
I told you truth was empirical, and you say well then I see no truth! 

The fossil record is put together by people fascinated with legos as a child, and you don't want to take their word for it now do you levar burton?

_Australopithecus afasrensis, A. africanus, A. boisei, A. robustus....Homo habilis, H. erectus, H sapiens._ 

The question of the day is.... DO ALL THESE MICROEVOLUTIONS MAKE ONE GIANT MACRO EVOLUTION? Is lucy really the missing link...

Are these merely the twigs we place down to suggest relatedness?
Even if all these "species" are infact all subspecies of the homo, or even if they are the same species of homo, if you are so inclined to believe, they no longer exist. We are the living proof, because something caused them to go extinct. *Maybe you shall argue that H. erectus cannot beget a homo sapien.*  I cannot prove you wrong, therefore if you are not wrong, then you must be right! Well no, you are just not wrong, yet..
It is only through your variance that so "weakens each species" that slightly different organisms occur. This is the only thing that has to be believed for the model of evolution to work. Slightly changing orgainism produce slightly different organisms. So called "sub species"... If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones *what is the only blue print left life has to read from*? *Not the extinct model*. Subspecies are proof of evolution because eventually with/with out human care, something will die off, leaving what is left behind as the blue print of what works in the present environmental conditions...Which happen to be fairly stable as of lately...

Microevolution is the most noticeable, and only observable evolution we have known to date. The galapagos finches are usually only separate in beak size/shape and body size. But they are different in: behavior/habitat on which they dwell/physically. We can say they are in the process of evolving, and possibly since they are intermingling so, they could never evolve totally from each other. 

Size is usually considered a polygene, therefore why variance is high within a certain species. Although the studies, that greenburke cited, that tested the variance were brilliant in theory, they fall very short from what they are trying to imply. 

At no time is size the defining characteristic of species. Although again with Darwins finches it is one type that some taxonomists use to sieve through species ( I don't agree). Yao Ming (basketball player, Houston Rockets) is the product of selective breeding in the era of communist China... Yao is quite a significant fellow, but he retains his humanity because of all the other factors he possesses. Yao will go on, if he breeds, to produce Homo sapiens. 
But it is possible that his lineage will forever be tall, a slight microevolution.

Because human activity breaks a couple of the fundamental rules of speciation (Migration, "natural selection") humans may never evolve more unless a catastrophy of a huge proportion were to occur. 

Lastly would you say that because penicillin is practically never prescribed (because it has been rendered useless) any more have many bacteria evolved? The answer is yes, because evolution trys to explain the changes organisms make or have... Unless god made them more resilient to penicilin over time...This is again an example of microevolution, and so I return to the begining where empirically a wolf does not beget a poodle. Until this is proven we have nothing to go on for macroevolution besides faith (ouch, couldn't I have used a better term?)...that time can show that many micro evolutions will infact create a macro.

----------


## greenburke

> ...Yao Ming (basketball player, Houston Rockets) is the product of selective breeding in the era of communist China... Yao is quite a significant fellow, but he retains his humanity because of all the other factors he possesses. Yao will go on, if he breeds, to produce Homo sapiens. 
> But it is possible that his lineage will forever be tall, a slight microevolution.



I read your whole post, I always try to read these posts carefully... sometimes hurriedly. 

Anywho, the Yao Ming part caught my attention, so I looked him up om google. Very interesting story from TIME Asia. Long story, but very interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazi...126765,00.html

----------


## Pendragon

Just to make a point, not muddy the waters any, even some "inside the species" crossbreeds do not function so well. For example, breeding a donkey to a mare will produce a mule. They are strong, tough animals. The problem is they are born sterile, unable to reproduce themselves. Crossing a male lion with a female tiger creates a liger, a truly enormous cat. The same problem occurs. Since scientists thought the now extict Quagga a cross between an Onger and a Zebra, the crossbreed was attempted. Nice little Quagga-like result, but also sterile. But with active DNA from the hide of the last stuffed Quagga, they could possibly recreate the animal, using an Onger or Zebra as surrogate parent. Why does this sterlity occur? Maybe because these animals do not naturally crossbreed, I truly do not know.

----------


## Noais_Dantes

> Humans had morality long before monotheism. The earliest humans lived in small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers, valued cooperation over competition, shunned murder and violence and shared resources with each other. This was a moral system that didn't come from God.


well animals kill each other all the time and they don't have remorse. you can tell? i mean when one wolf kills another he/she will take over the pack and the other animals just follow along. they don't have love, fondness maybe, but now love. there is just NO way that humans are animals. there is no proof what so ever.

----------


## emily655321

> well animals kill each other all the time and they don't have remorse. you can tell? i mean when one wolf kills another he/she will take over the pack and the other animals just follow along. they don't have love, fondness maybe, but now love. there is just NO way that humans are animals. there is no proof what so ever.


I'm beginning to feel that no matter what evidence might be introduced to you, you are unwilling to accept it. But that's different than the nonexistence of compelling evidence. You just refuse to feel compelled.

And yet, somehow, I feel compelled to continue appealing to your sense of reason.

You've observed animals kill one another without remorse, or at least have secondary evidence to that effect. It is by this logic that you argue human beings to be divinely imbued with a sense of love/remorse/morality, as evinced by the fact that no human beingseverkill one another without remorse, especially to gain power within their social group. And it is upon this reasoning that you base your argument against the empirical evidence gathered over the past two centuries to support the various theories of Evolution. Do you stand behind this argument? Because, if you change your mind, it will save me the minimal time and effort of tearing it to shreds. Although, if you will indulge me this bit of presumptuousness, at this point I fully expect that in such an event you would continue to regard said shreds as a whole.

----------


## Pendragon

Emily, as a person who does believe in a devine being, alow me to save you the trouble. If people think that people cannot kill others without remorse they have not studied the annuals of crime in any detail at all. May I suggest that they do so at once. They will discover that man can be the most unemotional, uncaring, unremorsful killer the world has ever seen. A single case will be sufficient. Nathan Lepold and Richard Loeb back in 1924. Both young men very wealthy, both highly intelligent, considered genius-level. They killed one of Loeb's cousins, Bobby Franks, on a lark, to see if they could commit the perfect crime. Neither showed remorse, only anger at their life sentence, which would have been death except for Clarence Darrow, their lawyer.  :Frown:   :Frown:   :Frown: 
Don't take my word for it. Go read the article.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...b/index_1.html

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Nobody is really disproving Darwins 150 year old theory of evolution, but rather redefining what it means. We've obviously made great leaps in science and better understand how species develop and how genetics works. And does disproving Evolution prove Creationism? No. But I can end this argument without proving Evolution.....How do you explain dinosaurs? If the Judeo-Christian God supposedly created the universe, then divinely inspired men to write the Bible so that we may better understand his purpose and plan, why did he leave out the dinosaurs? Did God not think that we would discover the remnants of these creatures and start to ask questions? Some say that fossils are Gods way of testing our faith, I think that evangelicals are Gods way of testing my patience. Now I know someone is going to pull some ambiguous Bilbe verse out of their pocket and use it as "evidence" that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. I'm sure they are, any book with stories about being swallowed by whales, conversations with flaming shrubbery and apocolyptic flooding, is bound to have a story about a dinosaur in it. Theres probably one in there about a transvestite midget named Maybelline who rescues the Hebrews from famine by turning "tricks" into "matzoh". I believe it's written in one of those secret Dead Sea Scrolls kept locked away in the Vatican, probablly under the Popes mattress.

----------


## greenburke

> ...any book with stories about being swallowed by whales, conversations with flaming shrubbery and apocolyptic flooding, is bound to have a story about a dinosaur in it.


The word dinosaur, was made up until 1841, and the term dinosaur wasn't coined until 1842. 

So no, their were no "dinosaurs" mentioned in the Bible. 
The archaic word is dragon. 
The word dragon is mentioned 37 times in the Bible. In *Job 40 and 41 you will find descriptions of dinasours.* Not under the pope's mattress. 

Dragons are mentioned with other living creatures.

Job 30:29.
"I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls."


Their are no transitional phases of dinasours,
Dinosaurs are like everything else: distinct species.
All that extinct fossilssuch as dinosaursprove is that animals can die out. Extinction is not evolution, and provides no evidence of evolution.

*Dinosaurs are Extinction... for the most part.*

In April 1977, a Japanese fishing vessel caught a 4,000 pound [1814 kg] dead creature in its nets off the east coast of New Zealand. It was photographed, sketched, carefully measured, and flipper samples were kept for tissue analysis. It has every appearance of being a Plesiosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaurwhich prior to 1977 had only been found in fossil form! Japanese scientists are convinced it was indeed a Plesiosaur. Japan even printed a postage stamp of the creature, in honor of the find. (A photograph and sketch of one is shown on page 107 of Ian Taylors excellent book, In the Minds of Men.)

*Man lived with dinosaurs, dragons...*

Glen Rose tracks: Childrens and adult footprints, up to 15 and 21½ inches [38-54.6 cm] in length, have been regularly found in Early Cretaceous rock throughout most of this century on the former riverbed of the Pulaxy River in Texas. Childrens tracks always accompany those of adults, tracks go across very large dinosaur tracks and have been found above them, and all tracks are running. These tracks are in Early Cretaceous formations, which date to *120 million years ago.* 


*How old is man?*

The time of the split between humans and living apes [Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes], the Hominoidea, used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or *even up to 30 or 40 million years ago.*---http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Yet, man walked around on 120 million year old Early Cretaceous rocks?
Evolutionists recognize that dinosaurs were destroyed suddenly.
Far more delicate creatures survived volcanoes, climate changes, and egg snatchers.

_"One of the important contemporary scientific debates is about the causes of the mass extinctions at the close of the Cretaceous epoch, about 65 million years ago . . Scientists refer to this crucial, enigmatic transition in the history of life as the K/T boundary. The Cretaceous epoch is abbreviated as K to distinguish it from the earlier Carboniferous (coal-forming) epoch, abbreviated as C. Sedimentary rock layers above the Cretaceous, which include the fossil record of the Age of Mammals, are traditionally called Tertiary or T."*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution_  

Some terrible catastrophe occurred that suddenly overwhelmed the earth! Fossil seashells have been found in the highest mountains of the planet, including the highest range of them all, the Himalayas, which reaches in an arc across central Asia.

Rapidly buried plant and animal life at some earlier time in earths history produced both petroleum and coal. But neither of them is being formed today. This is a great mystery to the scientists.

Coal forms less than one percent of the sedimentary rock strata, yet it is of special significance to those seeking to understand the geologic record.

The rock strata known as Carboniferous contains the most coal, but it is also found in other strata. Coal results when plant remains are compressed and heated by the weight of overlying sediments. Around the edges of coal seams is frequently seen the identifiable plants it came from. Enormous forests must have been rapidly buried in order to produce coal.

----------


## Pendragon

> dead creature in its nets off the east coast of New Zealand. It was photographed, sketched, carefully measured, and flipper samples were kept for tissue analysis. It has every appearance of being a Plesiosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaurwhich prior to 1977 had only been found in fossil form! Japanese scientists are convinced it was indeed a Plesiosaur. Japan even printed a postage stamp of the creature, in honor of the find. (A photograph and sketch of one is shown on page 107 of Ian Taylors excellent book, In the Minds of Men.)


Mon ami, listen to me. I believe in a Creator. OK? I read my Bible and study it very much. Understand? But you are digging your own grave here. As it happens, odd phenomena is a bit of a hobby with me because I have the courage to question everything. This photograph you mention I have seen many times. It is in an advanced stated of decomposition, which is why only a photo exits to my knowledge, I know nothing of them keeping "flippers". When I read about this, the text stated "the whole carcass was thrown back into the sea." It was determined by photoanaylsis to be the carcass of a basking shark, which having few bones, does decay into something resembling a plesiosaur. You must know some viable facts to bring forward instead of something so easy to disprove. Take the time to learn. Trust me, if you really believe in God, nothing will ever destroy that. But can you not see that speaking of what you know nothing makes you look foolish? I'm not trying to discourge your belief but to encourge you to learn that you must know something before you put it forth as a fact. Even with science, just because someone said it doesn't make it right. Have a good day, buddy. God bless.  :Angel:

----------


## greenburke

> But can you not see that speaking of what you know nothing makes you look foolish? I'm not trying to discourge your belief but to encourge you to learn that you must know something before you put it forth as a fact. Even with science, just because someone said it doesn't make it right. Have a good day, buddy. God bless.


I'm sorry if you think I was wrong.
Upon further research looking the decomposing carcass of basking shark is quite similar to this "sea-monstser." 
*Still*, the Japanase scientist who observed the specimen first hand said "the neck is too long for a shark." And the group was baffled as a whole. Other supposed large "sea-monsters" were found on Claifornia's and New Zealand's shoreline, but those were just large (25-35ft.) basking sharks. So i do see where you are coming from.
 (-left, A Basking Shark)
This (decomposing) gives them a 'plesiosaur-like' appearance that has misled several creationists, as well as evolutionary cryptozoologists.
_(Jerlström P., Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence, CEN Tech. J. 12(3)339-346, 1998; Letting rotting sharks lie: further evidence for shark identity of the Zuiyo-maru carcass, CEN Tech. J. 13(2):83-87, 1999.)_

I disagree with your assumptions quoted at the top. 
I do research, and checked at least four various sources on this "1970's plesiosoraus." 
I started with an article, which sited various first hand sources. 
This article was told by the on-hand fishermen and scientists' perspective. 
The only way I could have known more, would have to be there myself, or watched the whole ordeal on video. 

I don't judge you for questioning everything and I do respect that. I disagree with your opninions (on my research methods, my views on stereotypes and those types of posts). Not your faith, convictions, Bible quotes, or facts. 

As a believer in God, I don't want to be lumped in with people who believe we are going to become gods, or people who believe aliens are inseperable from their brand of Christianity. 

_Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I think it's an accurate description and not a stereotype. The world can be fairly divided into religious believers and non-believers.

If I were you, I wouldn't pre-emptively call myself a jerk. atiguhya padma never used that word and it doesn't help you explain your position on this topic._

_"Thank you. Even being in the "religious believers" camp does not blind me to the fairness of your statement. That's what we have long needed. Athiguthya and I have discussed things often and if we've disagreed, which we have, I don't ever recall it breaking out into name calling, which I have pointed out before futhers neither cause. This time I used humor to dispel any sign of hard feelings and we go on. Athiguthya has (her?) opinion on evolution and I have my own because I could use that extra hand! Thanks for peace keeping duties, Star. It's often a thankless job, but it does help when forum members try to remind each other that we are here for a discussion not a brawl. Cheers!" ---Pendragon_

Especially when i saw this disimiliar statement,
_But "The Church" doesn't represent even all of Christianity, much less all of religion. Please don't tar everyone with the same brush. ---Pendragon_ 

Believing in God, doesn't mean I share the same views of the billions of other people who believe in higher life forms.
And I do hope most of us do realize that we are discussing, fighting, name-calling... or whatever over ideas, not the people themselves. 

I disagree with you in this as well,
"You'll never meet someone like me, probably, someone who would still call you friend and mean it, and never give up on you even as you shove me away and call everything I believe foolishness,"---(Pendragon)

There are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who get along with people with different opinions (there are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who don't!) I also have friends with different beliefs. In fact, I became friends with one straight foward, cigar afficiando of a gentlemen through the following conversation. 
"I believe in God," me. 
He, "I'm one of those guys who is an atheist," and I admit he is probably much smater than me, and is attending UCLA right now.

----------


## Noais_Dantes

> I'm beginning to feel that no matter what evidence might be introduced to you, you are unwilling to accept it. But that's different than the nonexistence of compelling evidence. You just refuse to feel compelled.
> 
> And yet, somehow, I feel compelled to continue appealing to your sense of reason.
> 
> You've observed animals kill one another without remorse, or at least have secondary evidence to that effect. It is by this logic that you argue human beings to be divinely imbued with a sense of love/remorse/morality, as evinced by the fact that no human beingseverkill one another without remorse, especially to gain power within their social group. And it is upon this reasoning that you base your argument against the empirical evidence gathered over the past two centuries to support the various theories of Evolution. Do you stand behind this argument? Because, if you change your mind, it will save me the minimal time and effort of tearing it to shreds. Although, if you will indulge me this bit of presumptuousness, at this point I fully expect that in such an event you would continue to regard said shreds as a whole.



I hate to dissapoint you, but you can no matter what disprove creationism as being truth. You have said that evolution has been proved for over the past 2 centuries, but Creationism has been proved from the begging of time. Also it has been around MUCH longer then evolution. If you will look into Chinese, Jewish, Hawiian, Azted, and other historic civilizations and you will see that they have one thing in common with the Bible. They all believe in a great flood and a huge boat with animals in it. How can so many different histories around the world have a common begging like that except for the fact that there had to be world wide flood.

Also evolution says that humans never coexcited with dinosaurs, but if fact they live STILL today! No not the large ones that we think of, but much smaller ones. Lizzards and reptiles are basically dinosaurs. Also in many different cave paintings there have been many drawings of dinosaus. Some pictures are on blankets, pottery, swords, jewelry, and much more. I have even seen a picture of a pot that had a dinosaur on it and the dinosaur had cicles all over it's body. You want to know why they put circles all over the dinosaur? Because a dinosaur has scalely skin that's why and they where able to SEE them to know. Also did you know that there is one sample of fossilized dinosaur skin that has been found? It had the circular patterns that you would see on a picture of a dinosaur on those cartifacts that I tould you about earlier. I could go on and on about dinosaurs, but I will let this go for now.

----------


## Noais_Dantes

> Upon further research looking the decomposing carcass of basking shark is quite similar to this "sea-monstser."


Actually that wasn't a basking shark. That was a sea monser. It had fins that basking sharks do NOT have and like you said a neck that a basking shart does NOT have.

----------


## greenburke

here's a couple pics of the creature in question

----------


## Pendragon

> I'm sorry if you think I was wrong.
> Upon further research looking the decomposing carcass of basking shark is quite similar to this "sea-monstser." 
> *Still*, the Japanase scientist who observed the specimen first hand said "the neck is too long for a shark." And the group was baffled as a whole. Other supposed large "sea-monsters" were found on Claifornia's and New Zealand's shoreline, but those were just large (25-35ft.) basking sharks. So i do see where you are coming from.
>  (-left, A Basking Shark)
> This (decomposing) gives them a 'plesiosaur-like' appearance that has misled several creationists, as well as evolutionary cryptozoologists.
> _(Jerlström P., Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence, CEN Tech. J. 12(3)339-346, 1998; Letting rotting sharks lie: further evidence for shark identity of the Zuiyo-maru carcass, CEN Tech. J. 13(2):83-87, 1999.)_
> 
> I disagree with your assumptions quoted at the top. 
> I do research, and checked at least four various sources on this "1970's plesiosoraus." 
> ...


Well, greenburke, let us agree that we probably agree more than we disagree. I see you have done your research into basking shark decomposition, (the apparent long neck is an illusion, actually it's the spine and skull, sharks are mostly cartilage). And yes, that is the same pictures that went with the articles that I've read. Science and religion have one thing in common: If one says something is right, another will just as vehemently argue that it is wrong! I've seen it in churchs for years, one minister trying to tear down another. I have a quote in a book here where a famous scientist states "If one scientist says it can't be done, never mind that his name is Einstein, somebody is prepared to swear they can prove him wrong!" And begging the other gentleman's pardon, but since when do sharks NOT have fins? Anyway, I just am trying to help you see a wider picture. As I said, if you truly believe, nothing you take the time to study will ever shake that. But it may make you stronger. God bless!  :Angel:

----------


## greenburke

agreed. (got to make this post at least ten-characters!)

----------


## rachel

I remember once when I was an atheist. I was bugged about something and shouted out to God that I didn't believe in Him. Then I heard a quiet voice say to my heart "then why are you talking to Me?" Freaked me out. So I started grudgingly searching. There is a scripture that says : the fool says in his heart there is no God. That used to bug me. Now after searching and thinking and walking my walk I truly believe in creation. But how He did it I could care less. I can't even figure out certain receipes, how a bunch of flour with water and some wierd stuff called yeast are thrown together with some slippery stuff called oil and voila bread comes forth, yummy bread. But there it is. I take it on faith that bread will come forth, I don't need to know how. I just had to find out whether there was God. The rest is His business.

----------


## jamuscubed

Oh fun news...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

----------


## IrishCanadian

> I hate to dissapoint you, but you can no matter what disprove creationism as being truth. You have said that evolution has been proved for over the past 2 centuries, but Creationism has been proved from the begging of time. .


I seldom post in this part of the forums now, but Is till like to read it. Anyway, I have to mention that strictly scientifically speaking niether evolution, nor creation has been proven. I am a practicing Christian, I believe in creation, I have some quams with evolution. Nevertheless, let it be known that despite some brillient rhetoric, facts, and hypothisese there is no scientific proof for either. At least none that i have ever heard as published.
Cheers!

----------


## emily655321

> I hate to dissapoint you, but you can no matter what disprove creationism as being truth. You have said that evolution has been proved for over the past 2 centuries, but Creationism has been proved from the begging of time.


I didn't say I could disprove Creationism. I said your argument was flawed, and easily refuted. The only way for me to disprove Creationism by disproving your argument would be if your argument was direct proof of Creationism, when, in fact, it had nothing to do with the subject. I also said that, over the past two centuries, there has been _evidence gathered to support various_ (read: not all)_ theories of evolution_. This is in no way the same as proving Evolution as the singular origin of all life on Earth, thereby inevitably disproving the rival theory of Creation.

Please don't misquote me, especially when the quote itself is visible not two inches away. The word "prove" does not appear anywhere in my previous post. I take great care in choosing the words I use. Unless I say "prove," I do not mean "prove." Please read more carefully, if you wish to engage in an intellectual discussion.

You will find that I have great patience for intelligent arguments with which I disagree. If, however, you do not have the patience to even pay attention to the topic on which you are arguing, I do not have patience for you.




> I remember once when I was an atheist. I was bugged about something and shouted out to God that I didn't believe in Him. Then I heard a quiet voice say to my heart "then why are you talking to Me?" Freaked me out. So I started grudgingly searching. There is a scripture that says : the fool says in his heart there is no God. That used to bug me. Now after searching and thinking and walking my walk I truly believe in creation. But how He did it I could care less. I can't even figure out certain receipes, how a bunch of flour with water and some wierd stuff called yeast are thrown together with some slippery stuff called oil and voila bread comes forth, yummy bread. But there it is. I take it on faith that bread will come forth, I don't need to know how. I just had to find out whether there was God. The rest is His business.


Please don't take offense at this, Rachel, but you don't talk to something unless you already believe it to be there. Talking to God, no matter what you say to him, is an admission of faith. I believe that any answer you get, you get because you're already expecting to hear one. Also, bread results from chemical reactions between heat and the ingredients. Understanding bread doesn't require a leap of faith.


> Oh fun news...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html


 :Frown:  It takes courage and patience beyond my comprehension to be a teacher of science in Kansas.

----------


## rachel

I take no offense Emily. So GLAD you are back. No it was not because I already believed. It was because I was tired of people I knew talking to Him, I was being rude and mocking and so just said it. And the very fact that I heard what I heard made me stop being rude and just at least try to find out why i heard what I heard, was it just me or was it possible it was Him? Because of the life I had I couldn't see how there could possibly be a God, but if there was one I didn't like him. Well it is hard to explain but believe me I made quite a few enemies back then because I believed Darwin.

----------


## nodia 4

for all of you who think we evolved i suggest that you.
A. go get a bible.
B. go to church.
and C. learn about GOD!

----------


## Loki

I learnt quite enough about "god" while I was at school. I've been to a church, well, for a concert, but we had compulsory praying and stuff in chapel at school, RE classes, etc. and that was quite enough. Pure hypocrisy. And as to a bible...we already have two in the house, one from when I was at school and the second from when my father was at school. No thanks.

----------


## jollyollie

> for all of you who think we evolved i suggest that you.
> A. go get a bible.
> B. go to church.
> and C. learn about GOD!


My friends. There is no reason to debate. Some will drive themselves mad trying to convince some people that Darwin even existed. Some people think war is a necessary part of life, that we all must endure it, to preserve a limited edition of 'freedom'. It is some peoples lot in life to distract free thinking individuals from thier passions to debate the non debateable. Sit back, relax in the comfort of your homes and know the truth that evolution is proven fact. Aristotle is dead and has not been required reading in school since the 15th century, and it will always be so. Creationists/fundamentalists will fume as they grasp at straws and try to turn back the clock  :Rage:  . So have a tea and breathe and have a look at the fossil record. Its not going anywhere soon. There is no debate.
Those of you evolution fans dedicated to trying to convince or sway the creationist converted, watch out for viruses on your emails.  :Banana:

----------


## Loki

Good point.  :Biggrin: 
But _they_ think there is...[a debate]

----------


## Pendragon

Since we had a little humor with the "Peanuts" cartoon on the "Christians Thread", and frankly I have used examples from "Peanuts" in sermons, please take the following poem, which I published in a Sci-Fi magazine once also as the humor it is mean to be:

*Darwin Down the Drain*

On the continent of North America,
in the mountains of the East,
an undiscovered species of Man was found
a-living like a beast!

The Government convened a panel,
whose duty was to ascertain
just who and what this poor being was,
and just from whence he came!

The committee was a varied one;
a Minister, a Scientist, and a Lawyer too;
a burley Sergeant of the Marines,
a Politician, and an Old Maid. (_Whats she to do?_)

The Politician looked at him,
and this is what he said:
If hell vote for me, then hes OK!
If not, Ill bust his head!

The Old Maid looked him up and down,
then proceeded to relate:
We havent met. My names Matilda Brown.
Big Boy, how about a date!

The Scientist said, He cant exist!
Ill prove he isnt real!
And then he bopped him on the shins
to see if he could feel!

The Lawyer said to him: Dear Sir,
you are bedecked with feathers from an eagle
in violation of Code 45, Section C.
Sir, Im telling youthats illegal!

The Sergeant ran an appraising eye
along the Wildmans show of muscle.
Then he barked: Tension! I could use youse, son,
Youse be great in a tussle!

The Minister looked long at him,
his face was very grave.
He said: Son, do you know that you are lost?
Or that you have a soul to save?

But then the Aborigine burst out
In a voice both clear and loud:
Yer dsturbin maw fishin, ye buncha fules!
Now, gear out afore I trow ye out!

Pendragon

It was published under my initals, of course. Everybody loosen up and have a good day. And as for a debate, it only requires two sides of an issue. If it requires you to be able to PROVE one side or the other, we'd never have a Presidential debate....  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## jamuscubed

> for all of you who think we evolved i suggest that you.
> A. go get a bible.
> B. go to church.
> and C. learn about GOD!


Wow, you solved the problem! and it only took 785 posts to come to that...great post nadia...

One quick question that maybe isn't addressed in your answer book. How do hindu's/*bokononists*/raelians (fill in a non-christian or jewish religion) feel about evolution? Oh yeah and you can consult your bible because it's an open book test.

----------


## greenburke

> So have a tea and breathe and have a look at the fossil record. Its not going anywhere soon. There is no debate.




_"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism" 

Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isnt this a circular argument?"*Larry Azar

The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."*J.E. ORourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science_

_"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." *Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism"_  

_It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360._

----------


## Pendragon

A wise man said once: "Just when you think you've got it all figured out someone throws a spanner (monkeywrench) into the works!" This will never really end you know. People who refuse to accept a creator will continue to do so. People who refuse to accept evolution in any form will continue to do so. And persons trying to find middle ground will get bumped from both directions. The creations will say that we have denied the Bible and the Evolutionist will say we haven't gone far enough. Both camps seem to be in a get in or get out state of mind. There is room for a creator to set things in motion and evolution to shape it from there. I've said before, you cannot put God into time, it means nothing to him. Besides, everything was "formed from the dust of the earth" AFTER the seven (days, thousand years, whatever) of Creation was OVER. How long did that take? Time was never counted until after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. How long were they there? Anybody know? I don't, and I study the Bible. Hey. we know dinosaurs existed, so are they the dragons in the Bible or mabe Levaethian? Behemoth? Dragon legends exist in all cultures, as well as sea serpents. Is this the dinos? Questions--questions--questions. I don't think anyone truly has all the answers, but as Mulder always said: The truth is out there, somewhere...  :Wink:   :Nod:   :Nod:

----------


## greenburke

> I've said before, you cannot put God into time, it means nothing to him. Besides, everything was "formed from the dust of the earth" AFTER the seven (days, thousand years, whatever) of Creation was OVER. How long did that take? Time was never counted until after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. How long were they there? Anybody know? I don't, and I study the Bible.


The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." 
-Gen. 1:1
Not putting God into time, rather God created time. 

Where in the Bible does it say everything was created from dust?
It doesn't.

Man was created from dust.
Once God created the sun, moon and stars a day would have been what it is today.
God made the plants the day before the sun , moon and stars. A thousand years without the sun's light is a long time for a plant to survive.

I do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, 
but the Bible says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:" 
-Gen. 5:3

So it was less than 130 years, and Adam had two sons before that, after he was kicked out of the garden.

Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.

The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world.
.
.
.
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

e. *1 Corinthians 15:45* Gen. 2:7

----------


## jollyollie

Forgive me, all, but I must insist on this. To force someone to appreciate something they have no intention on accepting or believing in is -------! Fill in the blank. Personally as a parent, I believe the scriptures belong in the church or sunday school. The debate is not, or should not be Darwin. Mr Darwin did his part in science. The debate is what do we believe our children should learn in school? Thankfully, my children learn that evoltution is the ticket to learn; you wont go far in Harvard developmental biology or genetics if try to tell your prof that the world was invented in seven days by a large handed fellow who doesnt like to be photographed. I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is. 
Now, dont get your feathers in a bonnet, because the point is teach your kids what you want, but dont force it on them, or someone elses kids. It is irresponsible and maybe theyll want to go to Harvard some day. 
In the world of science there is no debate. Confusing rhetoric is just that.
Persons of aboriginal descent will agree with me when I say that ones personal beliefs should be honored, and persons who are different will always be different, and should be left that way. Not forced by violent means to embrace something they dont understand, or cant verify.
There is no debate, it simply doesnt exist. If someone tells someone who is different, to "go to church and read the bible" to discount evolution in science and education, that is fundamentally irresponsible. Take my words apart and twist them around all you want. But the point is there is no debate in scientific circles.
Maybe you should just change the name of this forum to.
"MMMM Boy, do I ever want everyone I meet to love Jesus"
and I love jesus too.
There is no debate  :Santasmile:

----------


## greenburke

> I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is.


.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."*_Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century]._  

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."**Stephen Jay Gould*, "_Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)._  

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."*_L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition)._  

[*In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology*, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."*_Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book]._  


"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the Just-So Stories tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me_."*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977._

"The Supreme Court said you can't force the teaching of creation science, but it didn't say that if individual teachers happen to want to teach it they can't." -*_Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution, Extinction and the Movies, " in Time, May 14, 1990, p. 19._

----------


## jamuscubed

> I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is.


The really sad thing is... Dr. "SJ" Gould has been dead for some time now, so way to stay up on the issue... Luckily as greenburke has pointed out he left enough for us to read.

Yeah he was an evolutionist... To his credit, he was semi unbiased in the fact that he could imagine evolution to be false...

So here's the thing that upsets me "jollieollie"... that I have to include you into my scientific circle. 



> there is no debate


.....really???? Because I'm pretty sure it's the Theory of Evolution and not... The LAW of Evolution....

The problem with some people is that they believe something to the point of it being infallable. 

Don't get me wrong I believe in the mechanism of evolution. We have seen it. Evolution in the sense of adaptation. I have recently got intouch with an old professor of mine that happens to study invasive species. {classic example being the galapogos finches} Well her studies have shown that these invasive species she works on Eurytemora affinis, and she has shown that..."common-garden experiments revealed evolutionary shifts in osmotic tolerance and life history during freshwater invasions. Freshwater invasions are accompanied by evolutionary increases in freshwater tolerance and reduced saltwater tolerance". 

http://www.zoology.wisc.edu/faculty/Lee/Lee.html

The problem is this is still a related species..to the original "wild-type" species.. You do the math from there Pathogoras..I don't want to explain the whole thing because I tire..

Greenburke, you sane bastard, I love your retorts.. I feel you are single handedly defending the creationist mind, and well for that matter. I wish I was doing an more exemplary job in my camp. (although I leave room to remind everyone... though I believe in evolution there is room for "anti" evolutional theories)....The question you ignored the other day that I wish you had answered.... The hominids...will these serve as an example for a transitional species????

----------


## Pendragon

> The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." 
> -Gen. 1:1
> Not putting God into time, rather God created time. 
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say everything was created from dust?
> It doesn't.


I beg to differ. Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Try reading it before you tell me it isn't there please.




> Man was created from dust.
> Once God created the sun, moon and stars a day would have been what it is today.
> God made the plants the day before the sun , moon and stars. A thousand years without the sun's light is a long time for a plant to survive.
> 
> I do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, 
> but the Bible says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:" 
> -Gen. 5:3
> 
> So it was less than 130 years, and Adam had two sons before that, after he was kicked out of the garden.
> ...


I disagree respectfully, since the fowl were made on the fifth day of creation. Like I say, read it carefully. They were driven out of the garden, had Cain and Abel, then Seth, and that came to 130 years when the geneologies were given. No account of time spent in the Garden or how long Creation took for sure.




> The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world.


The Bible says "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" Romans 14:5 You just jumped to two conclusions.

1. Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.

2. The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create

This is a circular argument, since one negates the other, since trees were created on the third day (just as fowls were on the fifth).




> 1 Corinthians 15:45-47
> 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
> 
> e. *1 Corinthians 15:45* Gen. 2:7


This is Paul speaking of course, take the whole of the book and chapter. Paul is speaking of the coming of Christ to make the surpreme sacrifice. 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Thus we see that the scripture you quote speakes of Christ, the second Adam.

Genesis 1:26 God made man in His image and God is a Spirit
Genesis 2:7 God places the spirit into a body formed of the Earth, Creation and God's rest period is OVER! But you will believe what you can understand and see, and I will not tell you that it is wrong to do so. I admire any person who will stand on their own convictions, unless something causes them to change them. Because if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...God bless you, my friend.  :Angel:

----------


## jollyollie

> The really sad thing is... Dr. "SJ" Gould has been dead for some time now, so way to stay up on the issue... Luckily as greenburke has pointed out he left enough for us to read.
> 
> Yeah he was an evolutionist... To his credit, he was semi unbiased in the fact that he could imagine evolution to be false...
> 
> So here's the thing that upsets me "jollieollie"... that I have to include you into my scientific circle. 
> 
> .....really???? Because I'm pretty sure it's the Theory of Evolution and not... The LAW of Evolution....
> 
> The problem with some people is that they believe something to the point of it being infallable. 
> ...


I pity your kids

----------


## jollyollie

> .
> "Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."*_Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century]._  
> 
> "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."**Stephen Jay Gould*, "_Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)._  
> 
> "In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."*_L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition)._  
> 
> [*In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology*, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."*_Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book]._  
> 
> ...


Siting a bunch of quotes doesnt really address what it is that I am saying does it? You seem to be grasping a straws, young padawan. Fundamentalist bullies who cant speak for themselves have no place in open forum discussions. Take a pill and your brianwashing techniques someplace else. 
People with different points of view have been persecuted for thousands of years. Quote this: First Nations people had pins stuck through thier tongues to integrate them into " civilised society", to punish them for not speaking english, thier children separated from them by thousands of miles in lame attempts to poison thier cultures and destroy the languages of thier ancestry. All in the name of God? and Jesus? You people fight so hard to preach your faith and punish those that are different. 
You are dotards. Show some respect for other ways of thinking and keep your personal religious belief out of our public schools.

----------


## jamuscubed

First of all don't pity my kids. Pity is such a christian/religious ideal, and since you obviously have no room for religion, why bother putting forth half the effort.

Secondly why _would_ you pity my kids? Because they would be cognitively (and dont forget sexier!!!) better off than jollie ollie produced children...Oh wait, that's envy..

Thirdly, so a "fundamentalist bullie" has no right in an open forum, but someone that coins "dotard" is? You *had* to be the captain of the debate team.

Fourthly. Evolution isn't an anti-Christian theory. Did you remember there are other religions out there?

5. Golden Rings

6thly- Citing peoples' work obviously shows that there has been research into the idea. Since maybe possibly you are omniscient, you should gather all your ideas by spontaneous clairvoyance. Us "dotards" will use data, feelings, beliefs, research...etc. to compile ours. 

7thly - Why am I taking issue with you, since I believe in evolution? Lately I feel I have been in the creationist camp defending them from people like you. 

8thly - Don't quote the whole passage, what a waste of time for us that actually CAN READ, and do read what people post.

Lastly - My @#$%ing point is... Science has error, as the best judgements do. You are a fool to believe in something so passionately that could ultimately be wrong. If you are a "Scientist" as you claimed earlier you would atleast allow others to say evolution isn't bulletproof, because all the evidence isn't quite there yet.

----------


## Loki

Guys, guys, I know it's hard but do you have to be _so_...hot-blooded? I mean, after all, arguing about it on the internet is hardly going to change anyone's ideas...




> .....really???? Because I'm pretty sure it's the Theory of Evolution and not... The LAW of Evolution....


Let's compare...




> *THEORY:* A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.





> *LAW:* A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met


So basically, theory is a set of statements that is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. A law is a statement describing a relationship between phenomena in certain conditions. 

They end up meaning practically the same thing.

Of course theories (and laws) can have, and do have flaws; but these flaws are almost uniformally tiny nitpickings in the details, nothing major...the basic idea in a proven theory is right.

Just my two cents.

Loki

----------


## rachel

I think when you believe something or in Somone passionately it is rather hard to then be completely dispassionate about the topic. For me to not believe in INtelligent Design can no longer happen after years of research. Take the eye for example. If we started first from some cosmic thing then from the sea for example as a simple blob of whatever how without any intelligence whatsoever did we know to grow this and that and how did we with no knowledge of science or such develop this limb or that. And supposing we got to the point that some of us crawled out of the sea then how did we decide we even needed eyes or what they were or how to go about it. Scientists, brilliant people cannot create these things or else we would not have transplants we could just create them exactly and pop them into a waiting body. I read of an experiement in a university where scientists believed they had duplicated sea water perfectly. they put fish into a tank filled with it. The fish died. They they added just a couple of tablespoons of real sea water into that tank of artificial stuff. the fish lived.
Sounds like Intelligent Design, a grand Creator to me.and on and on and on.....
And if we started with cosmic this or that where did all that come from, someone made it I am sure.

----------


## Loki

Rachel, please read River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins. He has a whole chapter about "intelligent design" and atheists who convert because they think "wow look at this, this could have never come into being by itself!"

It's not like that. "Intelligence" and eyes and every other natural wonder on earth came into being through a mix of necessity and pure chance. If evolution happened a second time, life could be entirely different (if there was a lot of pure chance in the mix) or quite similar (if there was a lot of necessity in the mix). Paul Davies in _Big Questions_ explores this issue.

For a view from both sides, you can visit http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html.

For something a bit different, go to "Our Mission" at http://www.betterhuman.org/

Flaws in "Intelligent design" - http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/in...sign-flaws.htm

----------


## Ulalume<3

Evolution, the modern Geocentric Theory.


My point is Science cannot always be trusted as truth. If we laugh at what people half a centry ago believed to be "scientific" truth (such as influenza being caused by the stars), imagine what they will be laughing at us for in a hundred years at the rate we are going.

----------


## greenburke

> Very Good,
> Are these merely the twigs we place down to suggest relatedness?
> Even if all these "species" are infact all subspecies of the homo, or even if they are the same species of homo, if you are so inclined to believe, they no longer exist. We are the living proof, because something caused them to go extinct. *Maybe you shall argue that H. erectus cannot beget a homo sapien.*  I cannot prove you wrong, therefore if you are not wrong, then you must be right! Well no, you are just not wrong, yet..
> It is only through your variance that so "weakens each species" that slightly different organisms occur. This is the only thing that has to be believed for the model of evolution to work. Slightly changing orgainism produce slightly different organisms. So called "sub species"... If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones *what is the only blue print left life has to read from*? *Not the extinct model*. Subspecies are proof of evolution because eventually with/with out human care, something will die off, leaving what is left behind as the blue print of what works in the present environmental conditions...Which happen to be fairly stable as of lately...


I liked your post and agreed with it Jamuscubed. The ideas about micro-evolution are good. I like the term adaptation, but that's just a matter of nit-picking. It would be cool if those finches could micro-evolve so much that looked look like creatures from "Where the Wild Things Are," these thoughts inspire the imagination. 

*Mircro-evloutions*
Wolfs, coyotes, springer spaniels, poodles- all dogs. The cross-breeding issue is fun to observe, but there are limitations. Those dogs as big as horses, mastiffs, they retain dog qualities. They get as big as horses, but will they ever turn into a clydsdale, or a mast-dale? No. Coakroches, are becoming resillent to bug spray, will the coakroach ever be hammer proof? No. There are boundaries limitations. Animals and plants are pre-packed with a bunch of information, so they can adapt, but they won't ever take on new "blueprints". Animals and plants work with the DNA they have. The sub-species are just re-aranged data, and the sun-standard of the orignal version. Sub-species wouldn't become new species, but they can be a remnant of the original extinct species.

"If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones *what is the only blue print left life has to read from*? *Not the extinct model*."--jamuscubed 

Not only would an animal have to borrow blue-prints to cross-species, but, "Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and differentbut highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species." -(evolution-facts.org)

A teacher once told my class about these parrots (i think they were parrots), down in South America. These parrots were isolated from the other parrots so over time their features became more and more original and bizzare. I raised my hand and asked, "Isn't this just a case of lots and lots of inbreeding?" He seemed flustered, the question was a bit straightfoward for a science disscussion... and of course the parrots were all still parrots. 

*DNA*
When evolutionist try to explain away DNA with answers like the following theory, they move away from the definition of the word *theory* (theory-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.)

"All the complicated DNA in each life-form, and all the DNA in every other life-formmade itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.

"Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the first creature, an amoeba, can and must do.

"That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc." -(evolution-facts.org)


*Boundaries*
"'The transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible."*Francis Crick, "Central Dogma," quoted in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 77.

"The Central Dogma is an important scientific principle and means this: The complex coding within the DNA in the cell nucleus decides the traits for the organism. But what is in the body and what happens to the body cannot affect the DNA coding. What this means is this: Species cannot change from one into another! All the members in a species (dogs, for example) can only be the outcome of the wide range of "gene pool" data in the DNA, but no member of that species can, because of the environment or what has happened to that individual, change into another species. Only changes in the DNA coding can produce such changes; nothing else can do it." -(evolution-facts.org)

"Normal variations can operate, but only within a certain range specified by the DNA for that particular type of organism. Within this range are all the possible variations to be found within each species.

"Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (beefalo), turkeys and chickens (turkens) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.

"DNA, THE BARRIERGenetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed." -(evolution-facts.org)

----------


## Pendragon

> A teacher once told my class about these parrots (i think they were parrots), down in South America. These parrots were isolated from the other parrots so over time their features became more and more original and bizzare. I raised my hand and asked, "Isn't this just a case of lots and lots of inbreeding?" He seemed flustered, the question was a bit straightfoward for a science disscussion... and of course the parrots were all still parrots.


 An excellent point! One that should have been considered by your teacher. There exists a race of people, that due to extreme inbreeding now have feet shaped like that of a bird. This came from National Geographic. The scientists recognize that this is the result of inbreeding causing a genetic deformity, so your parrots probably were the same. 




> "Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (beefalo), turkeys and chickens (turkens) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.
> 
> "DNA, THE BARRIERGenetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed." -(evolution-facts.org)


You can add to that list mules (cross between donkeys and horses), ligers (cross between lions and tigers, and the failed attepmt to recreate the extinct Quagga by crossbreeding Zebras and Ongers (wild asses). The usual problem greenburke mentions, unable to reproduce. Of course, science has progressed to the point where I believe that by artificial gene splicing they might find a way around this, they did clone after all, so who knows? It just is unlikely to happen naturally. I use that word because that sneaky one in a million or even a billion chance that is possible but not probable, CAN still occur, it's just highly unlikely. But the chimp I mentioned in a previous post was real enough, one in a million, but he came through. However, he didn't pass on his extra chromosone to any offspring.  :Wink:

----------


## greenburke

> "Intelligence" and eyes and every other natural wonder on earth came into being through a mix of necessity and pure chance...life could be entirely different (if there was a lot of pure chance in the mix) or quite similar (if there was a lot of necessity in the mix).



"Modern evolutionary theory holds that evolution is opportunistic, in the word of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson. At any point, it goes in the direction that is advantageous, often reshaping old structures for new uses. *It does not know its destination, nor is it impelled to follow one particular direction.*"*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 345.

How can randomness *select* that which is necessary? The "coin doesn't have a memory," so to speak. 

"When the probability of different events is not independent, the probability of future events can change based on the outcome of past events. An example of this is cards drawn without replacement. It's true that once a jack is removed from the deck, the next draw is less likely to be a jack and more likely to be of another rank." 
--(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)

These occurances would not be random if the only affected the advantageous. 
"Evolutionists call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern. "Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another...

"Evolutionists strictly maintain, as part of their creed, that the evolutionary process is not reversible. Part of this irreversibility idea requires that when one creature has evolved into another,the new creature cannot evolve back into what it used to be!

"Now that has serious implications for our present study. Evolutionists present various subspecies changes as their only actual evidence of evolution. Yet these are all changes back and forth. --(evolution-facts.org)

"...T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."Lester J. McCann

"The very terms, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," are actually circular reasoning! They are tautologies. "Change is caused by what causes change." "That which is fit survives, because it is the fittest." -(evolution-facts.org

----------


## ChuckBukowski

Well heres something to ponder, and maybe I'm stoned, but theoretically, if every animal/insect/creature died, except for field mice, and the earth went on for another 2million years, would the only living animal still be field mice? Or would their be all these species that evolved from the field mouse?

----------


## dark_182_88

Guys, ofcourse evolution took place, but how did evolution start in the first place? Mankind should have a start, and that is where creation comes in. Evolution could have happened afterwards, and it surely did, but it all starts with creation and then evolution takes place.

----------


## Scheherazade

> A US court decision to ban the teaching of "intelligent design" has been hailed by anti-creationism campaigners. A judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution theory must be taught as fact in biology lessons. 
> 
> School administrators had argued that life on Earth was too complex to have evolved on its own. 
> 
> Intelligent design activists criticised the ruling, saying it would marginalise beliefs based on religion. 
> 
> For those fighting the policy of the Dover school board, the judicial ruling offered a boost to the constitutional separation of church and state. 
> 
> A majority of US states have seen some form of challenge to the pre-eminence of Darwinian evolution theory in the curriculum of publicly-funded schools since 2001. 
> ...


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm

----------


## jollyollie

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm


Thankfully, Galieo Gallilei did not die in vain. To all you creationists, touche (thats french). As I said before, I wish to reiterate the FACT that
THERE IS NO DEBATE. Enjoy your tea  :Banana:

----------


## Scheherazade

You see, people will debate whether there should be a debate or not if nothing else. There will always be a debate; alwaysway (that's Pig Latin).

 :Tongue:

----------


## Diadem

I believe that God is responsible for our creation, but I do not believe creationism, or something akin to it, should be taught in public schools due to the separation of Church and State prescribed by the second amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Pfew...that was a long one.

----------


## jollyollie

> You see, people will debate whether there should be a debate or not if nothing else. There will always be a debate; alwaysway (that's Pig Latin).


 Ofcourse. but unforunatelythe ramications of reopening a debate on evolution v creationism sets a dangerous precident that aims to undo what others have sacrificed thier freedoms and thier lives to defend. To carelessly reopen a debate on this subject throws sand inthe eyes of those most impressionable with the most to lose, our kids, and incapable of weighing a hypothesis that has been tested by time. Ignorance is a dangerous weapon, particularily when it is aimed at our children and the weapon of choice is our public schools. I say, admit the debate has been over for hundreds of years, debated by those who have lost much to see that our children know its lessons. Lets debate how to stop hunger, or war. Lets choose a subject that does not try to reinvent the wheel. Also, our role models in our societies, revered practioners of the sciences and leaders of our collective countries are unanimous in that there is no debate on creation v evolution, and there is no need for one. Lets emulate the wisdom of giants by throwing down this subject and tackling one that needs our care and discretion.
There is no debate  :Santasmile:

----------


## greenburke

> I believe that God is responsible for our creation, but I do not believe creationism, or something akin to it, should be taught in public schools due to the separation of Church and State prescribed by the second amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
> 
> Pfew...that was a long one.


The First Ammendment... "_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof_..."
*-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#The_Amendments*

"The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here." 
*--http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm*

Government run public schools are worried about Intelligent Design being taught as fact.

While the "creationism" camp is worried that government taught evolution will seep into their religion. Evolution did seep into Christianity, via the _Gap Theory_, introduced by Thomas Chalmers in 1814.

Even Christians debate "old earth" versus "new earth."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree that "there is no debate;" scientists themsleves debate this theory, and have done so for hundreds of years. Scientists debate the plausibility of the theory as a whole, they also debate the finer details of how evolution occured scientifically. 

Darwin thought natural selection breeded life on earth, then recanted, turning back Lamarckism. Darwin was also upset by a lack of linking species found in the dirt. 

Neo-darwinists believed that natural selection and random mutations would do the trick. 

Even more modern evolutionists like Stephen Gould disagreed, 
[I]"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the Just-So Stories tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me[/I*]."*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977.*

Gould turned to the "hopeful monster" theory introduced by Richard Goldscmidt, "that every 50,000 years two animals are born within a close parameter and mate creating a new species." (evolution-facts.org)

"Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958). The same year that *Clark wrote his book (1930), Goldschmidt gave up also. An earnest evolutionist, he had dedicated his life to proving it by applying X-rays and chemicals to fruit flies at the University of California, Berkeley, and producing large numbers of mutations in them. After 25 exhausting years, in which he had worked with more generations of fruit flies than humans and their ape ancestors are conjectured to have lived on our planet, Goldschmidt decided that he must figure out a different way that cross-species evolution could occur. For the next ten years, as he continued his fruit fly research, he gathered more evidence of the foolishness of evolutionary theory;and, in 1940, he wrote his book, The Material Basis of Evolution, in which he exploded point after point in the ammunition box of the theory. He literally tore it to pieces (*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1974, p. 152). No evolutionist could answer him. Like them, he was a confirmed evolutionary atheist, but he was honestly facing the facts. After soundly destroying their theory, he announced his new concept: a megaevolution in which one life-form suddenly emerged completely out of a different one! He called them "hopeful monsters." One day a fish laid some eggs, and some of them turned into a frog, a snake laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it! Goldschmidt asked for even bigger miracles than A.H. Clark had proposed! (*Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p. 159)." -(evolution-facts.org)

"*Return of the Hopeful Monster* (1972). *Stephen Jay Gould, a highly respected paleontologist at Harvard; *Niles Eldredge, the head paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City; and *Steven M. Stanley, of Johns Hopkins University, have led out in resuscitating *Richard Goldschmidts "hopeful monster" theoryand demanding that the community of evolutionary scientists consider it as the only possible mechanism for trans-species changeovers." -(evolution-facts.org)

Debates and questions about evolution have been happening in the scientific community for the last couple-hundred of years; to say "there is no debate," shows a lack of study into the scientific community and their research.

----------


## Pendragon

Pardon me just a moment here while I try to let this settle in. Are you saying there is no debate because the GOVERNMENT recognizes evolution as science and has stated that creationism is religion? Or rather, a constantly changing body of people, The Supreme Court, whose decisions so often hang on the opinion of one person, i.e., a 5-4 vote, have made their interpertaton of the Freedom of Religion admendment into something called "Seperation of Church and State" which no one has yet shown me anywhere in the Constitution? There is no debate as long as people agree with the evolutionist is what you are saying. If one chooses to believe in a Creator, even if one then thinks evolution shaped everything, as I do, one must be considered at the least suspicious? 5-4 votes. Shouldn't a vote that is of that magnitude at least have to be 6-3, that is more than a tie break? Because then, after all, in a government where it is supposed to be majority rule, on a tremendously serious vote one person actually made that decision for the rest of us. Think about it.  :Nod:

----------


## jollyollie

> The First Ammendment... "_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof_..."
> *-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#The_Amendments*
> 
> "The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here." 
> *--http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm*
> 
> Government run public schools are worried about Intelligent Design being taught as fact.
> 
> While the "creationism" camp is worried that government taught evolution will seep into their religion. Evolution did seep into Christianity, via the _Gap Theory_, introduced by Thomas Chalmers in 1814.
> ...


You are going nowhere fast.
It is obvious to me that you havent the foggiest idea what the definition of science is. I am a student and a practitioner of the sciences, and for someone to blandly string quotes, as I stated earlier, doesnt stimulate a healthy discussion. All you have succeeded in doing is vainly attempt to insult me with your arrogance. Why dont you look at the words Ive written instead of trying to bully me and everyone else into your narrow minded view. Watch and learn;
Judge Jones: "Breathtaking inanity", "lying under oath", "trying to introduce ID religious thought through the back door", " ID not science".." cannot uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious antecedents", and finally, " unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom". Question: do you want your children to subscribe to these traits?
Not me. My experience is that when I attempt to "discuss" this issue with narrow minded bigots I am insulted and the evidence that I present scientifically is ignored. Therefore, this is the last post from you that I will respond to, unless of course you have something _intelligent_ to share on this issue.
Last: I spend six hard earned years studying biology in a university. I dont need your approval. If youre so smart, why couldnt you tell that? There is more to a scientific discussion than simply throwing around quotes that are not backed up, misdirected and ill begotten. You could at least explain yourself in your own words.
Ask the real scientists; there is no debate. It only serves the creationist rhetoric to try slip ID "through the back door" by force feeding unecessary debates down peoples throats. Go back to bible study, and leave the scientific discussions to the pros.
nIce to meet you.  :FRlol:

----------


## greenburke

> My experience is that when I attempt to "discuss" this issue with narrow minded bigots I am insulted and the evidence that I present scientifically is ignored.


.
I'm sorry you've had upsetting  :Rage:  experiences in the past. 
I don't doubt that you know a lot about the sciences.

.
.
Happy Holidays  :Santasmile:  

Auld Lang Syne and all that jazz.

----------


## jollyollie

> .
> I'm sorry you've had upsetting  experiences in the past. 
> I don't doubt that you know a lot about the sciences.
> 
> 
> Auld Lang Syne and all that jazz.


Happy Holidays  :Santasmile:  
lol !  :FRlol:  dont patronise me. My experiences and your defintion of "rage"  :Mad:  are not at issue here. 
You seem to have sidestepped the gist of the point, once again. I dont think youre a bad person, but ill equipped to recognise the seriousness of this issue. 
Do any of you remember what I said about Gallileo? Do you know what the church did to him for pouring water into columns from his upstairs bedroom window to make a simple public demonstration on fluid mechanics, contrary to Artistotlean assumptions? They excommunicated him and threatened to torture him to death if he did not publicly admit he was wrong. And he did, and the church gave him house arrest FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, all for speaking out in the name of science and progress, for your kids and mine.
And what of Newton? He secretly despised the role of the church in science. If he had spoke his mind about his rage  :Mad:  we would have no Newtonian Physics, because the church wouldve made sure he was utterly ruined, and he knew this so he wouldnt speak up about his true beliefs while at Kings College. And he did this for your kids. And so did Copernicus, by the way. 
And Darwin? Do I have to educate you all on him? And how he paid to have his theory heard? He survived that debate after they ridiculed him in the newspapers, compared him to a monkey or an ape or whatever. 
But his truth endured. And it will endure you nice folks, because the debate has been over since the early nineteenth century, and you cant change history. Ernst Zundel is still trying to change history. This is why I say there is no debate. 
Silly debates on scientifically proven subjects especially evolution only mean to turn back the clock of collective knowlege, to put it politely. There are few things that are classified as scientific truth and this is one of them. You choose to debate the non debateable. This is why I said earlier, call it a discussion. Dont call it a debate. The debate is over. There is no debate. Darwin did that already.
Now, if there is no debate, why am I seemingly debating it? Because, Im not. Im discussing and sharing with you fine folks, out of the goodness of my heart. It is worth it, because this is important And I think of it as a holiday gift of wisdom to all of you nice folks. Seasons Greetings to you all! And to all a good night.  :Santasmile:  
You can go back to your tea, now.

----------


## emily655321

Please say, perhaps, that there are no grounds for debate, but please stop saying "there is no debate." It's... very irksome. Also, just a general plea to everyone to not sling personal remarks. Ollie and Greenburke, you may have missed it since you joined the debate (yes, I said it) later on, but we're trying to keep the debate (hah, I said it again  :Wink: ) as respectful as possible. The first rule of any civil discussion is to respect the opposing viewpoint, even while attempting to change it. I know few people who are positively influenced by outright disdain for the view they hold.

----------


## Pendragon

The simplest way to begin is to say "Hello." There, that wasn't bad or threatening at all , was it? Now, I wish to say just a few words about your post, having you bear in mind that I believe in a Creator for a beginning, but evolution for the shaping of the world and all forms of life since.




> Do any of you remember what I said about Gallileo? Do you know what the church did to him for pouring water into columns from his upstairs bedroom window to make a simple public demonstration on fluid mechanics, contrary to Artistotlean assumptions? They excommunicated him and threatened to torture him to death if he did not publicly admit he was wrong. And he did, and the church gave him house arrest FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, all for speaking out in the name of science and progress, for your kids and mine.
> And what of Newton? He secretly despised the role of the church in science. If he had spoke his mind about his rage  we would have no Newtonian Physics, because the church wouldve made sure he was utterly ruined, and he knew this so he wouldnt speak up about his true beliefs while at Kings College. And he did this for your kids. And so did Copernicus, by the way. 
> And Darwin? Do I have to educate you all on him? And how he paid to have his theory heard? He survived that debate after they ridiculed him in the newspapers, compared him to a monkey or an ape or whatever. 
> But his truth endured. And it will endure you nice folks, because the debate has been over since the early nineteenth century, and you cant change history. Ernst Zundel is still trying to change history. This is why I say there is no debate.


Yes, this despicable type of thing did happen. "The Church" as you call it does not exist in the same form today, nor represent all of Christianity, not to mention the many other religions worldwide. I myself have told people on this very forum to learn, that if they truly believe in God knowledge cannot destroy that but it may help them understand a lot of other things. I do not condone ignorance as a way of life. I just don't like being called a fool for trying to find middle ground. Evolution had to occur in some form, that much is evident. I just don't buy into something like "a string of accidents" as I heard a scientist say yesterday on a TV special on how evolution develops. I base that on mathematics, the laws of chance would prove astronomical. So I believe in a Creator. The atheist problem of how long it took based on Biblical record, I say, I do not know. You can't put God into time. It would be irrelevant to such a being. The genelogies count time from after Adam was cast out of the garden. So how long did it take? I don't know.




> Im discussing and sharing with you fine folks, out of the goodness of my heart. It is worth it, because this is important.


Then, please discuss without rancor, or judgemential statements. You make good points, stick to them. As I told greenburke, I will admire anyone who will stand on his own convictions, even if I disagree. You must stand for something or you fall for anything.... God Bless.  :Angel:

----------


## jollyollie

> The simplest way to begin is to say "Hello." There, that wasn't bad or threatening at all , was it? Now, I wish to say just a few words about your post, having you bear in mind that I believe in a Creator for a beginning, but evolution for the shaping of the world and all forms of life since.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this despicable type of thing did happen. "The Church" as you call it does not exist in the same form today, nor represent all of Christianity, not to mention the many other religions worldwide. I myself have told people on this very forum to learn, that if they truly believe in God knowledge cannot destroy that but it may help them understand a lot of other things. I do not condone ignorance as a way of life. I just don't like being called a fool for trying to find middle ground. Evolution had to occur in some form, that much is evident. I just don't buy into something like "a string of accidents" as I heard a scientist say yesterday on a TV special on how evolution develops. I base that on mathematics, the laws of chance would prove astronomical. So I believe in a Creator. The atheist problem of how long it took based on Biblical record, I say, I do not know. You can't put God into time. It would be irrelevant to such a being. The genelogies count time from after Adam was cast out of the garden. So how long did it take? I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, please discuss without rancor, or judgemential statements. You make good points, stick to them. As I told greenburke, I will admire anyone who will stand on his own convictions, even if I disagree. You must stand for something or you fall for anything.... God Bless.


OK,Ok! Listen, I am sorry for going off a bit on you, greenburke, and I am very moved by the above. I appreciate your goodwill you have asserted in this discussion.I also greatly appreciate you addressing a couple of the points Ive raised. You all seem like good people and I hope I havent offended anyone here. If I have, please accept my regrets. I am very passionate on many things, and this is one of them. 
Now, Im not telling you folks what to believe; you should do likewise. As long as you call this a debate, I can no longer participate. There is no debate. for me. for many. 
Blaming the govmt is irresponsible, dont you think? Take some time and try to find a middle ground. I did.
Some physicists believe that some form ID may have played a role in big bang theory. Who knows. Myself, I dont believe in fate. 
I am religious but in a very personal and scientific way. I really like hinduism and buddha, and I pray to Jesus now and then. Im just not big on the whole creation story. At one time, It answered alot of questions for alot of people. My OPINION is that creation is not plausible, and is outdated. I think in time some of us grow out of the story, and search for more meaning. Not saying its not a nice story, it just doesnt fit anymore, for me or my kids in school. Everthing is going to be OK.
Thank you for your patience, if this applies.
Have a super christmas everyone. Peace on earth.
Long live the three spine stickleback and the last remaining few caelocanths. Rock and Roll 
and no more war.
Im editing in a link that I found. You will all please note the word debate is in parentheses, so the bbc put it in there, not Science.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
have a gooder  :Santasmile:

----------


## Pendragon

You're a big man, jollieollie!  :Biggrin:   :Angel:   :Santasmile:

----------


## Miss Darcy

Just a quick read on terminology for those who think "evolution is a theory, not a fact": http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/t...evolution.html

----------


## Pendragon

One quick question. What is the binding force that keeps an atom together? We have learned to split one, with catastropic results. But why should it stick together in the first place? One of the laws of electricty is "like particles repel each other." The nucules is made of protons and nuetrons, with electrons orbiting. All protons are postively charged and should repel each other. So why do they not? What keeps them together, especially if all it takes to split the atom is to fire a rogue proton through it? Technically speaking, by the law of electricty, it should never hold together in the first place...  :Brow:

----------


## emily655321

I think at least one person would disagree with you:

http://www.16pi2.com/binding_energy.htm

I suuuuck at chemistry, and I sucked in Chemistry in school. But the one thing I was fairly good at (when I remembered how to do them) were those chemical equations, where you draw diagrams of the atomic symbol with little dots or dashes around them to represent the number of electrons. Lewis Structures! I rocked the socks off of those things. From what I remember, electromagnetism (i.e. electrons) is a repulsive force when the atoms share the same number of electrons, but when one atom has too few electrons they can't neutralize the atom's protons' attractive force, and so the additional electrons of another atom compensate for the missing electrons of the first, binding the two atoms together. It's like plugging electrons into a socket, the socket being the space empty of electrons. Most atoms are in themselves deficient of some electrons, which is why the world isn't just a big old swirling mass of individual atoms. They are drawn together into molecules by their complimentary electrons/protons, and react rather violently when mankind attempts to split them apart.

Good old Wikipedia can explain it better than I can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_Dot_Structure

----------


## Pendragon

Well, Emily, I respect the scientific viewpoints you point out. I have a slight problem with two things in the first one: 

1. Neutrons are neutrally charged, neither positive nor negitive, so I fail to see how they factor in the "binding force of the neutron."

2. The word "possible" in the last line of the equation. Newton's laws of electricty are fairly straightforward when it comes to attraction and repulsion. With the amount of study done in the field of physics, there should be a "there is a variation due to proton discharge" or "no proton discharge of any measurable effect occurs." 

I always loved physics myself and I often use this example. Physics lets me know that there is enough space between the molecues of a solid, such as my desk, and those of my hand, for them to pass through each other and not touch. Why can't I do it? I don't believe I can do it. As the sensi used to say, the difference is in your mind.

But it was just a question to turn our minds to science, because in this case, I think the first answer you give plausible. It doesn't quite feel right, but you don't base science on a feeling. Take care.

----------


## jamuscubed

I am having one huge issue with our little quibble here. There is alot of quoting going on and why should we take these sources to be legitimate? No more "ethicalATHEIST" dot com quotes for sure. 

*Jollieollie vs. Greenburke*
Jollieollie is correct that science accepts evolution as fact and we are working from there. I've seen many studies that make it hard to believe evolution isn't working. Therefore likewise as a scientist with a B.S. in biology and pursuing a Ph.D. in genetics I am in the camp that evolution exists and shapes species. 

Greenburke is correct that evolution isn't bulletproof, and there are scientific minds, RECENT scientific minds, that believe it to be false. Though we choose not to listen to them as science always does.

*Implications* 
I am going to assume that the debate is pretty much limited to chrisitan AMERICANS because i haven't noticed any other demographic really posting.

Has anyone read Nietzsche? Let me use him...
"God is dead, and you killed him" From The AntiChrist ~1888

Ok three points

1. If you want to be a creationist: you are an orthodox christain and you can't believe in evolution because it undermines the very foundation that christianity is set upon. That we are from adam, yadda yadda sin.. yadda yadda jesus. yadda yadda redemption.

2. If you want to be a evolutionist: you are an orthodox darwinian and you can't believe in creationism because it, well, it makes no logical sense now does it? Probably means you have to be agnostic otherwise you undermine darwin......

3. If you want to be in the middle, and I urge you never to be middle, but nevermind this is america, by the middle, for the middle, I will digress later about middle, you prescribe to the doctrine of Intelligent Design. What a happy little hybrid we play with here.. God created the species to freely evolve because we know they do evolve. The products we see were always something God conceived. Note:Orthodox Christian beware (refer to 1.)

So out of the three points we have only one option really left for a christian to believe. 

Religion is screwed, and it's only natural for them to fight back. Jollieollie was wrong to congratulate Newtonian Physics, @#$% Sir Newton... To steal Decartes( in italian, because I don't know french or latin): "Esiste quindi lo sarà scoperto" ..It exists therefore it will be discovered *found!" 

Religion cannot do that. Unless God comes down from Heaven and speaks to the masses as he likes to do in the first testament, religion has nothing for validation. I suppose I should wait for the day of Revelation to come...It might exist it might not...but in the end there is only faith. 

*Only Zarathustra shall read on*
I have no problem with teaching religious things in school. Let them become privy to both sides! Let them weigh their evidence, and for themselves make their own decision! Do we raise SHEEP or do we raise children? Well then if it is infact children I propose to suggest that many are intelligent beings. Sure Sure, the middle are the impressionable and OH no if we lose their minds...To steal from Aldous Huxley.. they are off to be deltas and epsilons anyways...
At the same time I would not recommend trivializing anyones individual life. That's not the point. The point is that at the edges lies the best in society, somewhere I am sure that even I am not included. These are the people that will shape our ideas, religion, societies in the future.
These people are not the pedantic rabble, like us. ON this front Let there be orthodox religion and orthodox evolution... these are the opposing forces that keep the balance. It is opposing forces that MAINTAIN the precious middle that americans covet, and not only that... inspire CREATION. (i.e. cold war)

Sorry I'm ranting.. one more thing

no we are not going to go argue about more important things. @$%^ war, it is a necessary evil. Will you say that war is bad? Name a war, and i'll find something good from it! Plus I have just reread Sun Tzu and really ache to quote it...Let us argue beyond good and evil because nothing is more vague.

----------


## emily655321

Just a couple things...  :Banana: 



> 1. Neutrons are neutrally charged, neither positive nor negitive, so I fail to see how they factor in the "binding force of the neutron."


I didn't say "neutrons," I said "protons." Neutrons prevent the protons from repelling each other... or something... they stick them together somehow. This is where I start sucking at chemistry.  :Biggrin: 




> Physics lets me know that there is enough space between the molecues of a solid, such as my desk, and those of my hand, for them to pass through each other and not touch. Why can't I do it? I don't believe I can do it. As the sensi used to say, the difference is in your mind.


Mm... Well, I'm no scientist (as previously established), but instinct/reason/something tells me it has less to do with believing and more to do with the attractive forces binding the molecules of your hand and those of the desk, respectively. If they were all just swimming around in the atmosphere, enough for the hand-atoms to pass through the space between the desk-atoms, I don't see why they should be stuck together as hand and desk in the first place. Atoms are stuck together by electromagnetism, and they aren't just stuck together willy-nilly; one type of molecule won't just break apart to go swimming through another type of molecular bond, like your hand-through-desk example. If that were true, there would be an atomic explosion every time you touched your desk. The force holding the atoms together is too strong to break apart simply by touching another object.

Some scientists also speculate that the so-called "space" between atoms isn't space at all, but is made up of a forth kind of subatomic particle, neutrinos, which cannot be observed because simply looking at them produces enough force to move them; but I believe this theory is still being debated.

----------


## Pendragon

> Just a couple things... 
> 
> I didn't say "neutrons," I said "protons." Neutrons prevent the protons from repelling each other... or something... they stick them together somehow. This is where I start sucking at chemistry.


Ah, no, Emily, you didn't say "neutrons" at all. The guy at the site you posted for an example did. It was not you, m'dear, but he that I was questioning. He was giving neutrons a charge in his equation, but I've always learned they have none.





> Mm... Well, I'm no scientist (as previously established), but instinct/reason/something tells me it has less to do with believing and more to do with the attractive forces binding the molecules of your hand and those of the desk, respectively.


Whoa-up! You are dangerously close to basing someting on a feeling!  :FRlol:  That's faith as I have been told _ad nauseum_, not science.




> If that were true, there would be an atomic explosion every time you touched your desk. The force holding the atoms together is too strong to break apart simply by touching another object.


That's kinda my point. Why doesn't it? No real reason why they shouldn't.




> Some scientists also speculate that the so-called "space" between atoms isn't space at all, but is made up of a forth kind of subatomic particle, neutrinos, which cannot be observed because simply looking at them produces enough force to move them; but I believe this theory is still being debated.


Not to be difficult, but they have passed solids through each other in the lab, at etreme speeds without damage to either. And please, I mean absolutely no offense, I just wish to point something out. If I speak of God, whom I cannot see nor prove but speculate about what I believe He has done, is this so different from someone asking me to believe in "neutrinos" which they cannot see only speculate about, because just looking at them is enough to move them?  :Nod:

----------


## emily655321

> If I speak of God, whom I cannot see nor prove but speculate about what I believe He has done, is this so different from someone asking me to believe in "neutrinos" which they cannot see only speculate about, because just looking at them is enough to move them?


It wouldn't be if you took the neutrino theory purely on faith, which I would discourage anyone from doing. There are tests which can, and must, be done before that idea will be accepted by the scientific community. The way we know electrons exist is not by seeing them, but that many experiments have been performed in which their behavior has been recorded. Their behavior can be predicted and reproduced again and again under laboratory conditions. This is the closest human beings can get to proving the existance of something so small, but the data suggests that it is so probable as to negate any reasonable debate on the matter. I find the idea of neutrinos to be intriguing, but I haven't heard of any such experiments regarding them. I do not place "belief" in them, and think such assumptions generally hurt the credibility of those scientists who would seek to test the hypothesis. There is a difference between speculating on an interesting idea and placing blind faith in it. If God would deign to participate in multiple lab experiments wherein his behavior could be predicted and reproduced again and again, perhaps then I would be more open to the idea.  :Tongue:

----------


## Pendragon

As I have told others, I respect those who stand for what they believe. I've said my own piece on this topic long ago, and I'm sure not about to change my mind. As the game show says, "It's my final answer, Regius!" I believe that it took a creator to start things, not a series of accidents, but that everything from the smallest microbe to the largest lifeform has been forced to adapt to a changing world. That is what I call evolution. As for how long the creative process took, I simply don't know. I think that trying to place God into a timeline is not going to work. As far as I'm concerned, Biblical recorded time starts with the genelogies, after Adam and Eve left the garden. The time before that who knows? And I bow out of the conversation, still standing on what I believe. But science has it's place and it's function--to explore the unknown. Science you learn in school. I said before and I'll say again, if the churchs would do their job, teach the young about the Bible, about Creation, they would not have to argue about the private sector doing it for them. God bless you, one and all.  :Angel:

----------


## Pendragon

As I have told others, I respect those who stand for what they believe. I've said my own piece on this topic long ago, and I'm sure not about to change my mind. As the game show says, "It's my final answer, Reigus!" I believe that it took a creator to start things, not a series of accidents, but that everything from the smallest microbe to the largest lifeform has been forced to adapt to a changing world. That is what I call evolution. As for how long the creative process took, I simply don't know. I think that trying to place God into a timeline is not going to work. As far as I'm concerned, Biblical recorded time starts with the genelogies, after Adam and Eve left the garden. The time before that who knows? And I bow out of the conversation, still standing on what I believe. But science has it's place and it's function--to explore the unknown. Science you learn in school. I said before and I'll say again, if the churchs would do their job, teach the young about the Bible, about Creation, they would not have to argue about the private sector doing it for them. God bless you, one and all.  :Angel:

----------


## emily655321

Pendragon, I also respect your assertions, and I respect you as a person for standing firmly on the belief which your gut tells you is right. You seem very knowledgeable in both religion and science, and I'm impressed by your ability to use your powers of both spirituality and reason so harmoniously in your approach to life, or at least to forum discussion.  :Biggrin:  Peace, dude.

----------


## Pendragon

And peace be with you also, Emily. Perhaps, one more post. Long ago I was faced with being asked questions about things like evolution, and I soon learned that if you know nothing about the subject, it takes about ten seconds for someone to make you look foolish. So I decided then and there to learn about every controversy out there, from philosophy, science, or whatnot. In doing so, I learned that sometimes what we thing is so wrong is just the truth told in a different method. And I learned about the thing with which I disagreed, so that I could talk about them from a standpoint other than one which would be immediately rejected as "narrow-minded". Knowledge did not destroy my Christian belief. Any General who goes into war, even any sports team that is going to play another, first scouts the other out. You need to know. That why I'm never surprised that an Athiest has read the Bible. You need to know what the other will probably say. If you know nothing on the subject being discussed, you're just "a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" I Corinthians 13:1. And to all a Happy New Year!  :Biggrin:   :Thumbs Up:   :Nod:

----------


## Doctor Boogaloo

Well, I certainly came in on the tail end of a fascinating discussion.
I support the evolution camp.
Teaching 'intelligent design' in biology classrooms is an utter waste of everyone's time. Preach it in religious schools. Call it 'biblio-historical-cosmological-pseudo- science' or whatever you like. And while the 'Red States' continue to pore over ancient texts for the latest in scientific discovery, let the 'Blue States' simply get on with teaching the facts. 
It has been eighty years since the Scopes trial.
Unfortunately, not all of us have evolved.

----------


## jollyollie

There is no debate. I see its been pretty dull around here since early January, recently after the US supreme court ruling. It appears that the dogmatic fundamentalists have run for cover amid the overtone that creationists cannot create or recreate everything or everyone in thier own image, whenever or wherever they want. Take a chill pill and realise 
there is no debate.  :Banana:  
I call myself jolly ollie because I know happily that there is no debate. the ollie part has nothing to do with oliver north; it is for Gandalfs name in Illuvitar, given to him by Eru the one. 
ID has no place in science and I have come to lead you to a new debate; one that exists. Global warming, proliferation of the use of fossil fuels to the ultimate destruction of us all, creationists and evolutionists alike from the destruction of the ozone layer. 
Under the misconception of ID the research in the following link would not be possible because the evidence would have never HAPPENED.
Try driving your gas guzzling sports utility vehicle through this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
CO2 and methane emissions have not been so high in 650,000 years. CO2 emissions are 30% higher, methane 130% higher. mean temperatures could rise as much as 6 degrees celcius in the next century, sea levels will rise 2mm every year. 
The evidence is more than 645,000 years older than Moses

----------


## niteskytwilight

[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]
When a catastrophic change occurs in the world environment, and certain humans are more suited to survive it than others, there will be an evolutionary step made. Currently, we are merely diversifying our genetic mix, widening the pool of phenotypes. This is the normal process according to Darwinian theory.
xxx[COLOR=Dark Red]xxx[/COLOR]

I would have to assume that you have read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and I respect that. I am also assuming, however, that you haven't read anything that disproves the Darwinian Theory. Now, being the year 2006, you can go to any sixth grade Life Science class (around the world) and every text book will state the Darwinian Theory wrong.

Since Darwin's time (a very simple time I might add) science and the understanding of life has advanced, far beyond what Darwin thought he knew by observing with only his eyes. We are capable of decyphering the code of a human DNA strand now, and with the knowhow of that it makes evolution, in anyway, shape, or form impossible. 

The weak link simply does not survive, there is no evolving about it.

----------


## jollyollie

[QUOTE=niteskytwilight]


> When a catastrophic change occurs in the world environment, and certain humans are more suited to survive it than others, there will be an evolutionary step made. Currently, we are merely diversifying our genetic mix, widening the pool of phenotypes. This is the normal process according to Darwinian theory.
> xxx[COLOR=Dark Red]xxx[/COLOR]
> 
> I would have to assume that you have read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and I respect that. I am also assuming, however, that you haven't read anything that disproves the Darwinian Theory. Now, being the year 2006, you can go to any sixth grade Life Science class (around the world) and every text book will state the Darwinian Theory wrong.
> 
> Since Darwin's time (a very simple time I might add) science and the understanding of life has advanced, far beyond what Darwin thought he knew by observing with only his eyes. We are capable of decyphering the code of a human DNA strand now, and with the knowhow of that it makes evolution, in anyway, shape, or form impossible. 
> 
> The weak link simply does not survive, there is no evolving about it.


Oh my! 
SO WHAT? 
The issue here is not whether mother goose or Bobby Friggin Brady read the bloomin essay, dude( origin of species). You are getting yourself bogged down in useless jargon. 
My point, if you had read it, is that this is an antiquated issue. Why not concentrate on the real debates that exist, like Alito on Abortion, US Wars in Iraq and abroad, crimes against humanity and specifically your role in destroying the ozone layer. What can you do to HELP, or are all IDer s too preoocupied with selfcentered gluttinous contempt for any version of nature that is not a cookie cutter copy of your King James bibles version. Have you read the origin of species? WHO CARES. Iam here only to lead the open and willing AWAY from this dumbass debate and on to greener pastures that yearn for inquirer minds.
The issue is ignorance, and how its unfair and sinister to people unbeknownst to it vile curses. 
How little some evolve, even when they are spawned from pond water.

----------


## Logos

Some posts have been edited/or deleted due to flames/inflammatory content.

jollyollie, if you think this is such a "dumb" debate, please refrain from responding to it if you can't dredge up some amount of respect for what other individuals are trying to say.

----------


## jollyollie

I am entitled to my opinion, and I dont appreciate the vulgarity of stanislaws remarks, nor the blatent disregard for like responses to outlandish claims made by IDers. If they can flaunt science, why am i restrained (censored)for responsibly replying to this inadequacy? My aim here is not to insult anyone, but to push the envelope on some of these creationists who abuse thier rights of free speech and seek to punish those who do not fully echo thier sentiments. Hmm? 
If you can be more specific as to what exactly it is that you dont want me to say, I will either oblige you, or no longer participate on this thread, should I feel that my free speech is being denied as a result of the camp which I choose to occupy.  :Brow:

----------


## everyman

To my limited knowledge, David Hume defeated the argument from design in his work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (the three teleological characteristics of God in the monotheistic religions) being as creator of the universe. 

Some major points include:
Evil manifests itself in the struggle between creatures for survival. Prey live in constant threat and vulnerability to predators and likewise predators continually hunt for the flesh of other beasts to feast on. The cycle of conflict in nature; the conquering of the strong over the weak, exemplifies evils presence where relentless domination and submission of lives is merely a means of living. 

Humankind is susceptible to violent tendencies which are made known in war, the oppression of peoples, criminal activities, and numerous other acts in which they harm each other. Human wickedness is an aspect of life to which no person is escapable and everyone experiences throughout their lifespan.

----------


## jollyollie

Everyman Indeed!
I applaud thee.
My work is done here.  :Banana:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ... being as creator of the universe"

This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.

.

----------


## Pendragon

Well, I certainly didn't "run and hide". It simply became obvious that people were not interested in my views, and I do not believe in trying to cram anything I believe down someone else's throat. Too much of that goes on now, to the deteriment of various causes. If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, I have respect for that. To stand for what one believes against all odds gains my respect every time. I have more respect for an Atheist who is firm in his/her belief than a wishy-washy religous person, who is in today and out tomorrow. God bless.  :Nod:

----------


## atiguhya padma

<If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, have respect for that.>

Why? Surely your respect for someone who believes the above is detrimental to that person. It also demeans the value of your respect.

I'd say that anyone who would <believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering>, needs to see a doctor, preferably a specialist in mental health problems.

The problem with believing nonsense, whether it be puff the magic dragon as creator, or vrigin births or assumption in to heaven or human-like lizards ruling the earth or anything that is irrational and non-sensible is that if you wish to appear reasonable and if you wish others to respect your nonsensical beliefs, you have to allow all nonsense equal respect.

----------


## Stanislaw

> "Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ... being as creator of the universe"
> 
> This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.
> 
> .


Zoroastrianism is not a dualistic religion, it is infact quite monotheisitic. According to zoroastrian beliefs at the end of time all those who are evil will be cleansed and reunited with those who were righteous.

As for calling a virgin birth, or assumption nonsense is incredibly disrespectfull to people who believe in the christian tradition.

----------


## everyman

> This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.
> 
> .


In citing Hume, I am referring to a _philosophical_ argument, which is grounded in _logic and reason_ rather than faith or belief. Relating to Zoroastrianism is thus an attempt to bring the debate back into the realm of religion, to which we can then discuss other _beliefs_, but would obviously stray from the topic at hand. Furthermore, this thread involves discussing creationism, which is generally held as a Christian idea and movement that attempts to merge religious belief with scientific fact. The Zoroastrian story of creation (that I am not familiar with) is an individually distinct belief that is separate from creationism.

----------


## Whifflingpin

From Stanislav
"Zoroastrianism is not a dualistic religion, it is infact quite monotheisitic. According to zoroastrian beliefs at the end of time all those who are evil will be cleansed and reunited with those who were righteous."
I think that among Zoroastrians there are those who believe in "cosmic" dualism, namely that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman are good and evil powers in a sphere that is outside the created universe. There are also those who believe in "ethical dualism," that is to say, good and evil are in conflict only within the created universe, or more particularly within mankind - I think that this is the predominant view among the Parsees who may be the largest grouping of Zoroastrians at the present time. 
I don't think there is a definitive Zoroastrian belief about the ultimate fate of evil people. Of course, the religion is one of the oldest, and has undergone many changes and reactions in its history.

Everyman - I understood (or misunderstood) your citing of Hume as a philosophical argument to nullify a certain religious belief. I merely showed that it was not an argument that could be used to nullify all beliefs in a Creator. The title of the thread, the first post and the poll do not limit the discussion merely to views that can be refuted by Hume.

----------


## everyman

> I understood (or misunderstood) your citing of Hume as a philosophical argument to nullify a certain religious belief. I merely showed that it was not an argument that could be used to nullify all beliefs in a Creator. The title of the thread, the first post and the poll do not limit the discussion merely to views that can be refuted by Hume.


My argument, as you have already noted, was stated only in relation to creationism. The contention that I was attempting to "limit the discussion merely to views that can be refuted by Hume" is unfounded.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Stanislaw said: <As for calling a virgin birth, or assumption nonsense is incredibly disrespectfull to people who believe in the christian tradition.>

I disagree. I am attacking a belief, not a person. The only way I can see that anyone can feel that I am attacking them in those statements, would be if they overidentified with their beliefs. There is a great danger in silencing criticism of a belief or a system, merely because it offends those who cannot separate their self-identity from their beliefs.

----------


## Pendragon

> <If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, have respect for that.>
> 
> Why? Surely your respect for someone who believes the above is detrimental to that person. It also demeans the value of your respect.
> 
> I'd say that anyone who would <believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering>, needs to see a doctor, preferably a specialist in mental health problems.
> 
> The problem with believing nonsense, whether it be puff the magic dragon as creator, or vrigin births or assumption in to heaven or human-like lizards ruling the earth or anything that is irrational and non-sensible is that if you wish to appear reasonable and if you wish others to respect your nonsensical beliefs, you have to allow all nonsense equal respect.





> Well, I certainly didn't "run and hide". It simply became obvious that people were not interested in my views, and I do not believe in trying to cram anything I believe down someone else's throat. Too much of that goes on now, to the deteriment of various causes. If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, I have respect for that. To stand for what one believes against all odds gains my respect every time. I have more respect for an Atheist who is firm in his/her belief than a wishy-washy religous person, who is in today and out tomorrow.


 As usual, you jump right to something to argue about and ignore the gist of the point. Did you read the last line? That means that I respect YOU for sticking to what YOU believe. Do you see any remarks about nonsense? No. How I feel about what YOU believe is unimportant. For the record, I disagree with some, not all, of evolution. My stance on these things is on record in this thread. But I will not demean a fellow human by questioning their intelligence for what they believe. Is the Puff the Magic Dragon example so much different from the Earth is on the back of a turtle, or the shoulders of Atlas, or that mankind crawled out of a hole in the ground? People devoutly believed these things.  :Nod:

----------


## falling*moon

Good God!!

dude.....i think u are losing me in that subject..!

i know that God created Adam first... then Eve,.....then he sent them down earth ... etc...

----------


## Taliesin

Interesting.
How do you know?
Were you present?

----------


## Pendragon

> Good God!!
> 
> dude.....i think u are losing me in that subject..!
> 
> i know that God created Adam first... then Eve,.....then he sent them down earth ... etc...


Sorry for confusing you. Everything in my post about Puff. etc. is metaphorical. Since you obviously came in late, once more, I belive in a Creator to start things, then evolution as in adaptation of each species to changes in their environment. Without these changes, evreything would have died out long ago. Of course, some things survived without changing, exceptions to the rule. Which is why I said I disagreed with some, not all, of evolution. Follow me now? I was just pointing out that I have respect for anyone who will stand up for what they believe and be unwavering in that belief, not this way today and that tomorrow. Believe what you will, but have the grace to stick to it and respect the others who stick to theirs. To them, what YOU believe may not sound with the ring of truth, just as YOU find cracks in their belief. Mutual respect can find something to talk about that both can contribute to.  :Nod:

----------


## Ted2525

Here are a couple of links to the subject of "synthetic biology" which I haven't seen discussed on this thread yet. The importance of synthetic biology is that the scientists are trying to use the "tools of evolution" to create "life without god". They are close to making that happen. The second link goes into the 12 criteria that define synthetic life at the cellular level.

If it is possible for the scientists to set up the conditions in the lab for natural elements and natural processes to form new life where no life existed before, then it is possible that those same conditions once existed on earth and that life on earth started then.


http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/18836/

http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/1/1/30/1/

----------


## jollyollie

> "Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ... being as creator of the universe"
> 
> This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.
> 
> .


Does "Zorro" come from there?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Did you read the last line? >

Yup. Your point is? 

When Mark Chapman had a firm, unwavering belief that he was John Lennon, did that put him in a position to be highly respected do you think? Can't you see that firm belief and unwaveringness are not automatic passports to respect? Plenty of evil despots in world history have had firm and unwavering belief. Neither is the type of belief a cause for respect. I see no reason why a religious belief is somehow more due respect than a philosophical one or sociological or political. It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.

----------


## Hazel-Ra

Wow, this topic, along with 'Do you belive in god or not...explain' have got to be among the most popular and interesting discussions of all time. I love discussing this with others. I agree with Jester. Logically it just makes too much sense for me to believe anything else.

----------


## Pendragon

> <Did you read the last line? >
> 
> Yup. Your point is? 
> 
> It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.


My point then is this: If you will not allow me to respect you for your stand which I find illogical, mathematically improbable on the basis of the statistics of chance, and so forth; and you continue to brush aside my beliefs as "delusional", then I respectfully refuse to partipicipate in your own delusion that you are somehow having respect for the other person's beliefs. I only wish to find middle ground. If I can partially accept evolution, that took a lot of study and thinking about things and how they might HAVE to be, not how I might have been TAUGHT to perceive them. I went with an open mind, realizing that truth is never what we think it is. When you have everything all figured out something comes along to spoil the equation. Always. The truth is a learning process. I believe what I believe, call it nonsense or delusion or whatever. But I won't back down. I extend an olive branch and say "Our quarrel is not so great that we cannot yet have peace." Your move, my friend. Cheers.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<then I respectfully refuse to partipicipate in your own delusion that you are somehow having respect for the other person's beliefs>

Pendragon,

Have I actually stated that I have <respect for the other person's belief>? If I have, then I apologise for misleading you. After all, blanket respect for everybody's belief is pointless, it lacks value and is probably harmful anyway. So I would say categorically that I respect beliefs that are worth respecting, those that aren't I tend not to respect. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, that in no way changes my attitude towards respecting people. People and beliefs are separate, and there is no contradiction in respecting someone who's belief you openly criticise and cast as meaningless.

BTW, in case you thought I was singling you out, I would like to add that my statement that you quoted <and if your belief is illogical,> etc, I used the term 'your' in a general sense of anyone's rather than yours in particular.

----------


## falling*moon

sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate' 

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..




Thank u Pendragon for being polite..and rational

----------


## atiguhya padma

And people wonder why there is so little peace in the world. When everyone says that you attack my belief you attack me, then how can there ever be peace. Either we grow up and differentiate existence from belief or we kill each other over stupid ideas or we live in silence.

Thankfully, some of us can differentiate.

----------


## Pendragon

> sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate' 
> 
> you were totalllllly wrong..!
> 
> i'm what i believe....
> 
> you what u believe too.......like it or not..
> 
> 
> ...


I appreciate that, Falling Moon. I strive to be so. The olive leaf is still waiting, atiguhya, as I myself find it foolish to kill people over beliefs and ideas with which you don't agree. Sadly, a lot of that goes on, and persons should know by now that it solves nothing. It just strengthens the other person's resolve to have nothing to do with that sort of belief. Olive branch?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Olive branch?
__________________
And an arm rose above the waves and grasped the sword..."

Scary

----------


## Scheherazade

Please don't offer an olive branch... They might use it as a weapon to attack each other!

 :Tongue: 

Please remember that these threads are here to discuss religious ideas and learn from others' experiences, not to force them to chenge their views. Declaring views which are different from ours wrong and attacking other members personally do very little to develop a valid argument.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Pendragon,

What do you mean by offering me an olive branch? I am not in any conflict with you. I am against your beliefs. I am against the idea that people's beliefs are to be respected no matter how ridiculous they are. I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. In the eyes of Falling Moon this makes me in conflict with you, but not in my eyes. 

Many people totally change their beliefs in the course of a life. If the Christian of yesterday becomes the atheist of tomorrow, does that really mean they are two different people? or does it just mean that they have changed their beliefs?

Furthermore, do you ever hear atheists say that you should respect their atheism? Respect of belief is an argument for people who cannot justify in reasonable terms what they believe. Do scientists ask others to go easy with them for believing what they do? If belief is to be protected as something too precious to attack, then belief should be personal and therefore exiled from the public arena. If belief is to be publicly debated then it cannot have protection from criticism, it cannot have undue respect, the kind of respect not issued in other debates about other things that we believe.

So thanks for the offer, but I am in no need of an olive branch.

----------


## Pendragon

> Furthermore, do you ever hear atheists say that you should respect their atheism? Respect of belief is an argument for people who cannot justify in reasonable terms what they believe. Do scientists ask others to go easy with them for believing what they do? If belief is to be protected as something too precious to attack, then belief should be personal and therefore exiled from the public arena. If belief is to be publicly debated then it cannot have protection from criticism, it cannot have undue respect, the kind of respect not issued in other debates about other things that we believe.


As I recall, when Madylin Murray O'Hara went to the surpreme court to sue to have prayer removed from public schools, she used her son, Bill (who by a stroke of fate is now a Christian Minister), claiming his *rights* were being invaded by the prayers, since he was an Atheist. So, yes, Atheists do expect me to respect their belief, or at the least, their righ to their belief which I do. I will even defend that right, since to take away that right would be the begining of taking away everybody's right to believe what they wish to believe. Anytime they move against one group, they target us all. As the man said "...They came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. Finally they came for me and there was no one left to stand up for me."

----------


## Amra

> What do you mean by offering me an olive branch? I am not in any conflict with you. I am against your beliefs. I am against the idea that people's beliefs are to be respected no matter how ridiculous they are. I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. In the eyes of Falling Moon this makes me in conflict with you, but not in my eyes.


How do you define your being then and how do you define your existence? Is your existence just the physical composition of your body? Is your being your mind and your reason? If you claim that your being is not synonymous with your existence, then it means that your body can exist on its own. It means that you can separate one, your being (mind, reason, soul), from your physical existence (body). However, if you accept that a human being consists of both of those compoments, and that one cannot exist without the other, then your claim is absurd.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Pendragon,

It seems to me your example is confusing. The atheist in this case is demonstrating the necessity of freedom from having religious views shoved down your throat, which is a claim for democracy. I don't see any claim about special protection from criticism of atheism.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Amra,

First let me say that I did not intend to say I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. What I meant was that I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my belief. Maybe that is all that needs to be said. 

As far as I am concerned, the Universe arose from one substance. All that exists today is as a result of a singularity. Therefore, it appears to me, that mind and soul and spirit are all substance. When we have thought processes, we are experiencing physical processes. Experience is therefore no more than physical. The division between mind and body is only a matter of degrees of physicality.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Falling Moon said:

<sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate' 

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..>

OK let's say someone believes they are a seagull. Can they now jump off a building and fly? Methinks not. I know plenty of people who believe they are experts on a variety of topics. I can assure you they are not.

It seems to me that when we analyse who we are, we have to refer to the limitations placed upon us by 1) the laws of nature 2) the picture of who we are that is created by other people's opinions of us and of the world; and 3) how we feel about ourselves. Maybe you could say that there are three types of environment: the universal; the local and the inner, and we are a combination of influences from all these environments. To assume that our existence depends solely on the status of our inner environment is to be at best an idealist, at worst a solipsist.

----------


## Amra

> First let me say that I did not intend to say I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being.





> I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being.





> What I meant was that I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my belief. Maybe that is all that needs to be said.


  :Goof:  Would you agree that your being is synonymous with your beliefs?




> All that exists today is as a result of a singularity.





> Therefore, it appears to me, that mind and soul and spirit are all substance. When we have thought processes, we are experiencing physical processes. Experience is therefore no more than physical. The division between mind and body is only a matter of degrees of physicality.


Don't you think you contradict yourself with stating this and at the same time claiming that your existence is not synonymous with your beliefs. If it is all a a result of singularity, doesn't that entail, by default, that it is all one and the same..in other words, synonymous with one another?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Don't you think you contradict yourself with stating this and at the same time claiming that your existence is not synonymous with your beliefs. If it is all a a result of singularity, doesn't that entail, by default, that it is all one and the same..in other words, synonymous with one another?>

That's a bit like saying the planet Pluto and myself are one and the same. And in a sense they are, because we are both made up of matter. But there is also difference. And it is in the difference, the way we are both differently assembled from the same type of components, that individuality and diversity occur. So I would say that in the most general sense both myself and Pluto are the same, but in a more accurate and detailed way we are vastly different. You can create a whole world out of lego, and everything in it will be lego, but that doesn't mean everything in this world is the same.

----------


## Amra

> OK let's say someone believes they are a seagull. Can they now jump off a building and fly? Methinks not. I know plenty of people who believe they are experts on a variety of topics. I can assure you they are not.


If you believed to be a seagull  :Biggrin:  , you would be considered crazy based on the social norms we live by. If it wasn't like that, if people were not judged by what they believed in, if their beliefs were considered separate from them, then no one would have the right to deduct from the beliefs the state of mind/being of that person. Right? However, we certainly do that all the time. I agree with you that we are constrained by other factors in expressing our beliefs, but they still do express who we are, and are synonymous with your being. It is just a matter of social norms and time we live in that influences how these will be interpreted and judged by others. 
However, you are confusing your being and your existence. In your initial statement you claimed that your being is not synonymous with you beliefs, and then you digressed from that. When falling moon answered, he was most likely referring to that statement, and commenting on it. In that context, his statement is correct, because our beliefs do tell who we are * as human beings* . However, no one claimed that your beliefs could change your physical existence. If your beliefs go beyond the social and natural norms, then you would be judged accordingly (in this case, you would be considered crazy). Also, what the society thinks of your beliefs is something to be considered separately. What you think of yourself is one thing, that what the society accepts or rejects and the criteria it uses to do so, is another.

----------


## water lily

Perhaps we should change the subject of this thread to Dualism vs. Monism. 

This entire controversy began with this comment:




> So I would say categorically that I respect beliefs that are worth respecting, those that aren't I tend not to respect. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, that in no way changes my attitude towards respecting people.


Then the question arose: is a person separate from his or her belief? Or by not respecting a person's beliefs, is one not respecting the person? That spurred the question of physical boundaires between the mind (beliefs) and the body, which I find doesn't truly answer the initial question. Because, say we make a distiction between them, doesn't that then mean that when one is respecting the person, one is respecting merely their physical existence? So for me, though the subject of "singularity" is interesting, it isn't entirely subject to this question. 

Rather than examining biological/physical factors, I think we need to examine the issue of one's *sense of identity*. If a person's belief is central to his or her sense of identity, then disrespecting that person's belief may in fact be disrespecting the person, despite more noble intentions.

I hope all that was clear. Cheers.

-Water lily

----------


## Whifflingpin

"If a person's belief is central to his or her sense of identity, then disrespecting that person's belief may in fact be disrespecting the person"

Not so, but the person may feel less respected, which is a different issue. Depending, of course on what is meant by "respect." 

It seems to me that if we have to "respect" everyone, then that simply means acknowledging their human rights, including their right to hold and express a belief. It certainly does not mean that we have to agree with their beliefs, or refrain from criticising their belief. 

If "respect" be used in the sense of "admire," then, of course one might have less respect for someone with absurd beliefs - but one would still accord the right to hold and express those beliefs.

----------


## Pendragon

> If "respect" be used in the sense of "admire," then, of course one might have less respect for someone with absurd beliefs - but one would still accord the right to hold and express those beliefs.


And thank you, Whifflingpin, for that definition. That is exactly what I was trying to say. No one is saying you have to agree with the other person, or even think that they have a prayer of being anywhere close to right-- give them the same right to hold an opinion as yourself. Do you ever notice how the Science Fiction of yesterday becomes the science of today? Jules Verne wrote of men going to the moon-- complete nonsense in his day, a fact in ours. I don't think that my example was that far off-- Murry had been given several compromises, nothing was being "crammed down her or her son's throat"-- she wished to have Atheistism recognized as a legitimate way of belief. And, she won her case. I have talked to many atheists, and they all will respect my belief provided I respect them and don't try to force my ideas on them. So I refuse to do so. It's a big universe. You ask yourself the question: Do I truly believe that every thing is, at the least, possible? That kinda puts the brakes on a lot of arguments...  :Wink:

----------


## atiguhya padma

My replies to Amra:

<If you believed to be a seagull  :Biggrin:  , you would be considered crazy based on the social norms we live by>

I could believe myself to be a seagull and yet it might be the case that no-one would know of my belief. People in my immediate environment would know or at least have the potential to know of my being. But they may well not know of my belief. Belief is not synonymous with being. Being is the whole shebang, the physical and mental, the beliefs and the behaviours of the individual. How can belief be synonymous with being? Belief plays only a small part in being.

Furthermore, I would be considered crazy if I thought I was a seagull, not because of social norms, but because that belief conflicts with reality: I am not a seagull.

<If it wasn't like that, if people were not judged by what they believed in, if their beliefs were considered separate from them, then no one would have the right to deduct from the beliefs the state of mind/being of that person.>

You are more than your thoughts. You are greater than your beliefs. For any given thought or belief, you can, should you wish, take a third party observation of your thought or belief, and evaluate and criticise your belief or thought, you can nurture it, prune it or weed it out, and surely this is how we change what we think and what we believe. In doing so, you are not criticising, demeaning or showing any lack of respect to your self. Throughout the academic world this happens all the time. 

If you believe that your beliefs are not separate from your being, then I presume you also believe that your beliefs are as determined as your genetic structure, for instance. If your being is synonymous with your beliefs, than you have no control over what you believe: as long as your state of being is xyz then your beliefs are xyz or vice versa. Yet have you never known a time when your belief changed and yet you were the same person you always were? For one moment I believe it will snow, the next I believe it wont snow. Am I a different person in the space of two moments?

<because our beliefs do tell who we are as human beings>

I think our actions tell us far more about who we are than our beliefs do. How would you explain cognitive dissonance? When we act in a contrary way to our beliefs, are we acting according to our being or not? Are we acting in a way that tells us who we are, or is who we are unchanged despite the fact we are acting against our beliefs? Is it not the case that our beliefs have to be modified after cogntive dissonance because it becomes plain to us that what we are and what we believe often conflict, and that we therefore have to revise what we believe to maintain the integrity of our identity? Would it make sense to put this theother way round and say that we can revise our being to protect the integrity of our belief? I don't think it would. Belief is not synonymous with who we are.

Finally, if the world is to become a more peaceful place to live in, we will all need to approach our beliefs in a more dispassionate and objective way, objective in the sense that I think Thomas Nagel uses, an ideal that leads us towards objectivity, rather than something actually obtainable. 

<Also, what the society thinks of your beliefs is something to be considered separately. What you think of yourself is one thing, that what the society accepts or rejects and the criteria it uses to do so, is another.>

How society views you and how you view yourself are closely connected. Your views and your attitudes and beliefs don't just arrive from nowhere in your brain. 

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell

----------


## The Unnamable

> If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell


"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."
Voltaire

----------


## jollyollie

> <Did you read the last line? >
> 
> Yup. Your point is? 
> 
> When Mark Chapman had a firm, unwavering belief that he was John Lennon, did that put him in a position to be highly respected do you think? Can't you see that firm belief and unwaveringness are not automatic passports to respect? Plenty of evil despots in world history have had firm and unwavering belief. Neither is the type of belief a cause for respect. I see no reason why a religious belief is somehow more due respect than a philosophical one or sociological or political. It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.


What on earth are _you_  trying to say?
Sounds like alot smoke and mirrors to me. You sound pretty mixed up. Also, it sounds like alot of BS. Fundamentalists like hiding thier true intentions under a veil of colourful words and petty phrases. It only serves a selfish aim to foreward thier own inititives at the expense of someones free right to share openly.
Listen. I like Zorro, the fictional character. But we are talking about whether it is responsible or not to allow science and its educattion to get broadsided by the archaic beliefs of unilateral thought. The deliberate elimination of languages and cultures practiced by aboriginal persons throughout the globe has fundamntalist missionaries to blame exclusively for this loss to our cultural fabric. This still goes on today.

Also, You use words, but you really dont Say anything, other than offer a generally unpalatable and rude statement to ineffectively counter my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.
Global warming, crimes against humanity, the gap between the rich and the poor. These issues deserve OUR attention.
Just a bit of construcive criticism for you there, Don padme.

----------


## Pendragon

> What on earth are _you_  trying to say?
> Sounds like alot smoke and mirrors to me. You sound pretty mixed up. Also, it sounds like alot of BS. Fundamentalists like hiding thier true intentions under a veil of colourful words and petty phrases. It only serves a selfish aim to foreward thier own inititives at the expense of someones free right to share openly.
> Listen. I like Zorro, the fictional character. But we are talking about whether it is responsible or not to allow science and its educattion to get broadsided by the archaic beliefs of unilateral thought. The deliberate elimination of languages and cultures practiced by aboriginal persons throughout the globe has fundamntalist missionaries to blame exclusively for this loss to our cultural fabric. This still goes on today.
> 
> Also, You use words, but you really dont Say anything, other than offer a generally unpalatable and rude statement to ineffectively counter my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.
> Global warming, crimes against humanity, the gap between the rich and the poor. These issues deserve OUR attention.
> Just a bit of construcive criticism for you there, Don padme.


I'll take this, atiguhya padma, don't worry about it. Jolly, this was addressed to me. atiguhya is an atheist, for your information. I had stated that everyone's belief should be respected even if it was totally absurb. I am the one who believes in a Creator to start things, then evolution from that point on. And I do not think that they need to be taught together in a school, but that churches need to do their job as they did when I was a boy and teach kids about the creation (which BTW, I am very uncertain of a timeline, as I do not see how you could put God into time). So if you must jump someone, leave MS padma out of it, as this was directed to me. I assure you that smoke and mirrors is not what I hide behind. Read my posts and see. Dragon out.

----------


## Scheherazade

Please carry on your discussions within the rules of common courtesy, without resorting to personal attacks. If you feel unable to respect beliefs and opinions which are different from yours, you might like to consider staying out of this part of the Forum.

----------


## jollyollie

> <If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, have respect for that.>
> 
> Why? Surely your respect for someone who believes the above is detrimental to that person. It also demeans the value of your respect.
> 
> I'd say that anyone who would <believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering>, needs to see a doctor, preferably a specialist in mental health problems.
> 
> The problem with believing nonsense, whether it be puff the magic dragon as creator, or vrigin births or assumption in to heaven or human-like lizards ruling the earth or anything that is irrational and non-sensible is that if you wish to appear reasonable and if you wish others to respect your nonsensical beliefs, you have to allow all nonsense equal respect.


On this we agree, and probably on much else.

----------


## emily655321

> ...my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.


If you think this debate is trivial, why don't you just go away? Are you trying to gain recognition as someone who devotes their time and energy to the discussion of something totally meaningless?

Also, P.S., you admitted it is a debate. Ha.  :Tongue:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

I think what Jolly is doing is using participation of this argument to show its stupidity. Sort of like an individual who runs for a political office for the sole purpose of resigning once they are elected. However, stupidity within an argument is usually dependent upon the participants of it. A debate can be either intellectually rich or a wealth of stupidity based on the individuals involved.

I'll admit that arguing in a debate in order to prove its pointlessness is inherently pointless itself, and therefor selfdestructive. However, I think its acceptable for use. Just my opinion.

----------


## retrowilde

Personally, I don't think that evolution is a theory. I believe that it's a fact. You can clearly see how different species can evolve or change.

It's the "why" that gets everyone upset. I also don't think that evolution is necessarily antithetical to creationism. Yes, evolution happens, but there could very well be a guiding hand. Now, I well know that this is a science fiction novel and not often considered literature, but has anyone read Calculating God?

----------


## jollyollie

> If you think this debate is trivial, why don't you just go away? Are you trying to gain recognition as someone who devotes their time and energy to the discussion of something totally meaningless?
> 
> Also, P.S., you admitted it is a debate. Ha.


lol! I love this. Youre a cutie!  :Thumbs Up:  
If they had a heart smilie, itd be your from me!  :Nod:  
If I left then I wouldnt havew so much fun with yall.
You and sword mouth debate, so its a debate. 
i criticise your use of the language. Thats no debate. Im allowed to use the word. But If I said that I was participating in this thread as a debater, then you re either mistaken or I was out of context. You can debate it all you want. I still think your a cutie  :Cool:

----------


## water lily

> Personally, I don't think that evolution is a theory. I believe that it's a fact. You can clearly see how different species can evolve or change.
> 
> It's the "why" that gets everyone upset. I also don't think that evolution is necessarily antithetical to creationism. Yes, evolution happens, but there could very well be a guiding hand. Now, I well know that this is a science fiction novel and not often considered literature, but has anyone read Calculating God?


Evolution IS a theory. The problem arrises when people are misinformed as to what a theory is. "Theories are general hypotheses that have been tested and subjected to verification through accumulated evidence" (Intro to Physical Anthropology, Jurmain). Therefore, calling something a theory is actually a positive suggestion, rather than a negative one. It means that it has survived the test of time and hasn't been falsified. 

And as you say evolution is not necessarily antithetical to creationism. In fact, today the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolutionary processes do occur but that the human soul is of divine creation and not subject to evolutionary processes. At the same time, I can see how believers would see Evolution as contrary to their beliefs, because if evolution is true, then the Creation story is not. The Creation story is the bible, so does that then call into question the validitiy of the rest of the bible? This is a question I myseld have struggled with.

----------


## jollyollie

> Evolution IS a theory. The problem arrises when people are misinformed as to what a theory is. "Theories are general hypotheses that have been tested and subjected to verification through accumulated evidence" (Intro to Physical Anthropology, Jurmain). Therefore, calling something a theory is actually a positive suggestion, rather than a negative one. It means that it has survived the test of time and hasn't been falsified. 
> 
> And as you say evolution is not necessarily antithetical to creationism. In fact, today the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolutionary processes do occur but that the human soul is of divine creation and not subject to evolutionary processes. At the same time, I can see how believers would see Evolution as contrary to their beliefs, because if evolution is true, then the Creation story is not. The Creation story is the bible, so does that then call into question the validitiy of the rest of the bible? This is a question I myseld have struggled with.


No. 
I think the bible was written during a time when the authors didnt expect alot from the readers, in terms of comprehending the underlying themes. 
Its a mis mash of many authors bringing thier stories all together with wee bit of embellishment. behind the scenes, the bible is all true. but across the sands of time the story has MUTATED to meet the aims of a mere few. but not all of it is like this.
I think alot of the true bible has been sensored out long ago by people we will never learn about, maybe. Even on the walls of the tombs of the great pyramid lies the truth about some of the stories that lie therein.
Fret not fair lass! keep reading and looking for clues...
they "threw the baby out with the bathwater" in its sensorship

----------


## jollyollie

Id like to clarify something, dear water lily.  :Wink:  
Evolution definately is not a theory anymore. Itwas surely, back in Darwins time, when it was new and being debated by scientists in a scientific forum. This is no scientific forum. And you can ask any scientist that is an EDUCATED PUBLISHED Doctor of Philosophy in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics: the "true" sciences they are called. 
True scientists do not waste thier time discussing evolution as a theory because its not a theory. it has entered the realm of what we scientists call Scientific Truth. Hence, it is no longer a theory as it shows great disrespect to Darwin who successfully debated it and proved that evolution was agreed to be scientific truth. There are few scientific truths. Evolution is a gimme when it comes to being a scientific truth. 
If it was a theory then scientists would be debating it still. Currently there are no reputable scientists debating evolution because they would be laughed at because there is NO DEBATE> ITS IS SCIENTIFIC TRUTH> As I stated earlier, the debate ended about 150 years ago. lets move on. THERe IS NO LONGER A DEBATE.
If you want to discuss it here interms of creatinist dogma, then you will find that the creationists will be discussing it with themselves! No reputable scientists will participate in debating something that has been accepetd as scientific fact for 15 decades or more.
Hence my point, all you people who want me to go away. There is no debate. There is no debate there is NO DEBATE!
You just make yourselves look silly by flinging insults and abuse at me because I want to set the record straight for those of you who are misinformed.
Abroad, in the news, do the headlines say Scientists debate evolution? No. ID ers rather dictate that there is one, so that the bible will be taught in american public schools.
Debate sensorship, or the patriot act. Or nuclear non proliferation. Dont try to remake the wheel. 
Thank you all for your patience and have a good night and a pleasant tomorow.
peace  :Bday 2:

----------


## water lily

dearest jollyollie,
Evolution is a Theory. My point was that calling it a theory is not an insult but a compliment. No, scientists do not debate it, they all believe in Evolution as a truth, but they will all agree that ini scientific terms it is a theory. Having taken a biology course last semester, and beeing in a human origins class now, I feel confident that I am not mistaken. I agree with the idea you're trying to express, but feel that you misunderstand the scientific definition of a theory.

----------


## niteskytwilight

If everyone would, please, take lightly to a little criticism... Everybody in this thread who debates over evolution or creation, beliefs, respect, and whether it's wrong or right to fight for your beliefs (or should I say for the RESPECT of your beliefs), needs to realize that half the argument is contradicting "the argument" in itself. One argues that only some beliefs are worth respecting and others are not (that type of outlook, by the way, will cause conflict), while another feels that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that their beliefs should be respected (no matter how bazaar), and then there is the belief that beliefs should not be taken so personal because taking offense and fighting because of it is pointless. However, as I read on I can sense strong beliefs, offense, bitterness, aggression, and most important angry confliction. The fact that a lot of the argument is the belief that beliefs should not be fought over is a contradiction in itself. I BELIEVE that the only rational direction is to respect everyones beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs. In that case your beliefs can be personal, and it's difficult to be offended by respect.

(addressed to Atiguhya Padma below)
Also by who's and what standards would you consider a belief to be respectable. In my opinion that is an extremely arrogant, stubborn, and narrow minded thought process. I dont think that you are any better to judge which beliefs are worthy and which are not than the next person. I can say one thing for certain, I'm sure most will agree, the sure way to get disrespect is to give disrespect, and I feel that you have disrespected everyone (and their beliefs) in this debate.  :Mad:

----------


## The Unnamable

> If everyone would, please, take lightly to a little criticism... Everybody in this thread who debates over evolution or creation, beliefs, respect, and whether it's wrong or right to fight for your beliefs (or should I say for the RESPECT of your beliefs), needs to realize that half the argument is contradicting "the argument" in itself. One argues that only some beliefs are worth respecting and others are not (that type of outlook, by the way, will cause conflict), while another feels that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that their beliefs should be respected (no matter how bazaar), and then there is the belief that beliefs should not be taken so personal because taking offense and fighting because of it is pointless. However, as I read on I can sense strong beliefs, offense, bitterness, aggression, and most important angry confliction. The fact that a lot of the argument is the belief that beliefs should not be fought over is a contradiction in itself. I BELIEVE that the only rational direction is to respect everyones beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs. In that case your beliefs can be personal, and it's difficult to be offended by respect.


Although this is an articulate and passionately argued contribution, I think there are problems with it. I know that you define your position as a _belief_ but you are offering an approach, which I think is open to challenge, on the basis of that belief. While I have nothing to say about your belief _per se_, I do find your suggestion that the only rational direction is to respect everyones beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs very difficult to accept. Doesnt it mean that we must respect the views of racists, psychopaths, the mentally ill and so on? Perhaps you realise this and would say yes. In which case are such people also entitled to offer a 'direction' as you have done? Surely, by simple logic, not all of these differing beliefs can prevail: either we decide that murder is acceptable, in which case we allow it, or it isnt, it which case we try to prevent it. If, however, you say no then arent you yourself deciding that some beliefs are unacceptable in the sense that you would try to ensure that they are not acted upon?

While not respecting someones view might bring conflict, that view itself can be seen to _invite_ conflict. If someone makes an outrageously racist remark, then surely the responsibility for any ensuing conflict lies with the holder of that belief, and not with anyone who doesnt respect it? 

Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?"

Godwin? end of thread?

----------


## atiguhya padma

niteskytwilight said:

<(addressed to Atiguhya Padma below)
Also by who's and what standards would you consider a belief to be respectable. In my opinion that is an extremely arrogant, stubborn, and narrow minded thought process. I dont think that you are any better to judge which beliefs are worthy and which are not than the next person. I can say one thing for certain, I'm sure most will agree, the sure way to get disrespect is to give disrespect, and I feel that you have disrespected everyone (and their beliefs) in this debate. :mad>

Is this supposed to be an attitude of respect for my beliefs niteskytwilight? You believe that all beliefs should be given respect. I do not. It is therefore your duty to respect my belief is it not? It is certainly not my duty to respect yours if I think it is nonsense. Were you to believe the sky is a gigantic pudding bowl that covers the earth, I certainly wouldn't give your beliefs any respect for that. With your attitude though, you would feel that you must respect all my beliefs no matter how ridiculous they are. The statement that I quote above seems a funny way of walking your talk.

The sure way to get disrespect is to go around talking nonsense and expecting people to respect your for it.

----------


## Logos

> "Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?"
> 
> *Godwin? end of thread?*


Well, not quite yet  :Smile:  If somebody starts making +personal+ insults about some other member being a Nazi, then they would get deleted.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Well, not quite yet  If somebody starts making +personal+ insults about some other member being a Nazi, then they would get deleted.


You can delete people? Wow! _That's_ power.  :Nod:  

I will be more careful around you in future. Although I can't help thinking that you should really be using this power to delete the nazis, not their opponents. Where were you in the 1930s?  :Wink:

----------


## Amra

gotta love this freedom of speech concept..  :Biggrin:  you can say anything you want unless it is against things we decided to tolerate/like/support...  :FRlol:  Hypocrisy all over the place...  :Brickwall:

----------


## Logos

> You can delete people? Wow! _That's_ power.  
> 
> I will be more careful around you in future. Although I can't help thinking that you should really be using this power to delete the nazis, not their opponents. Where were you in the 1930s?


That would be great if I could just vaporise some real people in just a few clicks  :FRlol:  

What I +meant+ was that a flaming/naming post _à la Godwin_ would be edited or deleted.

Amra, there is no "true" freedom of speech here. Admin is the benevolent dictator, he formed the rules for his site and the Mods oversee that they are followed. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry that you see "hypocrisy" when some people are just trying to do their job.

I wonder if it's possible that this topic will get back on track?  :Smile:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> That would be great if I could just vaporise some real people in just a few clicks


I have a list.  :Nod:  




> I wonder if it's possible that this topic will get back on track?


Well I suppose, it being a _religious_ forum, you could try prayer. :Angel:  It's probably your only hope. But I suppose it might be interesting to speculated whether the thread just evolved into this state or if there was some guiding purpose to it's off-topicness?  :Wink:

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

A journey changed may still be a journey home. Alternate routes are completely capable of leading to the same goal, are they not? Ahhh, "The answer has arisen!", says I! The topic has expired, for the enthusiasm for such discussion is dwindling into that of a flickering candle in an evergrowing breeze. Have no sadness, for atheism has been explored to its utmost potential in the very place it should have been. However, that which begins must also terminate...speak not of this topic any longer upon this thread. Create anew a discussion which piques the interest of those who may share, who may learn! Relight the candle and enlighten once again.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"The topic has expired, for the enthusiasm for such discussion is dwindling into that of a flickering candle in an evergrowing breeze"

I think that is the condition in which Godwin's Law is fulfilled. 

If I recall correctly, the law does not relate to flaming, but states that sooner or later any internet discussion will descend to the Nazis et al, at which point it may be deemed that everything worth saying on the original topic has been said, and the thread may as well be closed.
.

----------


## Theshizznigg

Maybe we are Evolved from lesser beings, tell you what. When we die, we'll find out which of us were right after all. 

"And the same to you."
A man who complained his Banana tasted like a banana.

----------


## kilted exile

> . 
> For more info check out this site.
> http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/
> It is absolutely chocked full of good solid information.


Unfortunately, however it is also incredibly biased, and as a result no use from a objective research standpoint.

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

Let's even the playing field then. www.atheists.com

----------


## meddle_some

My, how fast the topic of biological evolution gets turned into theism versus atheism. The origination of life is an interesting concept whether the aspect of a creative divinity is thrown in or not.

----------


## Truth_Told

> My, how fast the topic of biological evolution gets turned into theism versus atheism. The origination of life is an interesting concept whether the aspect of a creative divinity is thrown in or not.


the origin of life is only interesting because it has the aspect of creative divinity, without it ppl would just belike: Oh, so this is life....Cool, bland and boring. everything in this universe needs an opposite.

----------


## jollyollie

> dearest jollyollie,
> Evolution is a Theory. My point was that calling it a theory is not an insult but a compliment. No, scientists do not debate it, they all believe in Evolution as a truth, but they will all agree that ini scientific terms it is a theory. Having taken a biology course last semester, and beeing in a human origins class now, I feel confident that I am not mistaken. I agree with the idea you're trying to express, but feel that you misunderstand the scientific definition of a theory.


Oh come on. Go ask your introductory biology teacher what the definition of theory is.

----------


## jollyollie

> gotta love this freedom of speech concept..  you can say anything you want unless it is against things we decided to tolerate/like/support...  Hypocrisy all over the place...


Darn tootin!

----------


## jollyollie

you should try to back up your staements with some kind of justification.
Im a pro golfer. Im going to tell you all how good I am at GOLF. Theres no way youcan stop me. Ya ready? Here goes/Im as good as TIGER. 
How can I prove it to you with out any evidence? Prove evolution is not scientifc truth. this post was sensored

----------


## jollyollie

I accuse the moderator of sensorship to posts that are directly related to the topic. The moderator is BIASED. 
Its a christians only debate on science and evolution? Im disgusted

----------


## Scheherazade

Ollie,

Please do not make any unfounded accusations. You do not know anything about my religious/cultural background OR beliefs. 

Your posts have been deleted or edited only because they intend to flame and aggravate certain members for their beliefs/opinions rather than contribute constructively to the on-going discussion.

**edit**

Dear All,

The topic of discussion in this thread is *Evolution vs Creation*. Please try to avoid from posting off-topic messages as they are likely to be deleted. 

If you have any personal grievances with other members OR moderators, please address those through PMs, not to distract the present discussion.

Thank you.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Evolution is impossible, simply by the laws of thermodynamics which, something left over a period of time will go from bad to worst.


Do they? 




> First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. 
> 
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.


So you are right, but only as long as creature's stop eating each other!




> Also I state to those that support evolution that the theory has just as many if not more fall throughs, and inconsistencies than those puported to belong to Chrisitanity or other beliefs.


Really? And your evidence for this?




> Also Darwin father of Evolution in theory on his death bed claimed that the theory could not possibly be truem and that he had published the theory to beat another scientist who would have gotten all the grant money, instead of Darwin.


Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?




> the scientist community has been trying for the last hundred years to prove evolution *does not* exist, and yet are no closer to proving it.


Actually, it's the religious community that have been trying to prove that - you are right that they have failed!




> There are no set fossils, NONE that tie a purported creature to its supposed evolutionary ancestor. 
> Yet the existance of living fossils has been porven, in both animal and botanical creatures, and what has it proved.
> At the same moment in time that we humans were supposedly evolving these creatures lived in their natural states, and yet for some minor detrimentle differences they haven't evolved in any form. 
> In England one the last surviving groups of Jurrassic Pines live in a sustainable enviroment, not having changed for the last 180 million years.


Evolution only occurs when environmental stress selects one genetic variant over another (according to the theory), where there is a relatively stable environment, with no dramatic change, there is no natural selection and species can remain virtually unchanged for aeons. Please take the trouble to understand the theory before you give counter-examples that are in fact no such thing.




> Evolution is merely a sham, that the scientific community desperately lings to because they don't want to acknowledge the existence of something else, whatever it is, that created the universe.


Scientists are people, and as such, hold just as many faiths and beliefs as the rest of us. It is extremely simplistic to label all scientists as atheists. Many scientists are christian and find no trouble at all in reconciling their faith with the theory of evolution. In fact, many non-scientist christians can also happily believe in God and Darwin. Your argument is unsound here.




> If you don't believe me look at Galilaeo, the earth is round he said, but the scientific community at the time thought it mere heresy, since the Earth had been flat since time and memorial, they even managed to push Galilaeo into admitting publicly that his theory was scrap, even though he swore by it til his end. 
> Who was right in the end? 
> No the science community only clings to the ideals, because the are afraid to admit they were wrong.


Actually, it was the church that disagreed so much with Galileo's ideas that they executed him, not other scientists. Check your facts please.




> I appreciate both the Criticism with which this message will undoubtedly meet, but I'm sorry guys, Evolution is a failed theory. 
> For more info check out this site.
> http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/
> It is absolutely chocked full of good solid information.


I am in total agreement with kilted exiles opinions on this site.

Nothing can be proven one way or the other, but you really don't help your cause by posting such unfounded and erroneous 'evidence'. I respect your right to your opinion but I advise you to base it on a sounder foundation if you wish to convince others of your views.

----------


## water lily

> Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
> Also Darwin father of Evolution in theory on his death bed claimed that the theory could not possibly be truem and that he had published the theory to beat another scientist who would have gotten all the grant money, instead of Darwin.


[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]
Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?
[\QUOTE]

Xamonas Chegwe, Theshizznigg, is not totally unfounded in this declaration. Darwin had been developing his theory and gathering evidence for it. By 1844, he had written a short summary of his views, but didn't publish, because he didn't beleive he had sufficient data. Furthermore, he was disturbed, becuase his wife, Emma, saw his ideas as counter her strong religious views and knew that his thoery would cause controversy. So he hesitated.

Meanwhile, Alfred Russel Wallace, a man intent on collecting plant and animal specimen, who had gone on several voyages to the Amazon and other parts of the world, independly came up with the theory of Natural Selection as well. In 1855, Wallace published a paper expressing his views. This spurred Darwin's friends to encourage him to publish. Darwin quickly put together a paper of his own, and then in 1859, Darwin published the origin of species.

Darwin is mostly credited with the idea of NAtural SElection, because he had a more comprehensive collection of data to back up his ideas. And technically he came up with the idea first even though he didn't publish first.

I don't know either way about a research grant. Hope that this info was helpful.

-water lily

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
> 
> Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?
> 
> 
> Xamonas Chegwe, Theshizznigg, is not totally unfounded in this declaration. Darwin had been developing his theory and gathering evidence for it. By 1844, he had written a short summary of his views, but didn't publish, because he didn't beleive he had sufficient data. Furthermore, he was disturbed, becuase his wife, Emma, saw his ideas as counter her strong religious views and knew that his thoery would cause controversy. So he hesitated.
> 
> Meanwhile, Alfred Russel Wallace, a man intent on collecting plant and animal specimen, who had gone on several voyages to the Amazon and other parts of the world, independly came up with the theory of Natural Selection as well. In 1855, Wallace published a paper expressing his views. This spurred Darwin's friends to encourage him to publish. Darwin quickly put together a paper of his own, and then in 1859, Darwin published the origin of species.
> 
> ...


Thank you WaterLily, but I really wasn't questioning Thistleneck's facts, more the way he stated them with nothing to back them up. Had he explained it like you just did, I would have been quite satisfied that he was at least partially right on this point (having checked the details, of course.) Darwin's deathbed confession is most likely complete hokum though. Here is Wikipedia's version:




> Charles Darwin recounted in his biography of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin how false stories were circulated claiming that Erasmus had called for Jesus on his deathbed. Charles concluded by writing "Such was the state of Christian feeling in this country [in 1802].... We may at least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails." Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed. Such stories have been heavily propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.


I know which version I favour.

----------


## water lily

Ooo, very interesting. By the way, Im in love with the name "Erasmus". But that is beside the point.

I feel inclined to side with you, Xamonas, because as I understand it, Darwin was never particulary religious. I've read that he was rather indifferent to religion in fact, despite the fact that he did study theology at Christ's College, Cambridge (actually his emphasis during his Cambridge years was in botany and natural science). But I don't think it really matters if the deathbed story is true or not to either support or refute Evolution. Darwin's evidence was in fact very limited at the time (for example he didn't know where new variation came from on which natural selection acted. Which today's scientists account for through mutation), so that it was natural for him to doubt himself. Rather I think we should examine the evidence of today, rather that that of the 1800's.

----------


## Theshizznigg

I will not retract my statement about the pine it was just and the feelings true. I feel nothing but pride that these little guys managed to beat the odds.  :Wink:  

And I also have the information concerning the Jurassic Pine
which are now being raised for sale in the UK. 

"The young specimen at the botanic garden is no more than 18 inches tall. Its needles look more like blades of grass, deep green and packed close together. Its trunk and branches are green, but will one day grow into a dark, mottled brown. It looks more like a fern than a pine tree.
However, nobody knew what it looked like, or that it was even alive, until 1994. Before that, it was just a fossilized imprint, known only to paleontologists and presumed extinct for at least 2 million years. But when a park ranger in New South Wales ventured into an undisturbed canyon in Australia's Blue Mountains, about 100 miles west of Sydney, he came upon a tree that neither he nor anyone else had ever seen."
"A lot of people sort of think there's nothing new," said Christine Flanagan, botanic garden public programs manager. "Everything's been done, everything's been seen, except for what happens, maybe, in a test tube. But here, this thing's growing in the wild within two hours of 4.5 million people, and nobody knew it was there."

"Scientists later confirmed that the newly discovered plant was of a species that dated back at least 90 million years - and possibly even further, into the Jurassic Period - and was thought to have been extinct. They regarded it as having found a dinosaur still roaming around in the backyard."

"It is truly a living fossil," Flanagan said. "You'd think with that kind of proximity to Sydney, Australia, it'd have been found."

"The tree's rarity and isolated location prevented that. Fewer than 100 adult trees exist in the wild, all of them in Wollemi National Park, a preserved area with hundreds of remote, untouched canyons. The trees' exact location has been kept secret for fear that visitors would cause damage or introduce pathogens to which the trees have never been exposed."

 :Banana:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> I feel inclined to side with you, Xamonas, because as I understand it, Darwin was never particulary religious. I've read that he was rather indifferent to religion in fact, despite the fact that he did study theology at Christ's College, Cambridge (actually his emphasis during his Cambridge years was in botany and natural science). But I don't think it really matters if the deathbed story is true or not to either support or refute Evolution. Darwin's evidence was in fact very limited at the time (for example he didn't know where new variation came from on which natural selection acted. Which today's scientists account for through mutation), so that it was natural for him to doubt himself. Rather I think we should examine the evidence of today, rather that that of the 1800's.


Exactly.

Darwin's theory is an absolutely incredible leap of intuition. 

Nowadays we know the mechanism of genetics. We understand chromosones and DNA, genes and heredity. Darwin, we must remember, did not. 

In fact, in his time, his theories and those of Gregor Mendel (founder of genetic theory) were considered contradictory. Both ideas developed independently, in isolation, at around the same time (Darwin's "Origin of species" published in 1859, Mendel's "Experiments on Plant Hybridization" in 1865). Chromosones were not proved to be the mechanism of heredity until 1902. In the intervening 40 odd years, scientists argued the toss between the 2 theories, not realising that one (Mendel's) was describing the fine detail of the other (Darwin's).

Darwin's evidence was limited but he managed to infer his theory of evolution _without_ knowing the details of molecular biology that we take for granted today. This is tantamount to inferring Einstein's theory of relativity without knowing Newton's laws of motion. The man was without a doubt a genius of the highest order (and they lampooned him as an ape!)

The difference between Einstein's theory and that of Darwin, is that the theory behind Einstein's was proven without question by the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima - it can't be denied.  Alas, the timescales in genetics are far longer, making the evidence less immediate.

Realistically though, evolution can be seen in process in the adaptation of bacteria to resist antibiotics. New strains evolve much faster than with higher species such as mammals, because the time-span of a generation is much shorter - minutes rather than years. The genome (genetic code) for such microbes is known and can be seen to be changing and evolving by the simple process of resistant bacteria surviving exposure to antibiotics and passing on their resistance to the next generation.

Why is the same process so difficult to accept when played against the far longer timescales of human development? To me, it is obvious. Take the time to really understand the underlying principles and it is impossible to deny, at least not without recourse to assertions involving God interfering with the available evidence so as to conceal his presence (like the way he deliberately planted fossils to confuse the faithless!) 

Evolution _does not_ conflict with the existence of God. Many believe quite happily in both. What it does conflict with is the dogmatic belief in _every single word_ in the Bible, Qu'ran and other holy books describing creation in terms of divine intervention.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved, it is a matter of faith. The absolute truth of holy books is another matter. I submit that it has been disproved already, to the satisfaction of all but the deliberately dogmatic.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> zoliaon asmikarliaons


There is a difference between speaking in tongues and spouting gibberish. Neither impresses me.

----------


## Theshizznigg

How constructive of you all. 

"Welcome all to the new united church of voodoism, my name is Tenbo"
Bill The Galactic Hero

----------


## greenburke

Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the world.
He died for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification.

----------


## Pendragon

There are times on this thread when I am convinced that regardless of evidence produced and what it might portend to either argument, it will be basically of the same value as a roschet test. In other words, to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense. Each will see what they expect to see, just as with a roschet test, each person finds something personal in the inky blots. The question I have to ask is this: If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up as to what the outcome is going to be, do you have an open or closed mind?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Theshinzznig,

Firstly, did you realise that you posted the second half of 'your' argument first? Probably not, because it is copied wholesale from the website that you linked to a few threads back (and without credit, I might add). There is a point made about such activities in the rules of this section of the forum. Mods please note!




> No you cannot copy and paste huge tracts of text, you shouldn't need more than a few sentences, or maybe one paragraph in reference to the discussion.
> 
> If you are going to refer to or use content from other sites, you must include a link for it. You cannot copy and paste entire articles from other sites as that is copyright infringement, and contributes nothing to discussion. Posts or topics doing such will be edited, deleted, closed, or removed, not always with warning.


I seriously doubt that you actually bothered to understand the concepts behind what you say. You certainly didn't take the time to rephrase them in your own words. You were not even particularly selective in the parts you cut and pasted. As an example (one of many):




> Pliocene - the period that from about 2-5 million years ago. 
> All of the well-known fossils believed to be missing links for humans come from Pleistocene layers.


The Pliocene and Pleistocene are two different _epochs_ (not periods, they are both contained in the noegene period in fact), the pleistocene epoch occurred roughly from 1.9 million years ago to about 10,000 years ago. Why you describe the timeframe of one epoch and then describe events from another can only be explained by either a lack of understanding, or an attempt to deliberately confuse the issue.

I, among others, have already made my feelings about this website known. Those opinions won't be changed by your quoting huge swathes of it. 

For the record, my objections to this site include the following (with examples):
1. It is biased, deliberatly ignoring facts which don't fit it's pet theories (such as the incredible rarity of fossils of land based animals. The conditions for such fossils to be produced are so specific that it is a wonder that there are any at all. Using the absence of 'missing link' fossil evidence as an argument is thus disingenuous.)
2. It gives undue emphasis to others that do (the Coelocanth for example, a single species example of a once diverse group of fish that was believed to be completely extinct. In fact, they are very rare fish, living in waters that are not commercially fished.) 
3. It distorts other facts. (Such as it's attack on carbon dating. This method is not as accurate as once thought but nowhere near as inaccurate as it would need to be for dinosaur fossils to really come from a flood only a few thousand years ago.)

Please have the courage to formulate your own arguments, not just copy those of others without checking the facts of them.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"After all, if the theory of evolution is correct, why should brain capacities (which presumably according to evolution, get larger as humans evolve), suddenly become smaller after Neanderthal?"

In the words of Arthur Koestler, from "The Ghost in the Machine:"

"The capacities of the computer inside the reptilian and mammalian skull are exploited to the full, and leave no scope for further learning. But the evolution of man.s brain has so wildly overshot man's immediate needs that he is still breathlessly catching up with its unexploited, unexplored possibilities."

"We have still only learned to utilize a very small fraction of the potentials of its estimated hundred thousand million circuits."

"It is entirely unprecedented that evolution should provide a species with an organ which it does not know how to use; a luxury organ far exceeding its owner's immediate primitive needs; an organ which will take the species millennia to learn to put to proper use - if it ever does."

Maybe where we are going is a more significant question than where we came from.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> There are times on this thread when I am convinced that regardless of evidence produced and what it might portend to either argument, it will be basically of the same value as a roschet test. In other words, to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense. Each will see what they expect to see, just as with a roschet test, each person finds something personal in the inky blots. The question I have to ask is this: If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up as to what the outcome is going to be, do you have an open or closed mind?


Mine is open. 

I do however believe in the scientific method. Observation of available facts. Basing theories upon those facts. Testing those theories by experimentation. And most importantly, adapting (or even in extreme cases abandonning) the theory, if facts are discovered that do not fit the original model.

In my opinion, the evolutionary theory has undergone this process. It has been adapted over the years, although it's basic premise is still seen as sound. 

Evolutionary theory _per se_ is not to be confused with the exact evolutionary paths of individual species and groups of species. Evolution describes the _process_ by which new species come into being, not the exact line of succession in specific cases. Curiously, most arguments against evolution attempt to pick holes in exactly that, usually in the specific evolutionary path of our own species.

The creation theory has not been subjected to any such rigour by it's advocates. They point to what they see as holes in evolution as if this proves their case, as if there were only the 2 choices to pick from - "It's not black, so it must be white!" - this ignores the full spectrum in between. What they never do is point to direct evidence for their own theory (except that it is contained in holy books - which is hardly rigourous proof by measurable experimentation).

I am open to persuasion on anything, but I believe that the burden of proof lies with the creationists.

----------


## Logos

Theshizznigg, please do not copy and paste any more material from clarifyingchristianity.com, unless you are actually Harold Joss to whom the site is registered to?

----------


## The Unnamable

> to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design.


What is the difference between an evolutionist and a hard-core evolutionist?




> If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up as to what the outcome is going to be, do you have an open or closed mind?


Does this apply to _any_ investigation? _Is_ the discussion an investigation? Does every idea _deserve/require_ open-minded investigation? If I am unwilling to consider the possibility that the moon is made of magic cheese, does that mean I have a closed mind?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> What is the difference between an evolutionist and a hard-core evolutionist?


I think that hard-core evolution has a techno sound-track.




> Does this apply to _any_ investigation? _Is_ the discussion an investigation? Does every idea _deserve/require_ open-minded investigation? If I am unwilling to consider the possibility that the moon is made of magic cheese, does that mean I have a closed mind?


  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
Magic cheese - love it!

----------


## The Unnamable

> I think that hard-core evolution has a techno sound-track.


Now it's my turn.  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

FYI, magic cheese is similar to ordinary cheese but it's more useful in debates.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Most people would have just said 'cheese', or maybe 'green cheese'. The magic bit just made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

----------


## Logos

Asiago d´Allevo in large amounts induces hallucinations!

----------


## The Unnamable

> Asiago d´Allevo in large amounts induces hallucinations!


Why do you think I am such a fan of cheese?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pendragon

> What is the difference between an evolutionist and a hard-core evolutionist?


There are evolutionists that will agree that evolution does not rule out a devine being. Then there are those who state that evolution proves that there cannot be a devine being. The latter are what I call hard-core, unbending. The others will at least concede the possibility, even if they do not believe that said being had anything to do with the formation of life. Just as I am not hard-core creationist, for I will accept that man, animals, plant life, etc. has evolved since creation, and that this evolution has shaped us into what we are today, and that church is where you should teach creationism. A hard-core creationist would never do this, they would consider it blasphemy.





> Does this apply to _any_ investigation? _Is_ the discussion an investigation? Does every idea _deserve/require_ open-minded investigation? If I am unwilling to consider the possibility that the moon is made of magic cheese, does that mean I have a closed mind?


No, and this is the second quote of mine that has been blown out of context. The first was my statement that people's beliefs were to be respected even if you felt them ridiculous. Suddenly, I am asked if I would respect the Nazis extermanition of the Jews! We're talking about creationism and evolution here. I disagree with and certainly do not feel I must respect any belief that takes away another's right to even exist! Unnameable, we have been to the moon and KNOW it not to be made of ANY type of cheese, so no, I would not call that a closed mind. But when dealing with many things, science closes its mind until something has to jar it open, then they'll believe it. Sadly, so do many religious people, to be perfectly fair. They'll deny sciencetific fact, such as the Earth is round. That's closed minded also. I don't believe they will ever prove a spieces changes into another. I've said before, you can create a mule, but it cannot reproduce itself. But change within the species is a proven fact. Take care.

----------


## The Unnamable

> There are evolutionists that will agree that evolution does not rule out a devine being. Then there are those who state that evolution proves that there cannot be a devine being. The latter are what I call hard-core, unbending.


In that case, I dont think there is that great a difference. For both types of evolutionist, the fact of evolution is primary. The existence of God is a secondary issue. Some might say there might be a God, others that there isnt. I seriously doubt that either camp is interested in evolution primarily because it either disproves or allows for the existence of God. The application of the phrase hard-core serves to represent certain beliefs as extreme and to equate them with other extreme views. In your post you wrote, to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense. Surely this equates the two positions in terms of what is considered extreme? I dont feel that they are. An evolutionist who feels that there cannot be a God by virtue of his or her understanding of scientific processes doesnt strike me as any more extreme than someone who doesnt believe in leprechauns for the same reason. Its not as if he or she is setting out to disprove the existence of God. Someone who denies the validity of the facts does strike me as extreme.




> No, and this is the second quote of mine that has been blown out of context. The first was my statement that people's beliefs were to be respected even if you felt them ridiculous. Suddenly, I am asked if I would respect the Nazis extermanition of the Jews! We're talking about creationism and evolution here.


First of all, I was replying to *niteskytwilight* when I asked the question about respecting Nazism (if that is what you are referring to).

Im sorry that you feel your comments were taken out of context but surely you yourself remove them from their immediate context when you make generalised statements or analogies? You are not saying that _only Creationism_ should be respected but that _views that could be considered ridiculous_ should be respected. This implies a general principle. You seek to gain acceptability for a theory by invoking such a principle. If you use that approach, surely those principles are open to scrutiny and I am allowed to ask about flaws I see in those principles. Similarly, you didnt say if you go into _this_ investigation with your mind already made up but If you go into _an_ investigation with your mind already made up. For your principle to be valid it must apply to a situation other than the one you wish it to. Your approach relies on the idea that made up minds are closed. Whether you wish it to or not, such a statement has implications beyond the context in which you applied it. Firstly, you are assuming that the issue is about having an open mind. Secondly, if someone has a closed mind in this particular instance, then that does not therefore mean they have a closed mind generally, which you certainly were implying. Personally I think having a closed mind about certain ideas is sensible and consider it unfair that you suggest that people who have researched, read about, considered and dismissed certain possibilities are closed-minded.

----------


## Pendragon

> Similarly, you didnt say if you go into _this_ investigation with your mind already made up but If you go into _an_ investigation with your mind already made up. For your principle to be valid it must apply to a situation other than the one you wish it to. Your approach relies on the idea that made up minds are closed. Whether you wish it to or not, such a statement has implications beyond the context in which you applied it. Firstly, you are assuming that the issue is about having an open mind. Secondly, if someone has a closed mind in this particular instance, then that does not therefore mean they have a closed mind generally, which you certainly were implying. Personally I think having a closed mind about certain ideas is sensible and consider it unfair that you suggest that people who have researched, read about, considered and dismissed certain possibilities are closed-minded.


Touche, amigo. I did not set out to offend you or anyone else. Thus we see the truth of "It depends on your point of view." Please accept my apologies and thanks for a lesson in logical dessertation. Have a wonderful day.  :Nod:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Unnameable, we have been to the moon and KNOW it not to be made of ANY type of cheese, so no, I would not call that a closed mind.


There are many that say we never went to the moon and that it was all filmed in Hollywood. Some even believe this as strongly as creationists & evolutionists believe in their respective ideas. 




> But when dealing with many things, science closes its mind until something has to jar it open, then they'll believe it. Sadly, so do many religious people, to be perfectly fair.


Scientists perform experiments to _prove_ their theories. Sadly, some ignore ambiguous results or even falsify evidence to keep their pet theories going. But this is a minority. The history of science is one of continuous refinement of theories, each one fitting the world better. Science only 'closes it's mind' to theories that do _not_ fit the facts.

Religious people perform no such experiments, they just point to the bit in the bible where it says, "Though shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (or the equivalent in whatever book they believe in - I'm not singling out christians here) and look smug.

Lastly, the scientific community contains the same proportion of religious people as the rest of society. To discuss the 2 as somehow separate is disingenuous.




> They'll deny sciencetific fact, such as the Earth is round. That's closed minded also.


Actually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Flat-Earthers come into the absurd category in my book.




> I don't believe they will ever prove a spieces changes into another. I've said before, you can create a mule, but it cannot reproduce itself. But change within the species is a proven fact. Take care.


Where do new viruses and bacteria come from then? The process of evolution is much easier to see in these little critters because the timescales are much shorter. Was the H.I.V. virus hanging around, not infecting anyone, for thousands of years? No, it evolved. Whether naturally, from a monkey disease in Africa, or artificially, in a CIA lab in a bunker in the Mojave, I have no idea. 

Similarly with bird flu. At present, human to human infection does not occur. Should we just assume that God created this bug at the beginning of time, to attack avian species only, and take no precautions?

----------


## Pendragon

> Where do new viruses and bacteria come from then? The process of evolution is much easier to see in these little critters because the timescales are much shorter. Was the H.I.V. virus hanging around, not infecting anyone, for thousands of years? No, it evolved. Whether naturally, from a monkey disease in Africa, or artificially, in a CIA lab in a bunker in the Mojave, I have no idea. 
> 
> Similarly with bird flu. At present, human to human infection does not occur. Should we just assume that God created this bug at the beginning of time, to attack avian species only, and take no precautions?


Well, XC, despite their evolving, and note that I say that they have, they are still viruses and bacteria. They haven't bumped up the evolutionary chart into something different entirely, like, say, an ameoba. Certainly we should take precautions. I said once that somewhere on this planet is a cure for every illness. But science has to find it, and that takes a lot of work. I saw a research scientist the other day on TV talking about how hard that is to do. He was standing in a snowstorm and said "Only one of these snowflakes will be the right forumla to cure a disease and be able to be taken by humans. We have to find it." That put things into perspective. Similiarly, the very DNA codes discovered by science make it harder for me to accept chance evolution. For example: They print out a DNA code for a certain man. It comes out as a sequence of bars, kind of like a bar code. Now, here in VA, a man was up for execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law--happened about 100 miles from here. It made National news as he swore he was innocent. He had given blood for a DNA test, then had his lawyer block it. On the day of his execution, the Governor gave him a final chance--a lie-detector test. He failed, and was executed. People protested. They finally did the DNA. It was 1 in an number to big to write against them executing the wrong man. He had a rare signature in his DNA which they said there was probably not another match for in the whole USA. That's unique. Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true? Given enough tries, yes. Possibe, but unlikely. But I concede it's possible.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Well, XC, despite their evolving, and note that I say that they have, they are still viruses and bacteria. They haven't bumped up the evolutionary chart into something different entirely, like, say, an ameoba.


Are you saying that all bacteria are of the same species? All Viruses? In that case, why not all birds? All mammals? Are humans just a variation on shrews? 




> Certainly we should take precautions. I said once that somewhere on this planet is a cure for every illness. But science has to find it, and that takes a lot of work. I saw a research scientist the other day on TV talking about how hard that is to do. He was standing in a snowstorm and said "Only one of these snowflakes will be the right forumla to cure a disease and be able to be taken by humans. We have to find it." That put things into perspective.


Do you mean a 'natural' cure, already in existence? Or that a cure can be _developed_ by medical science? If the former, is there also a cure out there for the diseases that haven't evolved yet? Or has the cure yet to evolve too? 




> Similiarly, the very DNA codes discovered by science make it harder for me to accept chance evolution. For example: They print out a DNA code for a certain man. It comes out as a sequence of bars, kind of like a bar code. Now, here in VA, a man was up for execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law--happened about 100 miles from here. It made National news as he swore he was innocent. He had given blood for a DNA test, then had his lawyer block it. On the day of his execution, the Governor gave him a final chance--a lie-detector test. He failed, and was executed. People protested. They finally did the DNA. It was 1 in an number to big to write against them executing the wrong man. He had a rare signature in his DNA which they said there was probably not another match for in the whole USA. That's unique. Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true? Given enough tries, yes. Possibe, but unlikely. But I concede it's possible.


I really don't follow your argument here. What do you mean by, "Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true?" Chance didn't produce human DNA, evolution and natural selection did. The exact DNA sequence is unique to each individual, in every species. A _species_ is merely a group of individuals with sufficiently similar DNA, that they can breed and produce viable offspring. There are 23 pairs of chromosones in every human cell. Every single one of these can be inherited from either the father or mother. The number of possible different individuals produced by combining the chromosones of the same parents is 25,852,016,738,884,976,640,000. That is the chance of you having the same genetic code of your sibling (unless you are an identical twin.) When you multiply this by the number of possible parents in the world, the numbers get _really_ big and scary.

----------


## Pendragon

> Are you saying that all bacteria are of the same species? All Viruses?


 Not at all. Just still all bacteria and still all viruses. They did not become something else entirely. 





> Do you mean a 'natural' cure, already in existence? Or that a cure can be _developed_ by medical science? If the former, is there also a cure out there for the diseases that haven't evolved yet? Or has the cure yet to evolve too?


Developed from things already here by medical research. And perhaps, if the disease is caused by a viruses that has mutated or evolved, a plant or something may have to evolve also for the cure to be found. I'm flexible to a certain extent, since I do believe we evolved since the dawn of time and continue to do so as new things arise for us to either adapt to or perish.






> I really don't follow your argument here. What do you mean by, "Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true?" Chance didn't produce human DNA, evolution and natural selection did. The exact DNA sequence is unique to each individual, in every species. A _species_ is merely a group of individuals with sufficiently similar DNA, that they can breed and produce viable offspring. There are 23 pairs of chromosones in every human cell. Every single one of these can be inherited from either the father or mother. The number of possible different individuals produced by combining the chromosones of the same parents is 25,852,016,738,884,976,640,000. That is the chance of you having the same genetic code of your sibling (unless you are an identical twin.) When you multiply this by the number of possible parents in the world, the numbers get _really_ big and scary.


That scary number, called "helliacious" by my math prof., is why I discount chance as the begining of the evolution process. That is what I meant. Actually trying an experiment with primorial soup an infinate number of times could beat chance. To prove a theory, however, I was always taught that you must be able to discount random chance. My own opinion.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Not at all. Just still all bacteria and still all viruses. They did not become something else entirely.


Actually, there is a greater similarity between the genetic makeup of a human and a cat than there is between some species of bacteria and others. The two mammals share over 75% of their DNA. Two separate bacteria species can have less than 10% in common. Which species evolved most? Saying that because they are still bacteria, they haven't 'become something else entirely' is inaccurate.




> That scary number, called "helliacious" by my math prof., is why I discount chance as the begining of the evolution process. That is what I meant. Actually trying an experiment with primorial soup an infinate number of times could beat chance. To prove a theory, however, I was always taught that you must be able to discount random chance. My own opinion.


I don't follow your logic here. That hellacious number is exactly why chance _must_ be involved. With such a incredible number of possible outcomes from every successful mating, species are bound to diversify. 

But what I really don't get, is how this ties in with the origins of life. No-one is suggesting that humans sprang from the primordial soup fully formed. The first 'life' was probably more akin to viruses. These can contain as little as a few dozen genes. 

And exactly how long did the original experiment with primordial soup last? How many times was it repeated? I don't know, do you? No-one has any idea how long the conditions were right for life to begin before it finally did - Maybe it happened really quickly, say 10,000 years; maybe 100s of millions of years, that's time enough for a lot of experimenting.

----------


## Green Lady

> i cant believe some people believe the creation myth posed in the bible. not onlyis evolution a proven fact, but there are two creation stories at the start of genesis which would point at oral tradition and therefore it being just a story



Hey, here's a loop for ya. I believe in both creation AND evolution. I tried to explain this to one of my friends but she's a little close-minded when it comes to stuff like that. Okay, the scriptures merely say, and God made this and that but it never says HOW he made anything. There's the whole made them from the dusts of the earth somewhere, but I don't think it was exactly dirt. The scriptures are very old, written before anyone knew what DNA was or molecules so wouldn't they put what they saw and heard the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had back then? 

So, God made this and that by using a chemistry set far more superior than any known to man... (okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic). He used these molecules and those and put them together to make different things (Okay, again, a little sarcastic and far more complicated than I'm putting things) . If you don't want to believe in a God or higher being, just use the same "they explained things the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had" idea again just say natural occurances brought across creation. 

Okay, and where does evolution fit into this whole belief of mine? As far as I'm concerned, evolution can also be referred to as change. Humans have changed over the years. They've gotten taller (except for me  :Mad:  ), things have changed a bit. We're not talking about evolution like X-men super-human evolution, just minor changes over the years that have added up to a slightly different appearance of humans over time. For example, my parents have/had wisdom teeth but lo and behold... I wasn't born with any. So, there ya go. Evolution, in a small way.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> We're not talking about evolution like X-men super-human evolution, just minor changes over the years that have added up to a slightly different appearance of humans over time. For example, my parents have/had wisdom teeth but lo and behold... I wasn't born with any. So, there ya go. Evolution, in a small way.


Wisdom teeth are so-called because you don't grow them until you are older (and presumably wiser, although that is not always the case). Were you born with any teeth at all for that matter? That would be evolutionarily interesting!

----------


## Green Lady

> Wisdom teeth are so-called because you don't grow them until you are older (and presumably wiser, although that is not always the case). Were you born with any teeth at all for that matter? That would be evolutionarily interesting!


Must...control...laughter....  :FRlol:  ..........
.......
.........
Okay... I was going to look up the technical term for wisdom teeth but I'm too lazy to do that even though it would probably be a simple google away. I've heard that story about wisdom teeth though. I can assure you that I wasn't born with teeth already sprouting but I did after awhile get baby teeth and then my permanent teeth, though my mouth is so messed up (I blame it on my father) that I'm still waiting for one tooth to come down and I'm almost 18. I have to agree though, being born without any teeth whatsoever would be intriguing though annoying.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I didn't get my first wisdom tooth till I was about 20. But I was real wise like _way_ before that!  :Wink:

----------


## beer good

So if you have your wisdom teeth pulled, does your wisdom drop instantly or do you gradually devolve?

----------


## Theshizznigg

What a cute little demoniod that Cthulhu is. 
Actually I find the evidence, and myth surrounding the elder gods extremely interesting when held up against the teachings of Christianity.

----------


## water lily

I wish that there was an unbiased collection of evidence somewhere that one could examine oneself and come to ones own conclusions. But it seems like whenever there's an anti-ecolutionary book out there it's written by someone with strong and unwavering religious convictions. And on the other side, "hard-core evolutionists" (if I may borrow Pendragon's terminology) don't seem to be willing to aknowledge the possibility of the other side, and their very belief in evolution causes them to automatically discount any "evidence" that may go against it. Us humans have the ability to rationalize anything we want to. And it just seems to me like everyone chose their side on the issue and then looked at the evidence. 

Anyways, there's my speel. I was just reading through all this, and had a big moment of internal conflict. I've learned so much more about evolution recently, and have leaned towards accepting it, as my past posts may have suggested. But right now I'd really rather forget about it all, and live in a state of perpetual indecision. Blah!

I got my wisdom teeth removed in the summer, maybe they're the key to all of this. Maybe with them, everything would seem clearer. Maybe its some massive conspiracy of the dentist industry. They want to be the only "wise" ones, so they can make smart investments and things and dupe the rest of us into paying for oral surgery.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Water Lily,

You seem to be falling into the trap that so many have found in this thread. You assume that there are "the religious" on one side and "the scientists" on the other. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Many scientists hold deep religious views. Many christians (and those of other faiths) can quite happily hold _both_ a belief in evolution _and_ a belief in God. My arguments in here have never been directed against those believers and I doubt that those of others have either. The argument is against dogmatic, literal belief in the creation legend, as laid out in the Bible.

I also refute the claim that the minds of those that believe in evolution are closed to any evidence against it. Science doesn't work like that - if it did, we'd still be living on a flat Earth. Science demands proof of it's theories. Religion doesn't.

I suggest that you seek out the views of someone that shares your religious convictions but also believes in evolutionary theory. I'm sure there are many websites offering those kinds of views.

You are completely right about dentists though - they are all evil!

----------


## Christian

What about evolution? Is there any way evolution and the Bible can both be true? The answer would depend on your definition of evolution. The simple answer is no! If one takes as his or her definition the full-blown atheistic version of evolution, it might go something like this. From some early inanimate environment on the earth, a living thing spontaneously arose by some sort of random, natural process without any interference by any supernatural power. The atheistic version of this theory would continue to claim that this one-celled initial life form was transformed into every species of plant, animal and so forth which has ever inhabited through a process of organic evolution.

This definition is really more a dogmatic, semi-religious assumption than a provable scientific hypothesis. Nevertheless, if it is true, then there is absolutely no way that the atheistic full-blown neo-Darwinist evolutionary assumption can be reconciled with the Bible. Genesis chapter one, and indeed the entire Bible creates the clear impression that life was created by the supernatural command of God. Genesis one further seems to imply that at different times, God created various "kinds" (to use the non-technical Hebrew term) of plants, animals and so forth. Again, this is absolutely irreconcilable with the atheistic definition above.

So the radical atheistic formulation of the evolutionary concept is incompatible with the Bible. A better question, perhaps, is whether some sort of limited evolution is compatible with what the Bible teaches. The answer would depend on one's view of Genesis one (see question 1). If one interprets Genesis chapter one to imply an earth only a few thousands of years old--one which was created in six literal twenty-four hour periods, then the answer is again no. There is no way that any really significant evolutionary change could occur in such a short time frame. Perhaps a dog could have been "evolved" from wolves in that time frame, but certainly humans and chimps could not have evolved from some common primate ancestor in that amount of time, never mind mammals from fish.

If, on the other hand, one allows for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to represent great periods of time for God's creation, then perhaps some sort of limited evolution may become possible. The question of the actual mechanism by which evolution occurs would still remain, but that would be something for the scientists to solve. The fact is that the fossil record is quite consistent with a forest rather than a single tree of evolution. In other words, the fossil record would be consistent with the possibility that a creator produced various species at various times in the distant past of the earth, followed by some sort of evolution of those created species. In fact, Darwin himself, in his earlier editions of Origin of Species allowed for the possibility that there may have been a number of different original species. The most famous example in the fossil record of species seeming to appear virtually out of nothing on geological timescales is what is known as the Cambrian explosion. At a point in the very distant past, every major body form appears in the fossil record, seemingly with no obvious precursors, in virtually zero time. Naturalistic evolutionary theories struggle mightily with the fossil record.

Do cats and lions have a common ancestor? Perhaps. Could all fish have evolved from some sort of original created fish? Possibly. Did the original one-celled organism evolve into human beings? The Bible clearly seems to say no! The fact remains that the Bible does not answer each of these questions in detail. Therefore it would be wise for individuals to investigate the question carefully and reach their own conclusions, but to not be overly dogmatic about areas which are debatable.

----------


## Christian

I believe the evidence for creation of life and the recreation by our saviour Jesus Christ is overwhelming, and that the evidence for godless evolution is questionable.

----------


## Christian

But you owe it to yourself to at least examine the evidence that stands to say that this is a matter of life and death and determine for yourself whether it is or not, if you look at it from the Adventist(now this is the church that I belong to but by no means is salvation restricted to a particular church, the best knowledge regarding it however does seem to be) perspective accompanied with an objective outlook you will become a Christian. Prove me wrong, I dare you, it will simply be heaven's gain if you try, for you will come to find you have eternal life if you but reach for it

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Christian,

You make a very big assumption.

You assume that all christians believe in Genesis chapter 1, or indeed in any of Genesis. I know many devout christians who hold that it is nothing more than it appears to be; the attempt by technologically simple people to describe the origin of the world around them. A legend, nothing more. I quite agree that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Genesis; that is the whole purpose of this thread!

I would also question why only 'limited' evolution would be possible if the 'days' of Genesis were in fact great periods of time? Kindly explain these limits. 

Scientists _have_ explained the mechanism of evolution. Or do you deny the existence of DNA, that characteristics can be passed down from parents to offspring and the occurence of mutations? This was not part of Darwin's original theory. For many years, the genetic theories of Gregor Mendel were deemed incompatible with Darwin's own. The two were only merged at the turn of the 20th century. DNA was not found to be the 'stuff' of heredity until the 1960s (by Watson & Crick) and the exact mapping of the human genome has only been completed this century. 

Science has happily adapted it's theory to fit all of these new facts. Each one has proved to reinforce Darwin's ideas. That he developed them without the knowledge that we possess now is remarkable. That there are those that still refuse to accept his theories, I find more remarkable still.

And, one final point, the Cambrian explosion marks the point at which the first hard shelled, marine creatures evolved. These fossilise relatively easily. Prior to that, all living things were soft bodied, with neither shells nor skeletons. These do not fossilise because their bodies rot completely, or are eaten, before they getr the chance. Fossils from before this period do exist, but they are extremely rare. There is no mystery here. 

And there is no struggle with the fossil record, only in the minds of those desperate to force it into an ancient model of thought.

I have read the Bible. Please consider reciprocating and read a decent modern biology textbook. Base your ideas on evolutionary theory on what the theorists actually think rather than on the half-baked rantings on some fundamentalist christian website.

And the Bible doesn't answer all of the questions in detail because they didn't exist when it was written. Jesus himself had a lot of positive things to say aboiut the way that human beings should treat each other. The rest is just myth and legend; smoke and mirrors.

----------


## Pendragon

May I ask one simple question without hopefully angering anyone? Most people that have posted have at one point or other made a stand as to how they believe. I have myself, several times, stated that I belive in a Creator (not necessarily the exact way Genesis is written, see XC's statement above)
and in Evolution that continues to this very day. Others have stated no Intelligent Design, just Evolution, period. Some have stated Creationism only. Fine. Isn't this horse dead enough yet? We keep beating on it with the same round-robin of arguments like it's going to get up and walk. It's fossilized by now from being buried in the retoric of cessless arguments. If you are happy with what you believe, stick to it like glue. But in all reality, this has been argued for years with no end in sight. With that in mind, and still standing firm on what I believe, which in no way affects my friendship with those with opposing views, I'm going to bow out now, keeping my dignity intact. Good luck to everyone and may you find your own answers to the question a rock to stand on and be proud to defend. Pendragon, always a friend to anyone and everyone who needs a friend...  :Nod:

----------


## Orionsbelt

ust sharing what I think. 

The bible story is a poem. A wonderful poem written by a man trying to grasp what we all try to grasp. The stanza is repeated in poetic effect. "and the evening and the morning were the ..... day" Listen closely and hear him cry out in awe at what his soul has apprehended. There are thousands of these poems in the bible and religious texts all over the world. This is an example of the heart speaking to the mind. The science is poor, the world here just appeared... magic... but it is of no consequence. A deeper need is being expressed. 

Science is not the same thing. Science is based on evidence. If you postulate the existance of a creator, then you must be able to perform a test, an experiment, to prove the hypothesis. You need to find direct evidence ot the creator. Not indirect evidence like creationism or intelligent design attempts to do. In law it would be called circumstancial evidence. Science is the study of nature. God is supernatural ... beyond nature... not scientifically testable... Evolution is a theory or nature, hypothesis with evidence to support it. However more than anything else evolution is a discovery. There is a dynamic for change. Would you honestly believe that an intellegent being would create a static unchanging place? Would you? If you believe in God... it is simply a choice and nothing more, be at peace with it... then is it possible that evolution was built into the natural world by the supernatural inventor as a natural mechanism for change. Hmmm new hypothesis. No evidence. Does it matter? At the most fundimental level we don't understand life. We have studied the mechanics very well. The chemicals interact according to the patterns written in the dna and in complete accord with natural law. When however a cell dies what is missing? The chemicals are present, the RNA, DNA, water are all still there at the moment of death. The mechanism stops. Sometimes it stops because something in the mechanism is broken. Like a car that has been drive too many miles. Sometimes not. What force, energy, compulsion has gone? where has it gone. We still don't know. 

So my hebrew friend and I both cry out where did you go my friend? Why have you left me? What truely were you anyway? Who may I petition to understand? Evolution is science. It simply says this is what we have observed to support our speculation. This is the mechanism of nature. The mechanics of biology. If you believe in God doesn't this make it all more amazing than ever? If you study science you will be compelled to the same level of awe as the hebrew poet. You will then understand the meaning of a truely religuous experience. Ask John Glen.

----------


## Green Lady

> Isn't this horse dead enough yet? We keep beating on it with the same round-robin of arguments like it's going to get up and walk. It's fossilized by now from being buried in the retoric of cessless arguments. If you are happy with what you believe, stick to it like glue. But in all reality, this has been argued for years with no end in sight. With that in mind, and still standing firm on what I believe, which in no way affects my friendship with those with opposing views, I'm going to bow out now, keeping my dignity intact. Good luck to everyone and may you find your own answers to the question a rock to stand on and be proud to defend. Pendragon, always a friend to anyone and everyone who needs a friend...



This forum is a microcosm of the world. The arguing never stops completely... I wish people would "stop beating the horse" though. It won't happen until some dramatic, solid proof proves one belief and one only.

----------


## woeful painter

*sigh* another thread, like ones in forums i previously had joined...another argument...another debate...another winding road to nothingness...

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

::looks at the smoking wreckage and dead bodies which lie upon the intellectual battleground:...yeah, we're done here. I'm calling a draw, anybody disagree?

----------


## Theshizznigg

> Christian,
> XGM
> You make a very big assumption.
> 
> XGM
> You assume that all christians believe in Genesis chapter 1, or indeed in any of Genesis. I know many devout christians who hold that it is nothing more than it appears to be; the attempt by technologically simple people to describe the origin of the world around them. A legend, nothing more. I quite agree that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Genesis; that is the whole purpose of this thread!
> 
> SHG
> As for those who believe in the theory of biblical evolution, they should ask themselves, why would God do that? I mean really why would he evolve us when he could create us? I personally can't agree with you beliefs because the bible offers no reasons to support them, neither can I imagine a omnipotent God evolving his creations when he could just make them. 
> ...


SHG
WTF? Smoke and mirrors, your comment here doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the enitre bible is smoke and mirrors? Or the old testament? or just Genesis? Because to state that its just smoke and mirrors would be extremely ignorant of you. Because, by saying that your saying that, Sodom and Gommorah didn't exist, yet they've found the plains where they were, which I might add still don't grow anything on them due to salt, brimstone, and sulphur impacts in the ground. 
Or that King David didn't exist, or that Solomon was a fictional character? How can you possibly state this, when old records of other histories are showing the bible to be historically accurate?
Didn't Xerxes exist, and rule the persian empire? Didn't he fight the Greeks, and was defeated. 
Are you saying then that the Greek histories are all fairy tales, smoke and mirrors? 
You cannot possibly state, (without looking like a very ignorant person) that the bible isn't based on historical fact, because it has been proven through the ages, again, and again that it is both historically accurate, and well detailed for a book of its time. 

Shaking my head at you XGM.
Something YOU ALL NEED TO REMEMBER ABOUT GENESIS! Is that the book of Genesis was created and written by the largest contributor to the old Testament, MOSES, and that Moses merely wrote Genesis as a quick summary of the things that had happened so far. 
Hence the lack of great details, like what Adam was wearing, what he looked like, how big Eves bust size was, yadi yah yah, don't appear in the book of Genesis. 
Moses was catching up on thousands of years of human history, simply stating to the followers of Israel, this is what happened so far in order, and its signifigance to the Israelites. 
Adam's line begat Noah, Noah's line begat Abraham, Abraham's line begat Israel, Israels children = Present day Jews, so on and so forth. 

And as for it being a fairy tale, I'd like to remind you that almost every culture no matter how primitive even by todays standards, has a story of a great flood, and many also have tales about the first man, who as I've read was born from mud, spittle mixed in dirt, tear drops mixed with dust, and has had such wonderous names as Adam, Adamus, Adamanti, Eman, Amani, Oman. 
Yet even more amazing is that all of these different cultures have had absolutely no pyshical interaction with Jews, Christians, Moslems, or any other culture that follow Genesis as truth.
So, how exactly do you explain the co-incedences of different mythologies and histories, not contradicting the biblical theory yet supporting it?

As for my views on evolution, I refuse to waste my precious time constantly arguing about something to people who won't believe a word, (won't even consider my arguements,) I say, regardless of how knowledgeable it is. Such is human nature. So I say this, lets agree to disagree, and those are my final thoughts on the subject.


Take care everybody.
Shizz.

"Bye bye daddy, have a wonderful day." Perfect Prudence.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I was preparing a long rebuttal of most of what you posted Thzng. But why bother. Search any of the subjects you mention above on Wikipedia, or try the Encyclopaedia Britannica at your local library, if you consider wiki too biased. Either way, you'll get a more balanced view of all the possible interpretations than from your friendly neighbourhood christian propoganda site.

One thing I'll point out for free though - Brimstone _is_ Sulphur.

 :Wink:  XC

----------


## Green Lady

> ::looks at the smoking wreckage and dead bodies which lie upon the intellectual battleground:...yeah, we're done here. I'm calling a draw, anybody disagree?



*Looks up at previous post* Looks like someone's disagreeing about calling a draw  :Frown:  . Please!!! Stop the carnage!

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Since when did a score of 53.85 to 36.81 constitute a draw? I claim victory for evolution! And a very respectable runners-up score for the creationists.

It's the 9% that don't know what to think that worries me. Are they waiting for someone to tell them? Or do they just prefer not to think?

And why have we heard nothing from the 'none of the above' faction? I'm sure they have lots of interesting theories as to how we got here - why didn't they share them?

Anyway, if we stop now, someone'll just start another similar thread in a week or two. May as well just keep going and avoid the _déja vu_.  :Wink:

----------


## Evergreenleaf

> It's the 9% that don't know what to think that worries me. Are they waiting for someone to tell them? Or do they just prefer not to think?


They might prefer not to think. They might also be weighing their options still, looking at evidence and trying to figure out what is most compelling. It was a long time before I figured out what I believe.

I used to think that there was no beginning, that everything just always was and always would be, but that was when I was a little kid and the present was all that mattered. Ah, those were the good days. 

Well, not really. I prefer knowledge to ignorance, even blissful ignorance.

So if anyone is wondering, I go with evolution.

----------


## atiguhya padma

There seems no reason to believe in Creationism. All evidence seems against the idea of the Biblical account. I was holding an ammonite in my hands only yesterday thinking, how incredible it is that anyone with any sense could imagine this to have lived less than 6000 years ago. But, of course, though we live in a world that has had 400 years of science and 3,000 years or more of philosophy, society is still ruled by irrational superstition.

----------


## Green Lady

> And why have we heard nothing from the 'none of the above' faction? I'm sure they have lots of interesting theories as to how we got here - why didn't they share them?



I put 'none of the above' and I gave my opinion. I couldn't just pick one (creationism, evolution) 'cause I believe in both.

And I do believe we should call it a draw, even if another thread is brought up. This one's getting so long it's giving me a headache.

----------


## falling*moon

l believe in the two ..too.. i guess

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

So,

Green Lady & Falling Moon,

I guess what you're sayng is not "None of the above" but "All of the above" - an obvious oversight by the thread's founder. I can respect that (while disagreeing of course).  :Nod: 

Do we have any "Prefer not to think"s out there - will they own up?

----------


## jollyollie

Excuse me if "hijack" the thread and make a comment about creationism and natural diversity. that is the topic here is it not?
I think that it is absolutely naive for anyone to selfishly consider the planet earth to be a christians only mechanism, where all the creatures and resources on the planet were created to benefit one species that christians chauvanistically call "man". 
Were all the animals were created to be used or eaten by "man"?
Were all the trees were created by a supreme entity for the exclusive use of "man"?
the earth may be polluted, raped and destroyed just as long as 'man' is benefitting from this outcome? 
maybe god is in the form of a cockroach who created "MAN" for the sole purpose of carelessly discarding pizza boxes, so that the cockroach race, created by the cockroach god in His likeness, would have free food to eat forever, and "man" is just a supporting character, insignificant and disposable? Hmm? 
there are too many genetically unique species out there to think selfishly that everything was created for "mans" exclusive use and abuse alone, regardless of the needs of the millions of other threatened species that are forced to share the world with "man"; the taker, the destroyer. 
Creationism is antiquated sentiment, just like the idea that the earth was created in less than a fortnight. 
this idea is disrespectful to the creatures with whom we share this planet, and who's destiny is ultmately our own.
om

----------


## TodHackett

I just got back from a talk given by Dr. Pigliucci at EKU, so I'm revved up for this one!

Creationism or evolutionism? First off, it's a false question. Science is a method that is applied to certain questions that can be answered empirically. And frankly, being a lit-hack-wannabe, I'm amazed that there seems to be this attitude out there that if something isn't science, it isn't worth studying. Out of the whole pie of human knowledge and experience, that which can be called "science" is a tiny sliver!

Still, the Creationists, at least the hardcore ones, want "Intelligent Design" taught as science. Well, it isn't science 'cause you can't empirically prove or disprove the existence of God. And that's not saying that the idea of Creationism isn't worth studying. It's saying it isn't science, which is totally different. And to me, as a lit-hack-wannabe, the question of "Why was it so easy for Iago to make Othello jealous over Desdemona on such flimsy evidence?" is WAY more interesting than science. So is the whole "is there a God?" thing, though nothing groundbreaking has been done on that since the Existentialists. And so, for that matter, is the question of "Intelligent Design".

So, that's me on my fourth beer. Man, I'm gonna be **** at work tomorrow! And why the **** can't I sleep?!?

----------


## jollyollie

Pretty dag nab quite round here. Must be that there is no debate (imagine that). We can once again hoist the victorious on our shoulders. 
Darwin rules from beyond the grave!
Excuse me while I gloat.

----------


## Theshizznigg

Oh my, why debate? 
If you are Christian be content that God made you, if not be content that apes appropriated you. 
And if your an Anarchist be in-content with everything.
The more you tell either that they are wrong, the harder they will stiffen their resolves toward their ideals. 
It like beating the waves of the sea with a bat.

----------


## jollyollie

> Oh my, why debate? 
> If you are Christian be content that God made you, if not be content that apes appropriated you. 
> And if your an Anarchist be in-content with everything.
> The more you tell either that they are wrong, the harder they will stiffen their resolves toward their ideals. 
> It like beating the waves of the sea with a bat.


Just as long as you dont beat any people with that bat.
What if someone doesnt have a category? Does one have to be christian or not christian? Antichrist? Is there another choice? You got somethin against apes? you refute your prehistoric ancestry for what? So that you can wear your hair like a god? I spose its easier for someone to torture a primate in captivity if they refute thier genetic similarity. Fish dont have feelings right? So givem another bash with your bat.
I am a part of this earth, related to rock and stone, bee and fluff, ape and man. A book of scriptures doesnt make me better or worse than a wombat or a slug. we all share this earth in union with all its living creatures. when we place ourselves above other tenants here, we ultimately are alone and alien, unforgiven for our destrutive capabilities. Part of the entropic process: Part of the problem.
How many molecules of carbon dioxide did you liberate last year?

----------


## jollyollie

> Just as long as you dont beat any people with that bat.
> What if someone doesnt have a category? Does one have to be christian or not christian? Antichrist? Is there another choice? You got somethin against apes? you refute your prehistoric ancestry for what? So that you can wear your hair like a god? I spose its easier for someone to torture a primate in captivity if they refute thier genetic similarity. Fish dont have feelings right? So givem another bash with your bat.
> I am a part of this earth, related to rock and stone, bee and fluff, ape and man. A book of scriptures doesnt make me better or worse than a wombat or a slug. we all share this earth in union with all its living creatures. when we place ourselves above other tenants here, we ultimately are alone and alien, unforgiven for our destrutive capabilities. Part of the entropic process: Part of the problem.
> How many molecules of carbon dioxide did you liberate last year?


looks like ther is no debate. Victory is ours!

----------


## woeful painter

you know...there IS a good solution for this....would someone create a time machine to send a group of people back in the beginnings of time and see, feel, hear, smell err...taste..(uh whatever) just experience it all with his five senses?...and then when they come back with the info we can all relax while battering one another yelling "I told you so!"  :FRlol:

----------


## Geochelonian

Hmmm...It seems like this whole question has a lot to do with another thread in this forum, about what was before God...

The basic questions which neither evolutionists or creationists can answer are
1. If God created everything, where did God come from?
2. If the universe was created by the eruption of the 'cosmic egg', where did the cosmic egg come from?

If you consider it, the questions are identical: Where does the beginning begin? Something creates something else. Why not postulate a God? It's as logical as a cosmic egg...  :Wink:

----------


## jollyollie

> Hmmm...It seems like this whole question has a lot to do with another thread in this forum, about what was before God...
> 
> The basic questions which neither evolutionists or creationists can answer are
> 1. If God created everything, where did God come from?
> 2. If the universe was created by the eruption of the 'cosmic egg', where did the cosmic egg come from?
> 
> If you consider it, the questions are identical: Where does the beginning begin? Something creates something else. Why not postulate a God? It's as logical as a cosmic egg...


Yeah. Hmmm.
Anyways, what is the right thing to teach children in a world that has more than one religion? DO you teach them in science class that God made the earth in six days? DO you teach them in English class that the bible is the only worthwhile read? If dolphins could talk, would you convince them to adapt to ID? Is this responsible? Would they believe you. And what if they didnt, what could you do? SO much for the dolphins. Maybe theyre just stupid anyways right?
This is the point here. It is not a discussion for the hell of it. There are people out there who need to know what scientific thought is based on. Linear thinking sets dangerous principles. 
The earth and the universe are unique opportunities to observe and learn about things we have no idea about. To lump all mysteries into the "ask god" categaory is kinda silly. We need to teach our next generations to speculate effectively about things we accept as truth without fear of recrimination. This is a shared responsibilty.

----------


## Geochelonian

You seem to read a lot more into what i said than i actually said. And, of course this is a conversation just for the hell of it! All conversations on this site are just that, since no one here has the power to do anything.
Children need to be taught science as science. Unless the school is a religious school, religion should not be taught. But that's very different from ignoring what's probably the most influential text in Western literature - the Bible.
Ultimately, and no matter what they've been taught, they will believe what they want to believe, what they _choose_ to believe. But they must be taught to _think_ . Unfortunately, education - especially in college - is often more a matter of indoctrination than teaching. And too often, science has become something of a religion in itself, with the general public believing, without serious questioning on their part, what a prominent scientist says, just because he is a scientist...and prominent. Consider Piltdown Man...

----------


## Stanislaw

I have to disagree that religion should not be taught in schools, I think it should. Learning the religion of another group of people is the best way to understand secular thinking of that culture. I think a world realigion class should be on the curriculum for highschool, even if you don't believe in the religion, it still is important to realize the different points of view.

I like what you said about post-secondary indoctrination. nice choice of words.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Geochelonian

It's a very good idea to teach religion as an information class, as long as it's kept as pure information. When I was young, it was very common for public school teachers to expound on their religious views (all Christian) and even to attempt to use their postion in an intimidating way. I had a Jewish friend back then, and I knew this bothered him.

----------


## jollyollie

> You seem to read a lot more into what i said than i actually said. And, of course this is a conversation just for the hell of it! All conversations on this site are just that, since no one here has the power to do anything.
> Children need to be taught science as science. Unless the school is a religious school, religion should not be taught. But that's very different from ignoring what's probably the most influential text in Western literature - the Bible.
> Ultimately, and no matter what they've been taught, they will believe what they want to believe, what they _choose_ to believe. But they must be taught to _think_ . Unfortunately, education - especially in college - is often more a matter of indoctrination than teaching. And too often, science has become something of a religion in itself, with the general public believing, without serious questioning on their part, what a prominent scientist says, just because he is a scientist...and prominent. Consider Piltdown Man...


This is the nature of the discussion. This is the reason that it went before the supreme court in the first place, and the reason IDers lost. ID has no place in public school.It is the law ( inthe states)

----------


## Mentor

Aristotle, the father of all modern logical thought, spoke of an "Unmoved Mover" as the center of all creation. While his underlying logic is different from today's usage, the concept is appealingly simple. Can't we leave it at that?

As for the teapot tempest today about how things came to be as they are: The debate is fueled by those with poorly-hidden agendas, unahppily bigoted and vicious. It's no more than that.

In simple (but not simplistic) terms, it's a matter of Faith and Reason, two faces of one coin. There can be no valid argument about supremacy of one or the other, since Faith and Reason speak on two different levels of discourse. We can easily live with two different views of how things came to be "evolved" and/or "created": How lacking in significant difference are these two world views!)

A sense of Wisdom would let the matter rest in peace (RIP). After all, aren't there simply too many REAL problems that need to be faced in daily life, problems for each of us individually and collectively, problems that are frighteningly global in scope? Now, is the "tempest in a teapot" perhaps a mechanism to avoid thinking about what's TRULY important: Peace, justice, an end to violence and to hunger and to all the miseries all too real in our world? Obsessing on other topics pales into selfishness by comparison.

----------


## Stanislaw

> This is the nature of the discussion. This is the reason that it went before the supreme court in the first place, and the reason IDers lost. ID has no place in public school.It is the law ( inthe states)



Why are those not in favour of ID afraid to teach it in public schools, shouldn't the children be allowed to choose what they think is right? to teach that it is the only option is as much as a crime as to not teach it at all.

----------


## Geochelonian

Because ID, and any other theory which can't be demonstrated by the known laws of the physical universe can't be "taught". Any such teaching would, ultimately, devolve into dogmatic indoctrination into the beliefs of the teacher.
The other side of the coin is that the non-existence of a deity, or deities, should not be taught either. Science should be taught as science, religious dogma as religious dogma. This should not, however, preclude the use of religious texts in education. Wht shouldn't I be able to use the story of the snake in the Garden of Eden as an example of a nature myth that teaches a moral lesson, as much as I use the story of Prometheus to teach essentially the same point (obedience to authority)? And how could I teach the origins of Luther's rebellion against the Church without referring to the Scriptural passages that are the points of difference between Catholics and Protestants?

The whole problem lies in the extremists on either side (fundamentalists vs ultra liberals) who insist on making a major issue (the already referred to tempest in a teapot) out of what shouldn't even be an issue.

----------


## elpidi26

While many people find a problem with the fact that evolution couldn't occur because it violates the scriptures rendering of God's creative works being completed in seven days, I'd like to make a note on the word "day" and the implications it irrevocably intimates. There are seven days and God's early creative endeavors are complete (Of course, He rests on the seventh day). 

It's interesting to note that the stars aren't created until the fourth day. Our sun is a star. What I am assuming here is that the light in "Let there be Light" isn't the sun. The sun is created along with the rest of the stars in day four. Now, if that is the case, and if we base our solar mean days on the spinning of the earth on its axis with the sun as a reference point(e.g., light-day/dark-night/back to light=1 day), how were the days prior to the sun being created (i.e., days 1-3) calculated? They couldn't be. 

This poses an interesting question? What does the word "day" mean then. Interestingly enough, the original Hebrew word is "yom," which can be translated day (literal day). However, it can also be translated aeon, or age. Think about this. 7 yoms or 7 undisclosed periods of time through which God effects reality and everything in it (universe, space, time, light, etc.) Now we can go back to each day and surmise what is being said 

[ASIDE: The Bible is neither a book of history nor science (though both can found therein), i.e., it was never intended to written as a scientific or historical work. According to Christians, it is the exhaustive story of the redemptive work of God for man. Also the original Hebrew language of the Old Testament is extremely poetic. These are writers writing with their own individual personalities emanating from their work.]

Day one-Darkness, emptiness, and a mysterious water (no one knows)

"Let there be light"-big bang perhaps?

The rest can be perceived as the story of evolution from the first forms of energy being converted into mass, according to Einstein's E=m(c squared). First formations of stars via interstellar media. Planets evolving from dead star matter...and then Darwinian evolution. 

According to the Bible, the first organisms aren't created until the fifth day (yom). The first vegetation was created on the second day. Who knows how long this actually took and how it was effected. Note that the Bible never says. Why could God not have chosen to use evolution as His creative apparatus. And the rest of the story, all the way to the emergence of man in verse 27, follows the same train of thought.

I find this to be the most plausible theory in amalgamating the belief of the scientific erudites and the religious community that affirms creation.

The psalmist addresses God, "Lord,...You turn men back to dust, saying, 'Return to dust, O sons of men.' For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Psalm 90:1-4).

This may seem bizarre and fanciful language to some, but most theologians well affirm that God exists "out of time." That is, they believe that God is not bound by the constraints and confines that time exerts; as time is a creation of God, God necessarily remains unfettered by time's trappings. While this seems a bit mystical and speculative to some, self-avowed atheists who are thoroughly acquainted with the principles of Relativity would have no problem with this maxim of theology. For they note that if something can travel fast enough, space and time can be literally manipulated to any scale (Time dilation & length contraction for those that care). 

Theoretically, if someone traveling in a space ship travels to a distant star 20-ly's away (ly-light year, where one light year is defined as the distance light travels in a year--approx. 6 trillion miles, i.e., 6x10^12 miles) with a velocity of 80% of the speed of light, by the time the person in the ship made the round trip, people on earth will have aged 50 yrs., whereas the crew aboard the space ship will have only aged 30 yrs. The math is simple algebra and the explanation is a bit technical, but the idea, famously called the twin paradox, denotes that the faster one travels, the slower time becomes. Again, theoretically if one could travel at the speed of light, time would cease to exist. This is what occurs at the event horizon of black holes (the beginning of curvature toward the black hole's singularity--the escape velocity to escape the pull [gravity] becomes so great that even light at an amazing speed of 186,282.860 miles per second (299,792.458 km/sec) can't escape it). 

I have a point with the science lesson, I promise. Most, if not all Christians posit that God possesses attributes which separate Him completely from anyone/anything else. He is omniscient-knows all things. He is omnipresent-everywhere at all times. He is omnipotent-can do all things (ASIDE: all things that do not violate His moral/righteous nature, e.g., God cannot lie or do evil). The last point on His Omnipotence is important. If He can do all things, he can travel infinitely fast if need be to be everywhere always. While I am not stating that this is the case (Most theologians state God as spiritual and not corporeal---though if he wants, he can adopt a corporeal nature, e.g., Jesus Christ's kenosis), I am simply stating He could do this should He so choose. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that if He were bound to the constraints of time/space, He could break free and slow time, freeze time, and/or travel back in time (think about what might happen if, when traveling at the speed of light-time stops, what would happen if you traveled faster than the speed of light. Therefore, the relativity learned atheist would tell you this kind of God could stop time. Then they would tell you He doesn't exist.

Conclusion. Of course a day in God's "time frame" is different from ours. Because God is not bound to time in the sense that we are, it is exactly possible, in fact, more plausible to believe that the enumerated days of the Genesis story are not literal 24-hour periods.

Further food for thought on the matter. Where did the moon come from? Do a little reading and you'll find that the leading theory promulgates that early Earth, in its early formative years some 4.5 billion yrs ago (at this stage, the smaller Earth is called a planetesimal), collided with another smaller planetesimal. Early Earth absorbs much of this colliding planetesimal's matter due to gravity (This augments Earth's mass to its current spherical size) but much of the debris from the collision flies off in all directions which eventually forms an orbiting ring reminiscent of Saturn's rings. Eventually the debris coalesces into a giant satellite we call the moon. At this time, the moon is so close to Earth (39,000 miles away) that the gravitational tidal forces (the same forces that create high/low tides in the ocean) literally squeeze the earth as it spins on its axis. This literally produces an effect like spinning a merry-go-round. Earth spins faster. At the arrival of the moon, the earth made one revolution in six hours. That's right. One day lasted six hours. The reason for our current 24-hour day (actually 23.93 hrs [called a sidereal day] as opposed to the solar mean day of 24.00 hrs) is because the moon has slowly drifted farther away from Earth. It is currently about 239,000 miles away (and drifts about 1.5 inches farther away every year) and therefore exerts less of a gravitational force than it did in the beginning. This means that our 24-hour day will eventually become a 25-hour day, a 26-, 27-, 28-, you get the point. Puts a new perspective on the Genesis story doesn't it? A literal 24-hour day? Not likely, but not a problem for the creationist argument.

----------


## Mentor

Hey, you Creatures of Creationist Belief:

All you folks quoting "Scripture" or "Bible": Have you really Evolved some kind of Intelligent Design that tells you the "True" Word"? 

How often are you in personal touch with the Author and Publisher of a single Bible containing The One and Only Truth? Have you rationally and/or spiritually done some fact-checking?

Or, in your terms of reference, "If God had intended that all men would know Truth, wouldn't He have given us this Supreme Gift so that we would all be able to live by His Word peaceably?

(Consider: Bibles and Scriptures galore have been promulgated by all us Earthfolks. You guys out there doing all this arguing: The hatefulness that you preach against has filled your entire Beings!

Would it not be more productive to Humankind if you devoted ALL devoted your every waking hour to simply following the Golden Rule (working to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, decrying with every breath against the promulgators of the Iraqs and Darfurs of this world). If you were to do these things, then, in your own terms, you might be worthy of a Revealed Truth, replace the petty notions on which you now so shamefully spend your energies? (Or, dreadfully, are you the Spiritual Onanists you certainly seem to be?)

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> You accept a theory as fact or your reject it as fact. Believing in something is about opinion, whereas acceptance of something is about knowledge.


Belief, in the sense of Biblical belief - that is, the kind of Belief posited by the Doctrine of the Bible - involves a thing very much misunderstood by all that do not have it: Faith. What is this thing? It is actually sure Knowledge. It is the undercurrent of bedrock to Knowledge, that doesn't waffle with varying illusions. One can be in a relationship with a perfectly devoted lover [I am not meaning an adultery partner by that term], and yet, for lack of Faith, despite every sensible evidence of being the object of Perfect Love, may never rest in that Knowledge, but holds it together with doubt, due to lack of Faith.




> Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works.... Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.


No it is not. It is but a theory that its own most qualified proponents admit has so little evidence as to cover a table top. Those that wrote the Bible already believed in the CREATOR. The idea of the belief in Spirit has no perfect explanation apart from the underlying Reality. There is evidence that certain markings all over what was long accepted as the dwellings of "cave men" actually functioned as grammatical writing systems. There is also lack of evidence that a great many caves full of "primitive" paintings were actually lived in by the artists, who more than likely were youths at their usual cave hangout, whose artwork, rather than matching that of better artifacts found in the same vicinity, were equivalent to today's squeegy crowds' subway graffiti. I will say much more at a more convenient time - I'm eating and typing!

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> (Consider: Bibles and Scriptures galore have been promulgated by all us Earthfolks. You guys out there doing all this arguing: The hatefulness that you preach against has filled your entire Beings!
> 
> Would it not be more productive to Humankind if you devoted ALL devoted your every waking hour to simply following the Golden Rule (working to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, decrying with every breath against the promulgators of the Iraqs and Darfurs of this world). If you were to do these things, then, in your own terms, you might be worthy of a Revealed Truth, replace the petty notions on which you now so shamefully spend your energies? (Or, dreadfully, are you the Spiritual Onanists you certainly seem to be?)


Not all present a case for one and the same reason. Not all things are equal. For my part, I have borne great abuse from atheists and agnostics for several years, even from those I had never spoken a word of my Faith to, and never did I base my Charity toward them on what they believed, nor my Graciousness to them on how well they treated me. But I do hate to see a lack of Love, and it is painful and irksome to see worthless behavior from falsely so-called "Christians". I hate conflict, but have many a time had to do my uncomfortable duty to challenge ways not of CHRIST manifest by those unworthy of the name "Christian". On the other hand, though, I strive to present a strong case for the Faith I know, not for the sake of conflict, but for the service of all that are seeking for answers, and who may benefit from something that gives my soul solid Peace.

----------


## jollyollie

> Aristotle, the father of all modern logical thought, spoke of an "Unmoved Mover" as the center of all creation. While his underlying logic is different from today's usage, the concept is appealingly simple. Can't we leave it at that?
> 
> As for the teapot tempest today about how things came to be as they are: The debate is fueled by those with poorly-hidden agendas, unahppily bigoted and vicious. It's no more than that.
> 
> In simple (but not simplistic) terms, it's a matter of Faith and Reason, two faces of one coin. There can be no valid argument about supremacy of one or the other, since Faith and Reason speak on two different levels of discourse. We can easily live with two different views of how things came to be "evolved" and/or "created": How lacking in significant difference are these two world views!)
> 
> A sense of Wisdom would let the matter rest in peace (RIP). After all, aren't there simply too many REAL problems that need to be faced in daily life, problems for each of us individually and collectively, problems that are frighteningly global in scope? Now, is the "tempest in a teapot" perhaps a mechanism to avoid thinking about what's TRULY important: Peace, justice, an end to violence and to hunger and to all the miseries all too real in our world? Obsessing on other topics pales into selfishness by comparison.


IM belly laughing! lol wont do!
Im not here to educate anyone, just to shed a responsible example.

----------


## Stanislaw

All scientist are morons, and have no proof that the bible is 100% correct, in fact I think we should burn all of these heretics and their heretical literature. I am so sorry, you are wrong scientists and believers in Darwin, but you are all just arguing a moot point, God is the answer, genesis occured to the letter, and all you who don't see it are following archaic notions blindly.

...Sounds stupid doesn't it. Science and religion can work together, but probably won't for another couple of hundred years, untill the extremests on both ends learn to play together fairly...that Or kill every muther ****er who believes in christianity...is that your end goal?

----------


## Geochelonian

"Genesis occurred to the letter." ??? Do you mean you take it _literally_ ?
If so, how do you explain the obvious contradictions? For example, Genesis 1.26 says: "Then [obviously on the 6th day, since all the plants and animals had already been created] God said,'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him rule over the fish of the sea..." etc. But, in Genesis 2.4: "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..."etc. Since there were, at that time, no plants, and plants were created on the 3rd day (Genesis 1.11), man must have been created on the 3rd day or earlier.
The Bible is full of contradictions like this. While I admire the Bible as a great work of literature, which teaches us much about moral behavior and the best way to lead our lives, I cannot accept a blind, literalist interpretation of it as a whole. One has to recognize that the Bible is many things, drawn from many sources. It was put together by human beings and, as such, will contain the failings of those human beings. Also, attempts to rationalize Biblical writings with current scientific theory are futile. That too, is a human failing.
Again, accept the Bible for what it is and enjoy it, learn from it. But don't try to degrade its value by believing it offers an explanation of how the universe functions.

----------


## Stanislaw

> All scientist are morons, and have no proof that the bible is 100% correct, in fact I think we should burn all of these heretics and their heretical literature. I am so sorry, you are wrong scientists and believers in Darwin, but you are all just arguing a moot point, God is the answer, genesis occured to the letter, and all you who don't see it are following archaic notions blindly.
> 
> ...*Sounds stupid doesn't it.* Science and religion can work together, but probably won't for another couple of hundred years, untill the extremests on both ends learn to play together fairly...that Or kill every muther ****er who believes in christianity...is that your end goal?



I was being extremely sarcastic, and perhaps incredibly rude.

----------


## jollyollie

It is not my place to try to dissuade people from thier faith. not everyone will agree, but if someone wants to pray to buddha, or mohamed, or jesus, or even to the tranformers, it is thier business. I personally think that some people take religion too far and there would be alot less war on the earth if religion was just left out of the equation.
You can talk about the burning bush any way you want. But when it comes to science and teaching and learning sciences like math, calculus, physics, biochem, leave god out of it. in only a very few circumstances does god come into play when physics professors dicuss big bang THEORY. but evoltution is done deal. there is no debating scientific truth, as few scientific truths as there are.
Example.
your having a birthday cake and theres no almonds in it. You really want almonds in it. YOU CANT UNMAKE THE CAKE just so you can have almonds in it. Maybe next time you can have your precious almonds. But to dissect the cake and manually insert the almonds and patch it back togegther again is not going make Iron Chef Kenichi hapi, is it now. He sgoing to known someone messed up the cake. Evolution is the cake; ID is the almonds. period.
Evolution and its role as scientific truth is a done deal. This is why I say it not debateable. Sensorship of science goes on to this very moment when we attmept to have a clear description of how the planet is responding to all those greenhouse gases. the truth is that scientists have bigger fish to fry than trying to convince bad mannered christians that ID has no place in science class. Scientists are too busy making sure the next generationn of scientists know what they are doing and get it right the first time. they are not trying to change the way the bible was written or restate what it was Aristtotle said 2500 or so years ago. IDers: let it go.
It seems every time I bring up global warming someone swoops in and says a bunch of borderline dumb things in a vain atttempt to smokescreen the truth of the matter. Some of you should thank your lucky stars that scientists have warned us about any of this. without our ozone layer we are toast. we wouldnt know anything about it if it wasnt for "heretical" scientists.
Last: there is no possibility of a partnership between ID and science. they cannot coexist. and will not ever. its trying to put the round peg in the square hole.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> You seem to read a lot more into what i said than i actually said. And, of course this is a conversation just for the hell of it! All conversations on this site are just that, since no one here has the power to do anything.
> Children need to be taught science as science. Unless the school is a religious school, religion should not be taught. But that's very different from ignoring what's probably the most influential text in Western literature - the Bible.
> Ultimately, and no matter what they've been taught, they will believe what they want to believe, what they _choose_ to believe. But they must be taught to _think_ . Unfortunately, education - especially in college - is often more a matter of indoctrination than teaching. And too often, science has become something of a religion in itself, with the general public believing, without serious questioning on their part, what a prominent scientist says, just because he is a scientist...and prominent. Consider Piltdown Man...


I think there should be an added class to a child's schooling, on teaching itself, demonstrating the different reasons things are propagated, tracing all current schools of thought to the parties that passed them onto the present school system, and tracing fields of study to those that first hypothesized them, while encouraging a well-rounded manner of investigation, requiring the personal interest in seeking truth needed to sift through theories to get at it.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I think there should be an added class to a child's schooling, on teaching itself, demonstrating the different reasons things are propagated, tracing all current schools of thought to the parties that passed them onto the present school system, and tracing fields of study to those that first hypothesized them, while encouraging a well-rounded manner of investigation, requiring the personal interest in seeking truth needed to sift through theories to get at it.


This exists in schools that teach the International Baccalaureate. The course is called Theory of Knowledge. It only begins at post 16 level however, as the concepts are rather difficult for those younger. I would say though that all good English teachers would always try to encourage students to question not only the facts offered to them but also the authority by which they are offered.

----------


## Adelheid

This thread has gone far since I last visited it.  :Nod: 

I think it's now debating about whether Evolution and religion should be taught in Schools? Do correct me if I am mistaken.

Mililalil XXIV is right in the sense that we are only debating, there is really nothing any of us here can do, unless of course, we are part of a country's legislation, or a school's principal. (But even then, a Principal must follow rules, unlike the days of Roald Dahl where they can do pretty much what they liked.)  :Biggrin:

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> This exists in schools that teach the International Baccalaureate. The course is called Theory of Knowledge. It only begins at post 16 level however, as the concepts are rather difficult for those younger. I would say though that all good English teachers would always try to encourage students to question not only the facts offered to them but also the authority by which they are offered.


You are right, Unnamable. I did, however, as I think you caught, wish aloud for the whole process of schooling to begin with some such elucidation running concurrent with it. For example:

in grade 1, the very basics being taught, I agree that it is not yet time to say much except that a warning be given that here at school, new ideas will be encountered. In that grade, however, things that are still widely considered mere theory, and not proven fact, ought not to be passed into the consideration of such unprepared little minds so early on. For example, mention dinosaurs, their skeletons, various fossils, and locations of finds, but not yet theories about how they died off, what all of their flesh was like, and other complexities that need verification requiring personal perception skills. Wait until you can go over the means to determine such things.

By grade 6, the ground work for students tending to their education more watchfully can be rather full-speed ahead. Instead of mentioning the analysis of geological strata in passing, then asserting the prevalent ideas concerning their evaluation, let the students hear from the beginning who first eyed these layers, where on earth he did so, and how the layers there compare to those elsewhere. I've met high school kids that entered the workplace thinking they knew everything simply because they had never really thought for themselves. Rather than explain things like self-motivated erudites, they used one-liners memorized at school, to block any thought that went against their artificial education.

Rather than memorize the names of great cultures in a row, from Egypt to Rome, they should be told that the chronologies of all are far from settled, and be shown what the definite limits of knowledge about those civilizations are.

----------


## myself

hi, i believe that god was the one who created us, i am a muslim and i dont really know what other people think and the theory behind it. i would like to know and explore other believes.

----------


## Pendragon

> It is not my place to try to dissuade people from thier faith. not everyone will agree, but if someone wants to pray to buddha, or mohamed, or jesus, or even to the tranformers, it is thier business. *I personally think that some people take religion too far and there would be alot less war on the earth if religion was just left out of the equation.*
> You can talk about the burning bush any way you want. But when it comes to science and teaching and learning sciences like math, calculus, physics, biochem, leave god out of it. in only a very few circumstances does god come into play when physics professors dicuss big bang THEORY. but evoltution is done deal. there is no debating scientific truth, as few scientific truths as there are.
> 
> Evolution and its role as scientific truth is a done deal. This is why I say it not debateable. the truth is that scientists have bigger fish to fry than trying to convince *bad mannered christians* that ID has no place in science class. Scientists are too busy making sure the next generationn of scientists know what they are doing and get it right the first time. they are not trying to change the way the bible was written or restate what it was Aristtotle said 2500 or so years ago. IDers: let it go.
> 
> It seems every time I bring up global warming someone swoops in and says a bunch of *borderline dumb things* in a vain atttempt to smokescreen the truth of the matter. we wouldnt know anything about it if it wasnt for "heretical" scientists.


Whoa, Jollie! You started out your argumement great, let evrybody believe what they want. OK. (I bolded a few of your statements.) Then you express your own belief. Also fine. Even if I do not agree, it is still your right to feel that way, and you express it very well. 

You blame all war on religion. Hummm. As a descendant of the Native Americans, I will have to point out that greed is a grand cause for war. Even land they never use or couldn't use they took from us just because we had it and they didn't!

But then you call Christians "bad mannered" in a sweeping generalization. I have seen posts on this forum where I thought the religious person rude, and I have even said something about it. I have said that calling names and insulting each other was detrimential to both sides. I do not think a Christian has a right to judge anyone on what they believe, and to think that is being very self-righteous. But not all of us are that way. so please do not generalize.

Then you speak of "borderline dumb things", but I have read enough of your posts to read between the lines when you don't want censored. As a Christian, I do not advocate ignorance as a way of life. Science had to be there. When it became a requirement for man to survive, he had to learn. How do crops grow? What can I eat? If I get sick, what do I do about it? Man discovered how to make many things that had not existed, from things that did. And man began to question, to wonder, why does this stone attract metal? Why just certain types? What's out there, across the water? In the sky? Where did I come from? For many, God was no longer the sole explaination. There had to be more. God resisted proof, man wanted that proof. 

Now they have evolution. I believe in it only as far as species adapting and changing to suit their changing environment. I do not believe an ape becomes a man, no matter how long a timeframe you give it. Now, we have the problem of what is called "proof." Much of it would never be enough to base a murder case upon. Fragments of skulls, in one case, a single tooth (built up scientifically into an man-like animal), in one case, a admitted fraud--(modern human skull fitted to an ape jaw, that still shows up on the charts at times), etc. I will not call it wrong. I will but say it doesn't convince me. And I, who am I? One man, who of course, could be wrong. But I will believe that God started things by creation, then evolution has shaped the world. Others may believe what they will. But will they, like myself, admit to the possibility that they could be wrong?

In friendship, JollyOllie,

Pendragon

----------


## Green Lady

Wow, this discussion hasn't been closed yet? Well, I put my opinion early but I think I'll state it again in a more orderly fashion than before. I believe in both creation and evolution and that they can both convene flawlessly one day in the future when scientific discoveries prove and disprove a few things. I do not believe that we came from apes, and that theory itself has been disproved already anyway. The earth was created, and who isn't to say God couldn't have used the big bang method in creating it or some other highly advanced science process? The scriptures may say seven days, but it is seven days according to Him, not us. It says in Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Now, Adam lived for about one hundred years or more, which means that when God said in the day after eating the fruit he would die, He was refering to His own days. It is estimated that the average persons life on this earth -say 80-90 years- is merely 8 minutes to God. So seven days is thousands or years according to us.

I believe all living creatures on this earth need to evolve and it is unavoidable. Creatures need to evolve to adapt to their environments and changes. Also, just like the adapting of machines and anything created people begin to change, look different. New thoughts come into the world that make the change of machinery possible, and new stuff in DNA comes up after a while. I'm not saying that people are machines, just an analogy of sorts. We all change, people get taller, shorter, hairier, etc.

----------


## toddhill

I'm jumping in here without having read all the previous posts. Please forgive me. I'll read more when I get the chance. The thing that bothers me most about this topic is the lack of objectivity. Most people cannot approach the topic objectively. They are emotionally involved and biased and unable to look at the opposing side fairly. This makes the topic extremely hard to debate. But if we want to be taken seriously, we must take the other side seriously. This seems to rarely happen. Pendragon, I really like your tone and I like what you have to say. You seem to be a very level headed, objective thinker. Todd

----------


## toddhill

This is a quote by Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University (one of the worlds leading spokesmen for evolution) on a recent television broadcast in the UK. The broadcast was called The root of all evil?. I got this quote from a periodical we receive.

Im very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and infects generation after generation

Its time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish.

What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff?

The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fictionjealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide

When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. Its a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.

These are not the words of an objective thinker. Can you imagine sitting down with this man and having a civil, intellectual debate about the origins of the universe? Id be scared the man would jump on me and try to strangle me if I wasnt an evolutionist. Ive lived long enough to know that when people get this defensive and irrational, theres something worth investigating in the target of their hatred, probably something good. When I hear and see people act like this, I automatically dont take them seriously and I automatically give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Thats just what my experience has taught me. Is religion really such a threat? Why? How? Dont the religious espouse peace and goodness? The differences I see between creationism and evolution are in the implications, the logical fruit or outcomes of each belief. Either there is a God who is to be feared (respected and obeyed), or there is no God and we can do whatever we like (which may be good, but may be otherwise). I think it was most aptly put by Flannery OConnor in A Good Man Is Hard To Find. The Misfit says, Jesus was the only One that ever raised the deadand He shouldnt have done it. He thrown everything off balance. If He did what He said [raise the dead, create the universe], then its nothing for you to do but throw away everything and follow Him, and if He didnt then its nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you canby killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him. Sorry for the long post. Todd

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

The difficulty in having an objective debate on evolution / creation is that, while evolution _is_ based upon objectively observing the world around us and making deductions based upon those observations, creation is based upon believing a thousands of years old book without question.

Where is the objectivity in fundamentalist religion?

----------


## Pendragon

> The difficulty in having an objective debate on evolution / creation is that, while evolution _is_ based upon objectively observing the world around us and making deductions based upon those observations, creation is based upon believing a thousands of years old book without question.
> 
> Where is the objectivity in fundamentalist religion?


Having said that, XC, you know that I both have and still do question the basics of Christianity. At one time, yes, I followed it blindly, without bothering to question the whys or hows or whatevers. Oddly enough, it took the very Christian people I trusted to make me start to question everything, because when I really needed them, they withdrew and kicked me out. Why did I not become bitter and become totally anti-religion? Man is a creature of change. Your friend today becomes your enemy tomorrow. What man decides is correct today, another will try to disprove, and sometime succeed. I hung on to my faith in a higher power than man. 

Question? Hoo-boy! I dared question evrything. But I believe, not as before, but still I believe in God. Creation as written in the Bible seemed to me an attempt to explain the unexplainable, to put God into time, which will not work if God is God. So science made sense to me a little more clearly. If we work from the hypothesis of God creating everything but do not limit the creation process to a seven day period, but rather however long was required, and allow for time for God to watch His experiment progress, things make more sense in believing both evolution and creation. 

I see things in a different way, and as I stated before, I am one man, and of course, I could be wrong. Do you have any idea how many innocent people are in prison because someone read the evidence and made a wrong deduction? Or how many times they re-open a cold case file to find they had the evidence all the time to convict the criminal, even had interviewed the person, but missed the clue that was right in front of them? Question everything. And when you feel you have it figured out, question it again. You could be right, you could be wrong, but satisfy yourself on the matter, and what other think, well, que sera, sera. Good day, XC, mon ami.  :Smile:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Thanks for your response Pen. I have no objection to your kind of belief. I was referring to belief in the entirity of the creation myth as portrayed in the bible/torah. It is why I included the word 'fundamentalist' in my question. I agree with you entirely about questioning everything. I even question whether I should be questioning!  :Nod:

----------


## RJbibliophil

> If we work from the hypothesis of God creating everything but do not limit the creation process to a seven day period, but rather however long was required, and allow for time for God to watch His experiment progress, things make more sense in believing both evolution and creation.


If we are assuming the truth of the Bible, and it is the most historically accurate book of all time, it is actually extremely reasonable to believe the world was created in 6 days. Notice that in Genesis 1, it says God created plants on the third day, and the sun, moon and stars on the third day. It would be logical to assume that plants could not survive very long without light. Also, it is stated at the end of each day, "and there was evening, and there was morning-the first day"(and so on). 
I believe very strongly in the truth of Christianity, and that the world is a mere 6,000 years old. I believe the flood accounted for many of the dramatic changes in the earth. I do admit that unitarianism and the slow processes of change have been happening, but that they have only been a small part in the transformation of the earth. Although some mutations and evolutionary processes have been experimented with, they are usually useless if not harmful. As far as I have seen, evolution and random beginnings to our world do not have much evidence. I am inclined to think that evolution as a beginning for the earth had more evidence when Darwin first invented it than right now. If you are wondering how a scientific theory can be wrong, keep in mind that the geocentric universe.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I am not wondering how a scientific theory can be wrong - all they ever are are 'best guess' approximations. What I am wondering is how you can cling to a far shakier belief than any proposed by science without questioning it. The world is billions of years old not 6000. The light from the edges of our own galaxy takes longer than that to reach us - or don't you believe in the speed of light and relativity? after all, it's not mentioned in the bible is it? Which is good news for us all because it means atomic weapons can't possibly work! Please tell the good news to the people of Hiroshima.

----------


## toddhill

Just found this in an article online. 

"Antony Flew, an 81 year-old British atheist-philosopher who for more than 50 years avidly denounced God, creationism, and Christianity--in defense of Darwins theory of evolution--has declared he is now a believer in God. His acknowledgment has staggered the scientific community. Flew is the author of scores of books and academic articles opposing Gods existence, including Atheistic Humanism and Darwinian Evolution. Renouncing his error, he now endorses sciences Intelligent Design Principle, IDP, as the explanation for the origin of the Universe. Dr. Flew has joined the ranks of numerous other world-class scientist-philosophers who believe that God is the Creator and master intelligence behind the cosmos. IDP, which, in another expression is known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, declares that the inter-working complexities of our Universe--and of life on our planet--are too numerous to co-exist by evolutionary chance. Instead, they have been deliberately designed by a Supreme Intelligence."

Thought it was interesting. Todd

----------


## Virgil

> --and of life on our planet--are too numerous to co-exist by evolutionary chance. Instead, they have been deliberately designed by a Supreme Intelligence."


Yes, that was interesting Todd. I was at a presentation recently where a group of software engineers were presenting a software on systems design. It had nothing to do with God or any connotation to it. It was somethng to the effect of understanding how each parameter and variable goes into a design of a system and how one design parameter of one variable can influence the whole system. Their example was with an airplane jet engine. What was particularly interesting was that the software calculated the odds of the engine coming together by chance, and that was something over 7 Billion to one. My memory of the details is fading, but it was I think as if someone ignorant of jet engne design sat down as said he would randomly pick variables and paramenters and come up with the correct solution. Now an jet engine is subtle and requires finesse, but it is no where as complex as a human being, with the workings of the mind and various biological sub-systems. Who can even aproximate the odds of such complexity coming together. Or even evolving from a simple cell. To me that is more signalling of an intelligent design than just random chance. Flew came to the same understanding that I and other scientifically minded people come to. Now that doesn't mean i don't believe in evolution.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Despite the rumours flying around, I would hardly consider Flew's position to have shifted as radically as the God-lobby would like to believe.

See here.

----------


## Virgil

I had never heard of Antony Flew before. Here's an excerpt for wikipedia:




> While an undergraduate, Flew attended the weekly meetings of C. S. Lewis's Socratic Club fairly regularly. Although he found Lewis to be "an eminently reasonable man" and "by far the most powerful of Christian apologists for the sixty or more years following his founding of that club," he was not persuaded by Lewis's argument from morality as found in Mere Christianity. Other philosophical proofs for God's existence also fail, according to Flew. The ontological argument in particular is false because it is based on the premise that the concept of Being can be derived from the concept of Goodness. Only the scientific forms of the teleological argument impress Flew as being decisive.[1]
> 
> In God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984), Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach, though he has been persuaded in recent years that such evidence in fact exists, and his current position appears to be deism. In a December 2004 interview[2], he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins.
> 
> On several occasions, apparently starting in 2001, rumours circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism. Flew refuted these rumours on the Secular Web website.[3] In 2003, he signed the Humanist Manifesto III.
> 
> In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Flew's friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published in Biola University's Philosophia Christi, with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title.[4] According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist [5], and the interview took place shortly thereafter. Then the text was amended by both participants over the following months prior to publication. In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings."). Flew states that certain philosophical and scientific considerations had caused him to rethink his lifelong support of atheism. However, it is clear from the interview that Flew is not comfortable with either Christianity or Islam.
> 
> Flew's conception of God as explained in the interview is limited to the idea of God as a first cause, and he rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact. He is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[6]
> ...

----------


## toddhill

Thanks for that, Virgil. Seems like Flew doesn't know what he himself believes. Hope he figures it out. Have any of you heard of the string theory proposed by Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist of Stanford University? A strange one to be sure. Here is a quote from a periodical I read recently, "At the end of an interview in New Scientist, Susskind is asked--if his theory is ultimately not borne out--'Are we stuck with Intelligent Design?' And Susskind gives a candid answer:

'I doubt that physicists will see it that way...I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now, we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the Intelligent Design critics. One might argue that a hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as Intelligent Design.'"

At least he was honest.

I'll be interested to see the book Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is coming out with called The Language of God. Apparently he also is an intelligent design proponent. Todd

----------


## Virgil

> 'I doubt that physicists will see it that way...I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now, we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the Intelligent Design critics. One might argue that a hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as Intelligent Design.'"


In all fairness to Flew, we all struggle with this. At various times of my life I swung on both sides. There is one thing I could quibble with Flew, here let me quote it:



> In God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984), Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces.


Well, why is that. Granted, on his side of the ledger there is no empirical evidence of God. But on the other side of the ledger, there is thousands of years of belief, there is a wide spread belief in some form of diety across the overwhelming majority of cultures, and there is the statistical inductive argument (which is what convinces me) that I presented above. If Flew thinks he can declare that he will win a million to one odds lottery on a given night then he is correct on where the burden is. But frankly given the *BILLIONS* to one odds of complex life just happening and correctly evolving, then I feel the burden is with the atheist to explain how humanity won this lottery.

----------


## toddhill

Well said, Virgil. Would it be weird for me to say, "I like your mind"? Todd

----------


## The Unnamable

> At various times of my life I swung on both sides.


I would never have guessed you were into this, Virgil. Shouldnt you post such revelations in the secret identities thread?

----------


## Virgil

> I would never have guessed you were into this, Virgil. Shouldnt you post such revelations in the secret identities thread?


You can't imagine how loud a laugh I just let out.  Thanks.  :FRlol:

----------


## Grumbleguts

> Well, why is that. Granted, on his side of the ledger there is no empirical evidence of God. But on the other side of the ledger, there is thousands of years of belief, there is a wide spread belief in some form of diety across the overwhelming majority of cultures, and there is the statistical inductive argument (which is what convinces me) that I presented above. If Flew thinks he can declare that he will win a million to one odds lottery on a given night then he is correct on where the burden is. But frankly given the *BILLIONS* to one odds of complex life just happening and correctly evolving, then I feel the burden is with the atheist to explain how humanity won this lottery.


It seems reasonable that in a universe that is billions of years old a billion to one shot would come up once in a while. Especially when you multiply those billions of years by all of the days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds in them and all of the billions of galaxies, stars and planets upon which those milliseconds are played out, then it starts to look virtually inevitable.

----------


## Pendragon

> But frankly given the *BILLIONS* to one odds of complex life just happening and correctly evolving, then I feel the burden is with the atheist to explain how humanity won this lottery.


Don't feel to bad, Virgil, my friend, when I gave a similar argument about how chance was nigh impossible as the starting point for evolution, people wouldn't accept my arithmetic either. And Math is called an exact science, at that. Still, I will cheerfully admit that I could always be wrong. That is the one thing that one must always learn. 

Cheif Justice of the Surpreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes was once asked to what he attributed his success in life. He replied. "At a very early age I discovered that I was not God." Those are words to live by. None of us are exempt from mistake or misunderstanding. So while we point the finger at others to proclaim them wrong, remember, we point three back at ourselves at the same time. Question what you believe, but if you really believe it, don't budge.  :Wink:   :Nod:

----------


## toddhill

> It seems reasonable that in a universe that is billions of years old a billion to one shot would come up once in a while. Especially when you multiply those billions of years by all of the days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds in them and all of the billions of galaxies, stars and planets upon which those milliseconds are played out, then it starts to look virtually inevitable.


"Nobel Prize winning biologist, Professor deDuve, wrote in a book called Tour of a Living Cell, 'If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one.'"

----------


## beer good

It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.

Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.

----------


## toddhill

Ha  :FRlol: . I agree. But it is a valid rhetorical device (appeal to the expert).

----------


## Virgil

> It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.
> 
> Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.


and 



> It seems reasonable that in a universe that is billions of years old a billion to one shot would come up once in a while. Especially when you multiply those billions of years by all of the days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds in them and all of the billions of galaxies, stars and planets upon which those milliseconds are played out, then it starts to look virtually inevitable.


Hey this is no slam dunk debate. Grumbleguts has a good point. But it's not decisive to me. It could be for others. There are other factors too (such as the scientific notion of entropy, which show that things will tend to disorder if left to their own devices, so what has caused nature to not disintegrate toward chaos, especially life) that go into my thinking. All I want to say is that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate. There are plenty of scientist on my side of the debate, including Einstein. The atheists love to characterize believers as some sort of Bible thumping simpletons. I just feel that is so unfair, and just stymies the debate.

----------


## Grumbleguts

> Hey this is no slam dunk debate. Grumbleguts has a good point. But it's not decisive to me. It could be for others. There are other factors too (such as the scientific notion of entropy, which show that things will tend to disorder if left to their own devices, so what has caused nature to not disintegrate toward chaos, especially life) that go into my thinking. All I want to say is that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate. There are plenty of scientist on my side of the debate, including Einstein. The atheists love to characterize believers as some sort of Bible thumping simpletons. I just feel that is so unfair, and just stymies the debate.


Thank you. For what it's worth, I think that you make some valid points as well. I sincerely hope that I have not been guilty of characterising anybody but genuine bible thumping simpletons as such.

I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time. 

Entropy is about kinetic energy being spread about until things approach a state of motionless absolute zero (a state that can never actually be reached due to the first law of thermodynamics, that of conservation of energy). As an example, the creation of stars would appear to be an example of negative entropy. However the overall long-term result of a star's creation is a net increase in the entropy of the universe. Similarly the evolution of life provides only a short term reduction of the local entropy of the energy contained within that life, the net result of all life when viewed as a part of the entire picture of the Earth and the wider universe is no different to the case of stars and planets, a temporary blip. Things are 'degenerating into chaos' or more acurately into stagnation but the time scales are immense, the currently consensus puts the point at which entropy will affect the formation of star systems capable of supporting life at many times greater than the life of the universe so far, don't expect it to happen in the next few weeks.

On your other point, regarding the sides to this debate and their adherents. I should prefer to see a debate as an open discussion where both points of agreement and difference can be established, rather than as an adversarial conflict. You seem like an intelligent and rational man and I would hope that you would agree with this outlook.

----------


## Pendragon

> It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.
> 
> Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.


BG, your thought there reminded me of how Oscar Wilde once said that the trouble with History is that those who win write it. (Meaning those who win the wars, thus all the messy junk is swept under the rug. A case in point: Jolly mentioned that wars are usually fought over religious purposes. The uprisings in India against the British were blamed on the religious beliefs of the Muslims and Hindus, since the rifle cartridges of the day were sealed with grease made from animal fat to make them more weather proof. They were being sealed with sheep fat, an animal, neither religion objected to, but rumors got around that they were sealed with beef and pork fat. No Hindu would defile himself with the beef fat, and no Muslim with the pork fat. War ensued. What was swept under the rug was British imperialism that put the British there in the first place. They came after the wealth of India, just as they went to South Africa for diamonds, and the USA ran Native Americans off their land for gold and silver, or oil. But History records the Sepoy Uprising, The Boer War, and Custer's Last Stand because the people who won wrote it. What would the people on the other side call it? Ask a true Southerner in the USA about the Civil War. It seems that many recall it as the War of Northern Aggression, and the term "Carpetbagger" still leaves a bag taste in the mouths of the Deep South. But then, we lost the war.

----------


## beer good

Pendragon: good point, though one might argue that the winner being the one writing history does not _necessarily_ mean the loser's version is always the correct one. Occasionally, one side wins simply because it has the better arguments, be they made of words or lead.

But that analogy aside, like I said, I'm not really looking to get into this argument since I really cannot see myself adding anything; I'll gladly admit that I'm as close-minded about creationism as I am about astrology, flat earth theory and the idea that Oswald got set up by the FBI. Yes, there are some things science has not _yet_ been able to explain fully, but if the alternative is the idea of an omniscient being snapping its metaphysical fingers and willing life into existence - to me (and I want to stress TO ME) we're entering fairytale land right there. 

All I wanted to say with the above statement - which probably came at the wrong point in this thread - was that a few people in this thread and others on the subject have constantly pointed out what they see as flaws in the scientific method itself, arguing that believing in science requires just as much of a leap of faith as, say, God building Eve out of a rib. Yet they still use parts of it - carbon dating or whatever - to defend their own standpoint. I'm not saying that's what you or Virgil are doing, it was just a general observation based on some earlier posts in this thread. But no matter, I've rambled long enough. Like I said, this thread is interesting, though I doubt it will move me even one inch from the idea that life evolves, the stars don't control our fate, the Earth is round and Oswald acted alone.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pendragon

B.G., mon ami, I did not think you were after me, it was just a comment and comparison, and you are correct, I don't think the Southern stories of the Civil War any more reliable than the "official" record. Bias is bias, no matter who is guilty. And to everyone that posts on this thread, I would like to point out that this reply, posted by *Beer Good* is how a gentleman replies to a statement. Up front, stand by your own belief, don't knock the other man, be friendly. My hat is off to you, sir! May your days be filled with the things you require. God bless.  :Angel:

----------


## Virgil

> All I wanted to say with the above statement - which probably came at the wrong point in this thread - was that a few people in this thread and others on the subject have constantly pointed out what they see as flaws in the scientific method itself, arguing that believing in science requires just as much of a leap of faith as, say, God building Eve out of a rib.


Beer, I have not read the entire thread and don't intend to. You make a valid point. Every conclusion that any of us makes on this subject is inductively drawn. It ultimately comes down to our disposition as to what we give greatest credence to. For instance, the science may just all be an illusion that God has placed for us to test our faith. I respect that. Behind it is a couple of thousand years of continuity in certain beliefs. It is a valid conclusion for some. 

Grumbleguts too is reaching a conclusion through inductive reasoning. Both he and I have put a fair amount of faith in science, and so the inductive reasoning I outline above (I don't know if this is yours, I just put it out as an example) fails to convince us. But even given that we put faith in scence, we still draw different conclusions inductivey. In all fairness to him, he has to (from his point of view) prove a negative. He has no choice but to draw an inductive conclusion.

Those that believe in a God who actively performs miracles and intercedes can point to what appears to be empirical evidence. Grumbleguts will then point out why God performs some miracles and not others, and leads to a inductive conclusion.

----------


## Virgil

> I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time. 
> 
> Entropy is about kinetic energy being spread about until things approach a state of motionless absolute zero (a state that can never actually be reached due to the first law of thermodynamics, that of conservation of energy). As an example, the creation of stars would appear to be an example of negative entropy. However the overall long-term result of a star's creation is a net increase in the entropy of the universe. Similarly the evolution of life provides only a short term reduction of the local entropy of the energy contained within that life, the net result of all life when viewed as a part of the entire picture of the Earth and the wider universe is no different to the case of stars and planets, a temporary blip. Things are 'degenerating into chaos' or more acurately into stagnation but the time scales are immense, the currently consensus puts the point at which entropy will affect the formation of star systems capable of supporting life at many times greater than the life of the universe so far, don't expect it to happen in the next few weeks.


I must say, I wound up spending an hour at work going through my physics book refreshing my memory of the second law of thermodynamics today. I hadn't thought about it for years. Thanks bringing it up, I actually enjoyed re-learning it. Most of my job deals (actually I should say dealt; I'm now trying to integrate electronic components with mechanical parts) Newtonian mechanics. I will respond to your post in a day or so, but (1) I'm a little tired to go into such thoughts and (2) I probably need a little more time to think it out.

BTW, what's your background? I was actually shocked that someone on lit net brought up any law of thermodynamics. I thought I was being dicey bringing up entropy. What's your background? Physicist, chemist, engineer, or just someone interested in science?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

One thing I have looked at from both sides of Belief (without, then within) is that atheists often feel confident about scientific speculation to a similar degree as that at which a theologian feels confident with Doctrine. Does not this confidence often have no proven grounds in many cases? Science is not an atheistic domain - but there is an attitude that is the majority of the confidence bolstering to the atheistic speculations. 

While one may say that atheists do not inject anything into their science, they selectively leave out all factors they classify with what they personally do not believe in. This can in no way leave them open-minded enough to discover all of the now invisible factors in science. If one is honest with himself, what really does he have the right to publicly say he is certain enough about? 

At work once, an anomily occurred in which there was suddenly just enough units of something in a box in which there had just been one too little. My boss had no idea how it could have happened - but his incredulity could not erase the inexplicable. The proportions for time intervals discovered in archaeological digs in Israel exactly match the ones of events described in the Bible. The thing is, while the Bible gives exact years for the spaces of time, the identical proportions of the time intervals discovered in digs are given values by "scientists" that are guessing. The fact of such identical patterns between record and examination should raise questions about scientific dating. Perhaps the earlier you dig, there is some unrecognized factor that apparently increases the sum of years passed with each older layer. If there be any mistake about the size of the passage of time, then the reckoning of time is off, and, if so, then a great factor is misinterpretted, leading to the universal adaptation of all data.

As it is, certain layers are expected everywhere and all dated alike. Why? Because the layers first discovered in France appeared in a certain order. But what about when a layer is missing at a certain site? Do those accounted for still retain the same dating as those in France? In Turkey, for example, a certain layer of soil looked for on one occasion was missing, so the dates between those assigned to the layers the missing one should have come between are also said to be missing, resulting in a so-called "dark age". 

Then there is the whole set of calculations for the ice ages. These were only commenced in recent times, thus, until the relevant observations have been compared for millennia - preferebly through an ice age - much remains sketchy.

----------


## Logos

"Discovered: the missing link that solves *a* mystery of evolution"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...747926,00.html

----------


## Grumbleguts

Mililalil, I am at odds to understand the point that you are making in your previous post. Since when did atheists 'own' science? Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel and Pascal, to name but a few were all christians.

What are the "now invisible factors in science" to which you refer and to which atheistical minds must perforce be closed?

What are these mysterious "units of something in a box"? And what point are you trying to make here?

Carbon dating is by no means the only method utilised by science to age things. There are fossil trees of different ages whose rings show identical patterning to each other, giving a continuous record of events dating back far further than the bible would claim is the true age of the Earth.

Your vague imputations regarding missing layers in Turkey do not change the simple fact that it takes millenia to lay down a single strata and further millenia for it to be compressed into rock. I completely miss your point about recording data through an ice age. 

Science does not have all of the answers but it is growing more complete daily as new discoveries are made and earlier theories are constantly revised. Compared to this, the efforts of the dogmatists to show how the bible can still be literally true in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary begin to look more and more like someone clutching at straws.

The simple fact is that science is based on experimentation that is both predictable and repeatable. I performed the same experiments for years before class after class of children. Every time I put Calcium into water it fizzed. Every time I added an alkaline solution to Phenolphthalein it turned pink. There is no faith needed to believe in this merely an understanding of the underlying principles and the benefit of experience. There is no corresponding predictability or repeatability in religious faith. Pray for rain and it may rain and it may not, strangely with the same percentage of success as if you had never prayed.

Please explain yourself better and if you must give 'scientific' examples quote their provenence, otherwise they fall into the category of hearsay.

----------


## Virgil

> I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time.


Let me just preface this that I don't profess to be an expert on the laws of physics (I studied them in school, but at an undergraduate level), but I am familiar, probably enough to get myself in trouble, but I think it would be fun to explore this, Grumbleguts. I love your lit net name, btw.

For those that are not familiar, the postulate of the 2nd law of Thermo that we are referring to states that nature doesn't move toward order (entropy being the measurement of disorder) but towards chaos. For instance, a tire with a hole in it doesn't blow in and heal itself (a movement toward order) without external energy applied but it's quite common for a tire to puncture and blow out, a movement toward disorder. I chose this analogy because I see it is as a fitting analogy for the universe. I picture the universe of blowing out like air blowing out of the tire, only the time scale vastly different.

And so I'm stating that because life exists some sort of external energy had to be applied in order to create a highly complex, ordered world (earth) and human beings, otherwise their existence is contrary to the 2nd law. I think Grumbleguts is responding with the earth being a sub-system of a larger system and the overall entropy is still increasing. Is that correct? If so I don't see why it would matter? Something caused this sub-system to move toward order or was it just coincidence?

----------


## The Unnamable

> I picture the universe of blowing out like air blowing out of the tire,


Virgil, I thought you were against the use of psychotropic substances.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

The universe viewed as a giant fart - interesting image Virgil!  :FRlol: 

The matter in the universe would therefore be the result of "following through", I suppose?

----------


## The Unnamable

Are you trying to match me for charm?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

A man's reach should exceed his grasp.  :Nod:

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil, I thought you were against the use of psychotropic substances.





> The universe viewed as a giant fart - interesting image Virgil!


  :FRlol:  Come on guys. It was an analogy.  :FRlol:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Come on guys. It was an analogy.


That's a relief! You can tell me and the great nameless one thought you were serious.  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> "Discovered: the missing link that solves *a* mystery of evolution"
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...747926,00.html


I frankly don't know why this would matter. I don't know all the tenets behind what the intelligent design people put out, but I thought they believed in evolution. I certainly do, and I believe so does the Roman Catholic Church. Why does finding a missing link add anything different?

----------


## fatsaint

It has to be evolution[or analogy as Virgil suggests :FRlol: ]. How can the whole human population be created by just two people? Think about yourself in that situation and see if it makes sense.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> How can the whole human population be created by just two people? Think about yourself in that situation and see if it makes sense.


I can imagine that a significant other and I would need to get _very_ busy to create the whole human race single handed (or single somethinged!  :Brow: ).

----------


## woeful painter

> I can imagine that a significant other and I would need to get _very_ busy to create the whole human race single handed (or single somethinged! ).


  :FRlol:  LOL very very busy indeed, like how many kids each day, just to fill up an entire planet?

----------


## Maxos

Hey kids, I cannot see the point of the debate.

You forget that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences.

There is no place for a God, to this gnoseological extent.

----------


## chook

The notion that we, our existance, was the unplanned result of purely materialistic causes bothers me. 

The problem with the idea that our entire existance can be explained without remainder by some event which happened 15 billions ago in blind obediance to purely materialistic causes (nature, the natural world) is that it leaves no room for the very things which we really value. It may be that the universe was formed from some primeval soup at some far distant point in time. It may be that in so forming it has become what it is, in obediance to laws which were themselve formed either at that time or prior to this formation. (But what prior to means in this context is problematic.) I was going to write "prior to this creation". But of course on the hypothesis that our existance was not the product of anything other than material causes then creation is what it most certainly cannot be.

On this view before this event happened there was no time, no matter nothing. The whole show has been proceeding to some future point in obediance to the laws of physics which have are themselves part of the material universe; its organising principles Thus ultimately I am sitting here at my computer thinking like I am, believing as I do, in fact existing at all in every aspect simply as the outworking of some causeless and purposeless event. The idea of freedom that I have is surely then an allusion. My ideas of justice, beauty, love, my hopes and dreams are merely the way the initial event has worked itself out in that point of space time which I occupy. When I say that some parts of the Dylan Thomas poem "Do not go gentle into that good night" are good or beautiful it is simply the state into which certain complex energy, spatial and material relations have at worked themselves. When I say that kindness to the needy is good or exploitation of children is bad all I am doing is acting out my part in the way the whole universe was bound to go, in obediance to purposeless laws. A fart would have been as significant. Both are the end product of the same process.

Now I accept that that in one sense, the idea that all that exists is nature, on one level explains all that we can see or sense. There is no need for God to exist, to create, to plan or have purposes. The material universe, open to investigation to the scientists needs no outside interference. But one part of the universe rebells against this notion. Me, myself. The one part of existance that touches the universe, over which I have inside knowledge, will not accept that life has no more fundamental root than the blind workings out of purposeless nature. 

We read a book. We say that a passage is beautiful. When I read the Count of Monte Christo I say that thirst for revenge the drove Edmond Dantes to destroy his tormentors, while understandable, was wrong. I do not want to believe, cannot believe, that these thoughts are just the outworkings of purposeless nature. If nature is all there is then my ideas of beauty and justice and stone rolling down some lost hillside have the same root cause and are just as significant.

I anyone can live with that then so be it. I cannot and will not. Justice, beauty, right and wrong are just as much part of the the world as planets, chocolates and footballs. Any explanation of existance that destroys the reality and significance that I give to the justice and beauty must be modified.

If there is no place for God then there is also no place for most of the things which really matter.

By the way the idea that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences is an interesting one. What part of physics has done this?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Chook,

I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.

But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.

But on your other point, about the things that matter; surely the simple fact that there are atheists as well as religious believers on a forum like this, discussing great works of written art and their relevance to ourselves(occasionally, amidst all of the jokes  :Wink:  ), would imply that they find just as much beauty and significance in these works as anyone else does? My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.

If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become _all_ that matters.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.


I can't imagine why this wouldn't be terrifying. One thing that needs to be clarified here, however, is whether or not people are believing that they are special and have a purpose because they are scared, or believing that they are special and have a purpose for any other reason. I won't deny that the naturalist postulation that people aren't unique, special, or inherently worthwhile is extremely powerful. 

Imagine telling a person that they are made in the image of the Creator of the universe, that they were personally redeemed through the death of God's Son, and that they are genuine moral agents with an honorable purpose. 

Contrast this to telling a person that they are a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm floating around in an arbitrary hot soup, 3.5 billion years ago. They are a blind product of time, chance, and natural forces. They exist on a tiny planet, in a minute solar system, in an obscure galaxy in a remote and empty corner of a vast, cold, and meaningless universe. They are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.




> But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative?


By no means! Any rational, logical, honest seeker needs to have real and empirical reasons for deciding to believe in, and consequently, love God. The question of God is so important! Something so ultimately and all-encompassingly crucial inherently neccesitates our complete and honest appraisal, not to mention legitimate research and consideration.




> Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand?


It would be. Hopefully, the majority or theists out there aren't believing in God out of dread apprehension of the unknown hereafter. Burying our heads in the sand couldn't be an option, as it relates to something so important. If there is one thing that I got out of reading Emerson (naturalist? I'm pretty sure) it is being honest with yourself. The integrity of your concious mind is something that no-one can take away from you and ought to be maintained.




> My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.


It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.

William Lane Craig debates 

Secular Web library 

One thing that comforts me is that horrendously educated, brilliant, passionate people have been debating God for 3,000 years.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> The integrity of your concious mind is something that no-one can take away from you and ought to be maintained.


Sadly, any idiot with a bullet in his gun can take it away at any time. And you can also lose it through Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, CJD, any number of other diseases, or accidental brain damage without even needing to be killed. Sooner or later, that integrity is going to leave every one of us.




> It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.


You are assuming here that you have something to trade; I certainly don't believe that. There is neither proof nor even a reasonable expectation of eternal beauty, truth, or eternal anything else for us; or any eternity at all for that matter. Our consciousness ends when our brains stop receiving oxygenated blood - that's it. We have what there is here and now; it is ours to waste or enjoy.

Call me bleak; I call me honest. Your hoping for a vague "something complete" is exactly the kind of wishful thinking I was referring to.

One thing that concerns me is that so many otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in glorified fairy tales for (far longer than) 3000 years - I have no idea where you got that figure from.  :Nod:

----------


## Pendragon

Otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in _a lot of things_ that when examined without prejudice begin to crack somewhat around the edges. The problem becomes whether or not the person(s) doing the examining are actually being open-minded. A deeply religious person, (and recall that I am a Minister) can easily be misled down the path of "If I don't believe it, it must be false." This is not an objective viewpoint. It begins by surmising that the person is correct to begin with, so any results that do not match that pre-determined view are automatically deleted. A person who is convinced of the truth of evolution may easily take an opposite view, that no possibility exists that any data has been misreported or corrupted in a way that makes it give a false reading. This, also, is not an objective viewpoint, for science has and will continue to make mistakes. There have been documented deliberate and accidental misrepresentations made while studying evolution. So a possibility always exists either way that a person is mistaken. 

I feel the truth lies with the two combined, and I ask questions about Genesis: Like how would a person trying to simplify the whole process of creation (which he certainly was incapable of understanding himself) write it down for others, for whom oral tradition was the usual way of history? Then, years later, when someone else tries to translate that into another language, did they catch the correct meanings of the words? Was there more than two people, since it never says there were only two of each animal? Was part of the manuscript missing?

With scientific evidence, can we be certain of carbon dating? Does the pieces of skull actually mean a whole race, or one creature? Does the scientific drawing really match the completed skull, or is it forensically impossible? Can you build an entire creature upon one tooth? What about data that doesn't seem to fit, such as human footprints fossilized along with dinosaurs footprints? Haven't we all seen people who look somewhat, if not exactly, like cavemen?

I am not trying to shake anyone's faith. I just ask be more objective.  :Wink:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Pen,

We can be certain enough about carbon dating to be quite sure that the world is far older (approximately 500,000 times older) than the 6,000 years claimed by a literal reading of Genesis. I was referring to this kind of fairy story above, not belief in general. Besides, carbon dating is not used for dating inorganic material, radioactive decay of trace elements is utilised for that purpose. But still, though both of these methods are not 100% accurate, they are certainly not out by a factor of half a billion!

A piece of skull means that a creature once lived with that skull - if that skull is unlike any creature alive today, it implies that there was a race of creatures with skulls such as that. Are you suggesting that the skulls of tyrranosaurus that have been found are actually skulls of an existing creature that were misidentified? And while you may not be able to reconstruct an entire creature from a single tooth, you can extrapolate it's size and certain of it's features. As an example, fossilised shark's teeth have been discovered that are many times the size of those in any shark today; would you suggest that these fell from the mouth of a deformed specimen of a great white, or that there was a prehistoric species that was far bigger than anything alive today at some time? Take a look. 

I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)

My belief in the validity of scientific method is _not_ faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.

----------


## Pendragon

I figured if I got a response, it would be from you, XC, mon ami. We will not argue, as you once told me that you respect my beliefs, I also respect yours. So we have no quarrels, just different oppinions--Hey, I guess that makes us humans!  :Smile:  




> Pen,
> 
> 
> A piece of skull means that a creature once lived with that skull - if that skull is unlike any creature alive today, it implies that there was a race of creatures with skulls such as that. Are you suggesting that the skulls of tyrranosaurus that have been found are actually skulls of an existing creature that were misidentified? And while you may not be able to reconstruct an entire creature from a single tooth, you can extrapolate it's size and certain of it's features. As an example, fossilised shark's teeth have been discovered that are many times the size of those in any shark today; would you suggest that these fell from the mouth of a deformed specimen of a great white, or that there was a prehistoric species that was far bigger than anything alive today at some time? Take a look.


I must disagree with you, and say only that the skull fragments mean one such creature existed. It may have been a freak of nature as easily as a new species if only one is ever found. If one discovered the skeleton of say, The Elephant Man, and all they had was fragments of the skull, they might easily mistake it for another race of man. Or Andre the Giant, with his 48 teeth, not to mention his huge size. Or the world's smallest woman, who now stands 25 inches high and weighs 14 pounds at age 39. It could be another race, I am not saying it cannot be. And it could be just one creature, with a deformity. *Chuckle* Ever see Professional Wrestler "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan? There's a living Neanderthal for you!  :Smile: 

I won't refute the huge shark, I am well aware of its existance at some point in time, and as the ocean is very deep and wide, who knows, it may still be out there, somewhere. Misidentify a Tyranosaurus skull? No. But the Smithsonian DID fake parts of the triceratops skeleton for more than 90 years, which caused scientific drawings of the creature to be wrong. What happened was the skeleton was about 85% complete. The feet were missing, and various other bones. So they put Duckbill feet on it and scavanged bones for the missing ones. With the development of CGI, they decided to enter all known data and produce a CGI Tricereatops. Using that as a model, they then could recreate the bone structure. As I say, sometimes things get mixed up and sorted out later. Peking Man is another example.




> I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)


 I am afraid you would not. Unfortunately for people who should definately know better, the fossils are housed in a museum that devotes itself to disproving evolution. Bad move. Had I found such evidence in the fossil beds on the mountains where perhaps only I know, I would have invited the world to come and view them, so that people could rule out fakery at once. These people did not chose to do so, and so that is exactly what people will say. Some people never learn about how to preserve evidence if you wish it to be accepted.




> My belief in the validity of scientific method is _not_ faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.


Well, you have to accept that what you have learned about the Scientific Method is truth, and I am not really sure how you personally would test that. To me, and remember, I am always ready to admit I could be wrong, that takes at least a bit of faith. As I said in a fomer post, God resists proof, so belief requires faith. I find trouble with blind faith, however. I think questioning is the only way to learn anything. I don't toss my science books out because I believe in God. I am far too courious about this world for that!
 :Nod:

----------


## Jay

> It may have been a freak of nature...


Isn't 'freak of nature' supposed to mean 'one of a kind'? My point, if I understand what you're saying, there'd be too many freaks of nature in the past.

----------


## Adelheid

Here's a request:

Could somebody kind enough and knowlegeable enough PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain the theory of evolution, what it actually is. Somehow, it tends to get mixed up with what people believes it means and all the other things. Who would volunteer to do that? Anybody?

And then, I could help to write out the creation explained in the Bible. No more and no less. From there on, we can understand what people is talking about, or referring to. I must confess sometimes I get lost.  :Biggrin: 

Hopefully after this, it will help a bit.

So... who's going to volunteer and help me with the evolution part? I don't know enough about it to give a good background. Besides, I'd be too biased.  :Biggrin:  We need someone who doesn't get too biased easily.

----------


## whatsthebeef

Adelheid.....
The theory of evolution is the process of change over geological time. This change can affect many things, from physiological appearance, to cultural evolution.
Most of people's thoughts on evolution are concerned in the evolution of mankind, but as has been pointed out by previous posts, evolution is not as cut and dry as that.

The process of evolution is affected, sped up or slowed down, by a number of factors, namely, the desires of reproductive dependants - i.e., in a group of animals who rely heavily on competition for mates, where more males of the species exist than females, this leads to female selection, so evolution will be affected by the needs and wants of the females of the species.
This is not to say that evolution only operates and exhibits itself when women are unhappy about their men!! 
There is also the utilitarian aspect to consider, the best example I've heard is put across by use of the relationship between male and female long tailed wrens - accepting that the theory that a male wren's tail is so decorative, solely for the use of attracting a mate, and accepting what was proposed earlier, about feminine selection, the wrens tail should in theory grow to the end of time.
From a utilitarian perspective, this obviously cannot happen, as the bird would not be able to fly, so evolution has to balance between the two. Generally, the exhibited feature would be found to be the average of the two aspects.
There are other aspects which will affect evolution, for example, parasites will have a large role to play in selection and change.

The most interesting fields of evolution I find are those that are exhibited in a social or cultural environment. For example, one of the reasons I believe the world has managed to cope with such unsegregated societies, as compared with how segregated the world was only a hundred years ago, is the evolution of man's ability to empathise. Granted, a lot of this has come from education and understanding, but I feel that evolution is still ongoing within our own minds, as well as physiologically, and it is here that we will see the most evolutionary progress over the next hundred years or more.

So in short, evolution is a strive for efficiency and stability with an organisms surroundings, and is affected by it's surrounding environment, organisms, physical ability and sexual tendencies, and also is affected and driven within the human mind, and can be expressed in the form of human culture.


From this you could think that I am incredibally biased for evolution, and I admit that I am, in a way, however, only because religion never answered any of the questions I had to ask. However, I don't HATE religions, as I feel it has had a large part to play in the world today, and would be surprised if religion itslelf has not affected the process of human evolution over the few thousand years that human kind have had a religion of sorts. Personally, i don't think what you believe is important, not as much as belief itself.

----------


## Pendragon

> Isn't 'freak of nature' supposed to mean 'one of a kind'? My point, if I understand what you're saying, there'd be too many freaks of nature in the past.


Hi Jay. And I just said the words "may have been". Wiggle room. Maybe. Maybe not. But if only one of the lineup of the descent of man figures could be a "freak of nature", then while it would not disprove evolution, it would make us more cautious in our work of identifing fossil records. This is not from a religious site but from the Wikipedia: 




> Java Man was one of the first specimens of Homo erectus to be discovered. It was originally given the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugène Dubois. The word "pithecanthropos" was derived from Greek roots and means ape man.
> 
> Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342-page report written shortly after the find throws much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the Java Man is still found in many textbooks today.


In this we see that a mistake was made, reported, and acknowledged, for which I salute the scientific community, they are only human, and these things happen. They tried to clear the mess up. But Java Man still appears in many textbooks to this day. Now I would think a 342 page scientific report a good refute of the find. Evidently, most scientists agree. Why does it keep slipping into the textbooks? Who knows?

With the tangled mess that religous people can make out of things, I would be the first to say that the creationist camp could hardly point fingers. I know many preachers who won't even speak to each other while claiming to believe the same Bible. You'll find that if I am anything, I am fair. I won't take sides, even if I believe in God, I believe in right. I still think it takes both to make sense of this old world. A creator and evolution work together.

----------


## chook

> Chook,
> 
> I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.
> 
> But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.
> 
> But on your other point, about the things that matter; surely the simple fact that there are atheists as well as religious believers on a forum like this, discussing great works of written art and their relevance to ourselves(occasionally, amidst all of the jokes  ), would imply that they find just as much beauty and significance in these works as anyone else does? My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.
> 
> If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become _all_ that matters.


I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.

I agree that believing in the existence of God merely because we don't like the alternative would be a very weak position. It is true that I do not find the alternative very attractive. But it is not merely a matter of taste or emotion. (Though it is that also.) Any theory which attempts to explain our existence or the existence of a universe such as the one we find ourselves in has to be able to give an account of the real universe, not a subset of it. I agree that a resort to nature as a total explanation of our exixtance may be able to explain the existence of the natural world. But my experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought are as much a part of my existence as are the sun the moon and the stars. Any explanation of my world which precludes an explanation of the existance of the significance that we find in these other things is at best incomplete. I do not say that the naturalist position is totally wrong. I am sure that there is much truth in it,but it cannot be all that there is.

Or if we were able to show that the the naturalist position was actually the whole truth, then we should at least face up to the consequnces of it. If when I say that the abuse of children is wrong, then all that is happening is that some complex arrangement of space,time,matter and energy has come into play then let us at least stop acting as though it had significance. We might still continue to use the words right and wrong, should and should not, but we should at least be aware that as we do so we are merely giving vent to steam, complex steam, more complex but of the same sort as the emissions of a volcano. We might still go on doing good (or evil) but we must realize that at the core these words have been emptied of any meaning. By good I would simply mean that my collection of atoms and energy reacted in a certain fashion to the actions of your atoms and energy, no different than a collision between billard balls. It is no good saying that there are some wicked theists and good atheists. The words good and bad have a natural, physical cause. We would be better to use the words convenient or inconvenient. Furthermore it seems to me that an acceptance of the fully naturalist position also destroys the very possiblity of rational thought. But that is to much for this forum and I will not debate it here.

Though then you may disagree with my views I hope that you see that it is not entirely a matter of taste. I want an explanation of existence that includes all of my universe. Either much of what I thought was real was actually an illusion and I need to radically change the way I see the world. Or ultimate reality is more than mere nature.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Chook,

You made some good points but (as always, I'm afraid  :Wink:  ), I have a few points to make.




> I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.


My belief is that _to all of us_ this is all there is to enjoy. Of course you have the right to differ. My only regret is that, assuming for a moment that I am right, there will never be an opportunity to say, "I told you so!"

I am not at all sure that what you are describing is the naturalist viewpoint. It reads closer to the existentialist viewpoint to me. Knowing that "experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought" are merely the result of the passage of electrons in my brain in no way invalidates them, nor makes them any the less worthwhile from my perspective; these kinds of experience are what makes life worth living to all of us, it is invalid to claim them as the sole preserve of the theist.

On good and evil, lack of credence in the existence of a deity has no bearing on empathy either; causing pain deliberately for selfish motives is as abhorrent to me as I am sure that it is to you. Added to this, is the rationalist approach that treating other people well is likely to be reciprocated. Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved!  :Brow:  )

And on your final paragraph; of course it is not a matter of taste - there _is_ a right and a wrong answer out there somewhere. It is a matter of deciding what one personally believes and, importantly to me, why one believes it.

----------


## chook

"Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved! )"

Xamonas Chegwe
I think that we would be both very surprised to find how little difference that there is between what we would both describe as 'morally correct" actions though you might not use the same words to describe such actions. I have heard the words 'appropriate and inappropriate" also used in this context. Atheists of good intent are no more or less prone to good or bad behaviour than anybody else. It is misconceived pride by some on myside of the debate that causes some of us to talk at times as though a belief in God of itself somehow made us better people. I could wish it were true but I know full well it does not. There would of course be some differences in what we considered a good or bad action, but not so much as you might imagine. There are as many varieties of theists as atheists. For myself and I am not so unusual, I have little time for simply religious duties, such as not working on Sundays. Certainly, if you believe in the sort of God that I do, then there will be time for worship etc but these are a personal matter. If you were my neighbour I suspect that my mower would be safe from theft and that you would find me a very normal chap who happens to like football, timber and poetry. It is the fanatics on both sides that give the problem. That is not to say that I believe that it makes no difference in the end what side you come down on. If ultimate reality is what I believe it to be then to reject this is to miss the point for which we were created. But you are right, whatever may be the case neither of us will get the chance to poke out our tongue and say I told you so! 

I will do some research on existentialism. Maybe that is what I was describing.

----------


## Pendragon

Wow. You take some time off and threads almost disappear. I thought this a bit funny. People often do not take too well to opinions different from their own, and will even ridicule them. So here's something to think about**:

People laughed at Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin.

People have laughed at every religious leader there has ever been.

None of this helps to prove them right or wrong.

People also laughed at The Three Stooges!

----------


## RJbibliophil

Were you not leaving Pen? I don't suppose this is the right place to discuss tolerance, but, although we should be open to new ideas, and carefully consider them, we need not accept everything as right, and we can say why we do not agree.

----------


## Pendragon

Sorry to see me back, my dear little Piglet? I'm not saying anything about people not being able to disagree or think for themselves. I'm simply saying that when you do so, do it with a logical, straight forward approach without snide remarks. The rightness or wrongness of a belief will never be taught to anyone simply by laughing at them, and telling them they are wrong. An understanding of the other man's viewpoint may either solidify or cast doubt upon your own belief. In the meantime, have a nice day!  :Smile:

----------


## WhimsySA

I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!

----------


## Scheherazade

> I voted for creation.
> I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!


Well... When you come to think of it... The idea of having descended from a man who could not say no to _an apple_  is not very flattering either!

----------


## AimusSage

Although I don't really want to venture deep into this battlefield, I will mention that I did not come from a monkey either, but still accept the theory of evolution. 

Just because my Grandgrand x10000 father was a 'monkey', doesn't mean I came from one, my father is homo sapiens, and so is my mother.

Then again, I wouldn't so easily refuse an apple offered by Eva either.

Anyway, time for a tactical retreat to safer pastures.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I voted for creation.
> I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!


No, but many of your ancestors were something that, if you saw it, you would call it a monkey. And before that, your ancestors were probably some sort of slime.

"Apemen are not proud of their ancestors, and never invite them round for dinner"
-Douglas Noel Adams

----------


## The Unnamable

"The only reason why God created man is because he was disappointed with the monkey."

Mark Twain

----------


## Pendragon

> "The only reason why God created man is because he was disappointed with the monkey."
> 
> Mark Twain


Twain did have a way with words, didn't he?  :FRlol:  

I read where he also said "Man is the only animal that wears clothes--or needs to."

I also read a quote by someone, seems like it was a line in a movie: "Man is the only animal smart enough to build the Empire State Building, and stupid enough to jump off of it!" 

Note: The above line containing the word "stupid" is not personally directed towards anyone. It is simply a quotation. Thank you.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I read where he also said "Man is the only animal that wears clothes--or needs to."
> 
> I also read a quote by someone, seems like it was a line in a movie: "Man is the only animal smart enough to build the Empire State Building, and stupid enough to jump off of it!"


I like the second one but the first one I've seen as "the only animal that blushes - or needs to."  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pendragon

> I like the second one but the first one I've seen as "the only animal that blushes - or needs to."


I do believe you are correct! How embarassing! And my favorite author...  :Blush:

----------


## Pendragon

If you will recall, I've always said that I fully intend to be fair, if I am nothing else. I made a compelling case about how cross-breeding animals resulted in larger, stronger beasts, but they came out infertile and could not reproduce. Examples would be the mule and the liger.

I recentlly learned of a natural cross-breeding that happens among bears; specifically polar and grizzley bears. It doesn't happen often, and I woundn't want to run into one of these babies, but it seems they are fertile, and can reproduce. The only reason we don't have a new species of bear is because I guess two of the opposite sex have not yet managed to meet. So it seems that in certain cases, a new species can and will develop given time. We may see this one during my own lifetime, who knows?

Boy, here's a thought. What if the polar bear fancies a Kodiak as a mate? That would be getting back to the old Cave Bear size!

So you see, when I find something interesting to pass along even if it shoots down one of my ideas, I am not slow to say that I was wrong. Who really knows what's out there anyway? God bless.  :Wink:

----------


## Arethusa

I'm of the mind that creationism, and the evolution of whatever was created are two totally different things. Big bang, I don't buy it. That all these factors came together in our vast and possibly infinite universe and lined up by sheer happenstance to form a planet where we can even survive, and yet I can't manage to guess the lottery numbers...it's just a bit much for my mind to grasp.

After reading all the arguments, I'm going to wait until the movie comes out before I make a firm decision either way.

----------


## My Word Is Law

I went on another forum and I saw this guy who made a brilliant point. He said that humans have more vertebrae than apes. So if apes evolved into humans, they would have to evolve more vertebrae. I don't know how this could happen through random mutation, but if it did, it would be incredibly painful for the ape-men. They wouldn't be able to defend themselves properly or get enough food, and probably would have died out through natural selection. 

Also, if life spontaneously arose from the dirt, how would this happen? One possible explanation is this experiment. One guy ran electrical current through what he thought was the primitive earth's atmosphere and got amino acids, the precursors to life. The only problem? _He didn't use the right atmosphere._ What happens if you run the same experiment with the right atmosphere that a primitve earth would have had? You get cyanide.  :FRlol:

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> Chook,
> 
> I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.
> 
> But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.
> 
> If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become _all_ that matters.


As a boy in elementary school I went though years of not searching for any religion, but trying to find human-centered psychic power, etc. I had great fears and melancholy, but these in no way had any bearing on my becoming a Christian. I agreed that it was the worst tragedy to wish there were GOD and not find HIM at the end of our lives. I didn't know what to do, but I in no way found solace in telling myself I believed in GOD so lond as a shadow of a doubt oppressed my heart. I sometimes cried myself to sleep as accepting the then seeming likeliness of nothing but a nihilistic hope at best. I also had a sense of GOD at times, but as something I didn't want to rest on just yet.

One day, when my family were beginning, at a neighbor's invitation, to go to protestant "services" (the sect actually did a great disservice to their members, trying to prevent direct Communion with GOD), I stayed home and turned my attention to lust. This was a regular Sunday theme for me, until, one day, without any input from my family, nor from any other human, I, who had thought of GOD (when I wasn't having an agnostic soul pang) as a universe away, and coldly remote, suddenly percieved HIM near, and heard HIS very Words to me. I then, at age 11, cast off my lust from myself, and never had an agnostic moment ever again. It was because I now peacably knew GOD to be real that I had no room in my heart for an empty existence apart from HIM. In a short time, I had such Faith in HIM, that, when my little sister's tongue split upon falling against something, after initially freaking out over all the blood she was choking on, suddenly decided not to call an ambulance, and believed she would be healed at once by GOD.

I placed my hand upon the little toddler, commanded her tongue to go back together at once, in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST, begged the HEAVENLY FATHER to please make this work right away, and recited the Words from Isaiah the Prophet, "By HIS Stripes we are healed". I didn't see at first that it had worked. I turned in disappointment and was intent on rushing into another room to shout at GOD in great anger for not honoring the Faith that told me a Healing was meant then to occur. I had only taken steps about a meter away when suddenly the loud voices in the room took on a new ambience of emotion. I turned quickly to see what I had just sensed, and everyone were shouting for Joy, no longer in a panick. The baby's tongue was no longer injured, and the others excitedly told me they had seen the tongue while it mended!

I also have a nonreligious witness to the fact that his broken finger completely healed in just over 2 minutes from when it was first broken, retaining not so much as a bruise, at our workplace. He thought over it for days, trying to figure out if something other than GOD had healed him on the instant, when I had just happened to be there to pray for him. He said that he couldn't think of an answer as good as that GOD had done it, but that his feelings of fear to raise his hopes are so great that they seem greater than logic to him.

Before I knew GOD to be real, as I now do, I did not think that things were all important. Only good people and sacrificing for them.

----------


## Gallantry

As people have stated before the theory of evolution doesn't really contradict with intelligent design. I believe in creationism but I don't see much wrong with evolution unless it is the only basis and tries to stand on its own. The moral and ethical implications of doing so are huge. To take words from Darwin himself 



> "The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are convictions in such a mind?"


In regards to the post by Xamonas Chegwe I am forced to disagree. 



> If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.


I would say that nothing really matters if you take on a naturalistic viewpoint and leave no room for God. You live, you die, nothing happens after. So...why does it matter what you did in between A and B? If it felt good at the moment its good right?

----------


## Gawaine

*God is Evolution*

----------


## cuppajoe_9

*Explain Yourself*

Do you mean that God invented evolution, or that evolution is a kind of god?

I'm just wondering, because only one of those positions makes even the slightest bit of sense.

----------


## shao

By referring to the theory of Evolution, might I just clarify that by accepting that theory, we are also saying that we agree man descended and evolved from apes? 
I also thought I could point out, if anyone cared to really read up and notice, evolutionism might be a theory that scientists can prove with evidence while seemingly, creationism is based solely on Faith and the Bible alone, but there are also evidences that goes against the basis of evolution itself. We should not ignore them, no? 
And no, i don't think the Big Bang theory is part of Creationism.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> By referring to the theory of Evolution, might I just clarify that by accepting that theory, we are also saying that we agree man descended and evolved from apes?


Yes, although you might further clairify that by 'ape' you mean something that, if you saw it, you would call it an ape. We did not evolve from modern gorillas, for example.


> I also thought I could point out, if anyone cared to really read up and notice, evolutionism might be a theory that scientists can prove with evidence while seemingly, creationism is based solely on Faith and the Bible alone, but there are also evidences that goes against the basis of evolution itself. We should not ignore them, no?


There is no convincing evidence that contradicts evolution that I have ever seen. If you were to find, say, a complete human skeleton in Cambrian rock, that would blow the entire theory straight out of the water, but nobody has done that yet. The idea of 'irrudcible complexity', for example, is not evidence against the theory of evolution, because it is not physical evidence, and because it can be shown how supposedly irrudcibly complex structures might have evolved.

----------


## Pendragon

> Yes, although you might further clairify that by 'ape' you mean something that, if you saw it, you would call it an ape. We did not evolve from modern gorillas, for example.There is no convincing evidence that contradicts evolution that I have ever seen. If you were to find, say, a complete human skeleton in Cambrian rock, that would blow the entire theory straight out of the water, but nobody has done that yet. The idea of 'irrudcible complexity', for example, is not evidence against the theory of evolution, because it is not physical evidence, and because it can be shown how supposedly irrudcibly complex structures might have evolved.


Two questions: 

1.) Didn't Darwin use the term "common ancestor" in describing how man and apes evolved?

2.) You use the term "complete skeleton". How much of evolution is based solely upon a single skull, and in some cases, fragments of a single skull? Are you saying this is poor evidence? You need a complete skeleton? Many fossil creatures are missing parts. Does this prove the creature did not exist? I have stated before that a single skull indicates that there was one creature like that, but you cannot of necessity infer a race. Perhaps the creature was an oddity. It happens often enough. Just thinking.  :Wink:   :Nod:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Didn't Darwin use the term "common ancestor" in describing how man and apes evolved?


Yes, and that is exactly what I am trying to say. We have a common ancestor with modern apes, and if you saw it, you would probably say that it was an ape or a monkey. I mention it because when somebody asks me why monkeys and apes still exist if we evolved from monkeys and apes, I have to strongly resist the urge to yell at them.


> You use the term "complete skeleton". How much of evolution is based solely upon a single skull, and in some cases, fragments of a single skull? Are you saying this is poor evidence? You need a complete skeleton? Many fossil creatures are missing parts. Does this prove the creature did not exist? I have stated before that a single skull indicates that there was one creature like that, but you cannot of necessity infer a race. Perhaps the creature was an oddity. It happens often enough. Just thinking.


A femur would do it, but a complete human skeleton would be a whole lot better. It was just an example.

----------


## Pendragon

Hey, XC, you think I should totally confuse the poor man now? Cuppajoe, it may surprise you to learn that I believe in both creationism and evolution. The first to start the engine, the second to keep it running and develop finished products along the way. So I never discount science, or their discoveries, although I may question them; nor do I discount creation, though I have questions about the hows and timeline. I do not believe time as we count it began until creation was completed. Which leaves a large gap in the timeframe, so I have no doubt the Earth is very old.  :Wink:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Cuppajoe, it may surprise you to learn that I believe in both creationism and evolution.


Not particularly. I know many people who believe that, and believed it myself for quite some time. A reasonably educated believer would most have to come to that conclusion eventually, as the theory that species evolve is about as much in doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.

----------


## Pendragon

> Not particularly. I know many people who believe that, and believed it myself for quite some time. A reasonably educated believer would most have to come to that conclusion eventually, as the theory that species evolve is about as much in doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.


A wise and well-worded answer. You are a man of great integrity, mon ami. You will go far in life. I wish you well. As you say, the conclusion must be arrived at eventually. How one gets there seems to be a question, but the end result is the same. Everything evolves and changes to fit a changing world, with few exceptions. Man isn't one of them.  :Wink:  If we had not evolved, changing to suit different needs, we would all look alike. What a boring world that would be!  :Smile:   :Nod:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Thank you very much, Pendragon, and let me assure you that the respect is mutual.

----------


## qwertyuiop

Jesus Said
"i Am The Same Yesterday Today And Forever."
Man Needs A Constant In His Life , Something That Will Never Fail Him Or Injure Him But Will Remain A Guiding Light To Bring Him From The Darkness Of Disbelief.

----------


## ShoutGrace

I can appreciate your usage of Jesus' words, I think that they are wonderful.

But what does your idea of Man needing a constant have to do with the verity/authenticity of the idea of evolution?

----------


## Adelheid

The only constant source we have, (or I have at least) a firm rock or standard, so to speak, is in Christ and Christ alone. Whatever He did or said is our standard. For example, the Word of God- it is true, because God called it true, and in faith we believe in it. 

It is only because we have the certainty of this fact that we can be sure of everything else. We can be sure of our origin, of our history as recorded in the Bible. Because our faith is in Christ.

Therefore when man doesn't believe in God, they are obliged to find another way of explaining our origin, and our history. We say man cannot rewrite history, but that is exactly what we are doing. We have deviated from the truth, and have believed the lies and deception of Satan. HE obviously doesn't want us to believe God. So he plants half truth (lies) in our thoughts, and doubts. He is using the same weapon over and over again- History repeating itself- as he first did with Eve. If mankind would just place their entire trust in God and in the authenticity of His Word, we would have been so much more well off now. Surely we would've learnt from history as recorded in the Bible, and not have fallen into the same trap time and time over again.

When I see it, (history repeating itself- Satan playing the same trick and men falling for it all the time) I always have a sense of utter frustration. Why can't people just listen to God, just believe in His Word? Why can't they JUST choose to accept the fact that they cannot have control of their own lives and be done with it? I sigh and double sigh over and over again and the degenerated state of mankind. I pray to God for pity and mercy- perhaps He might turn His justifiable wrath and judgment away from us for yet a little while. Then perhaps, just PERHAPS man would see the lovingkindness of God and repent and turn to Him.

----------


## atiguhya padma

How can people be so naive as to believe that religion will cure the world of its troubles? There are over 4 billion believers on this planet, and do we have peace? We have had nearly 2 millennia of christianity and has this produced a better world? If we had all lived for the last 2 millennia according to biblical views and beliefs, we would not have had modern science or technology, and would not have received the benefits from these, and consequently, would now be living in a world far worse than the one we live in now. Disease is by far the biggest killer of man throughout history. The conquest and control of disease is thanks to science, not religion. 

We are, unfortunately, hardwired with the drive towards religion. It is part of the problem, certainly not a panacea. Just look at the Holy Land, how holy is that?

Anyone who believes in the garden of Eden; Adam and Eve; the resurrection; and all that other stuff that appears to be complete nonsense, is more likely to misunderstand the way the world works.

----------


## Dolwen

You are quite right. Religion has not cured the world, will not cure the world, and cannot cure the world. Faith in God is what the world needs, not religion. Perhaps it seems I am being picky about definitions, but I don't think being a Christian is religion. In fact, the word "religion" is used several times in the New Testament, but only one time is it used in a positive way. Being a Christian is believing what the Bible says about God, His sacrifice for us, and resurrection, and accepting the salvation He freely offers us.
I fail to see how following what the Bible says would prevent our modern technology.
Perhaps you are referring to the middle ages, when the Catholic Church controlled much of Europe. Yes, they did try to stop people like Galileo, but they were not following the Bible when they did that. Throughout its history the Roman Catholic Church has put Papal bulls, church traditions, and public opinion before the the Bible. Therefore you cannot blame the Bible for their teachings.
I find it interesting that scientist through history, such as Newton, Pasteur, and Boyle, believed in God. I am not certain that all these men were Christians, but their belief did not get in the way of their discoveries.
I also agree the Middle East is having a lot of problems. Jews and Gentiles both need to put their faith in Jesus Christ to be saved.
I am sorry you think Adam and Eve and the resurrection is nonsense. I think evolution is nonsense. And in the end, both the creationist and evolutionist need faith to believe what they believe. None of us was there when the world began. Yes, there are things such as fossil to use as evidences for a theory, but they are not proof. True science is to be based on observation.
And fossils are not good evidence for evolution. The dating methods(carbon 14, etc. can't remember all the names) have not proved reliable. Live shellfish have been tested by these methods, and should have been "millions of years old" according to the results.
In the end, you must have faith. I prefer to put my faith in God.

----------


## Orionsbelt

Well lots of good thoughts floating around on this thread. I'd like to point out two assumtions. 1) God is somehow not part of the natural world. 2) Not knowing what happens on the "other side" automatically equates to bad stuff. I simply don't think that man ever fell from heavens grip. Perhaps into heaven's waiting arms and having landed upside down does not yet realize know how blessed he is. 

PS I think it was Mark Twain who made the quote about man being the only animal that need to blush. It is in fact a key line in the bible where God asks Adam. "Who told you that you were naked?" If I read this correctly, this is the transition from beast to man. I think that Adam and eve is just a story but that does not mean that there aren't some fun things to find in it. 

Just thunk'n out loud!

----------


## Thorwench

Science is not all that unreliable, and it can, like in maths, even be 100% certain. It is necessary to distinguish between observation and empiricist truths and analytical, i.e. mathematical truths. The problem with observation is not so much the observation but the explanatory theories derived from it, they can, and often have been, erroneous. However, if you can back up your theory (like the theory of gravity) with maths, you can get to a point were your theory must hold, no matter what (if you haven't miscalculated). 2+2 is always 4, even God couldn't make it 5. And since he cannot, does he cease to be all powerful or is God maths incarnate? Everyone can know mathematical truths or such normative rules as "You shall not kill" even if they have never heard about any God whatsoever like the old taoists. 
Observation has done a lot for human kind, we learned to make fire, started to build engines and invented viagra. What did, if you want to be really evil, the bible or similar literature do for us? Didn't it tell us too that people will be harassed by locusts, that there male firstborns will be killed, that blood-sacrifice (Abel) is better than plant-sacrifice (Cain), that the Lord can have fun playing april foolsday with you and your son (Abraham and Isaac), that if you want knowledge (which is certainly something you would want since God gave you a brain, didn't he) you are thrown out of the family home and that you can kill anyone who does not believe the same as you, thus defending Him who is a jealous God. Perhaps the Father sent the Son to correct his mistakes in the old testament. But then, the two are the same, plus the holy ghost of course. And if God made mistakes why would he be a better option than empiricist explanatory theories? They at least can explain WHY people shouldnt kill people in contrast to the ten commandment whose reasoning goes along the line of "because I said so". 
I am all for evolution which contains the possibility of change for the better, because, as it is, it is not a pretty sight. (but an exciting one, I give you that)

----------


## holograph

hehe. always an interesting topic. there is too much for me to potentially write, so I will stick to a minimum. my views are, though confused, fairly simple. "God" [as the idea is called] and science [as the idea is called] are all but the same. We as human beings create these ideas in the same way as well. After all, we createdthe term and idea of God, jsut as we created numbers to so quaintly illustrate that 2 and 2 are 4. In terms of evolution vs creation, I have an even simpler answer. In my op., the Bible (regardless of its religious credibility) is a book of human experience and inspirational/pedagogical anectodes. There is no way that wht it writes existed in literal history, so it should not be treated as such. Just like you cannot dispute that 2 and 2 are 4, you cannot dispute that evolution in some form exists. Evolution DOES NOT say that man and monky are all but the same, hence there is nothing to worry about. If anything, evolution should be deemed positive in a religious individual's eyes--at least we're moving forward. Ah, that's all for now folks. --Alina

----------


## Adelheid

> Science is not all that unreliable, and it can, like in maths, even be 100% certain. It is necessary to distinguish between observation and empiricist truths and analytical, i.e. mathematical truths. The problem with observation is not so much the observation but the explanatory theories derived from it, they can, and often have been, erroneous.


Hi, Thorwench,
Here's an earlier post i posted about Science not being 100% reliable. I think it might interest you.




> By the way, science cannot PROVE anything. The only limitations of science are that it cannot prove anything, is NOT 100% reliable, and must conform to a scientific method. A scientist may come up with a theory, that "explains" evolution, while in the next moment, another scientist might come up with a counter-example, that contradicted the scientific experiment. Of course, we CAN use science to observe, and thus form conclusions, but what I'm trying to say is that even science is NOT 100% reliable, so it doesn't PROVE anything.


__________________________________________________ _______________

Atiguhya Padma,




> Anyone who believes in the garden of Eden; Adam and Eve; the resurrection; and all that other stuff that appears to be complete nonsense, is more likely to misunderstand the way the world works.


I'm sorry you think that way- but certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  :Smile:  For me however, the Bible has something to say about it.

_"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:18-20_

Perhaps after all I AM naive, but I think I prefer to be so in the eyes of the world than in the eyes of God.  :Nod: 




> Just look at the Holy Land, how holy is that?


If the Bible is true- let's just assume it is for a moment, then Israel is God's chosen people, and naturally Satan's enemy too. He would do all He can to destroy that country. Israel is beset on every side by enemies, all doing their best to wipe them out. Indeed, the Iranian President said so himself. Do you then think Israel would sit by watching themselves being wiped out? Of course not. If what you are referring to is their quarrels, fights, etc. Then don't you think they are forced to it? I do. That is what I think anyway.




> How can people be so naive as to believe that religion will cure the world of its troubles? There are over 4 billion believers on this planet, and do we have peace? We have had nearly 2 millennia of christianity and has this produced a better world? If we had all lived for the last 2 millennia according to biblical views and beliefs, we would not have had modern science or technology, and would not have received the benefits from these, and consequently, would now be living in a world far worse than the one we live in now. Disease is by far the biggest killer of man throughout history. The conquest and control of disease is thanks to science, not religion.


Do you know- it's really interesting. I did a study about this subject not too long ago, and studies showed the complete opposite. I'll give you a brief overview and let you determine for yourself. When God gave the laws and regulations to Moses to pass on to the children of Israel in the desert, the children of Israel remained healthy. There is no mention of death in the Bible from diseases UNLESS Israel disobeyed God. Death and disease was used as a punishment. Many centuries later, in Europe, when the Bubonic plague broke out, many people died. In the eyes of the world, it was witchcraft- they believed it to be. This unknown disease, killing so many of their people. The people who didn't die from the plague were mostly Jews. They died for another reason- suspected practice of witchcraft. Because the Jews followed the sanitary and hygiene standards set by God, they were well protected and healthier than the average european who unknowingly promoted the spead of bacteria. The people thought the Jews were the ones who set this plague on them, because less of their people died than the others. So they burnt many 
Jews at the stake for suspicion of witchcraft. 

Obeying God's laws have their rewards. God knows best, and when He set certain rules, it is for our good that we follow them. Perhaps you should read Leviticus. It contains the laws of God. You will be surprised. God knew, and by His instructions, preserved many of His people- when they obeyed them.  :Smile:

----------


## Thorwench

Leviticus also contains that consequential (for the Brits at least) passage: and he who uncovers the nakedness of his brothers wife" and so forth,
I think you cannot take the bible literally, of course there was not much of the black death in Judaea, the conditions for rats spreading their fleas were not all that favourable to the rats as they were in medievial Europe. (the Romans had proper sewage systems, Renaissance London did not). I don't think you can take the Bible literally (although it IS literature, and very interesting literature indeed) but at the same time you cannot say that science cannot prove ANYTHING, this is clearly a false conclusion. It is certainly right that science cannot prove EVERYTHING, but "cannot prove ANYTHING" just does not follow. From "Socrates is a man" does likewise not follow "ALL men are Socrates". Science can prove that if you put certain chemicals together, heat is generated. You can prove it not only by measurement of temperature (this may count as an observation and you don't like them) but by formulae, i.e. by maths. Anyway, as I said, observation itself is quite a good tool and is, most of the time and for most of the people, pretty reliable. You see the hole in the ground and step around it, you see the sable-tooth tiger and take cover (i.e. you are not eaten), you observe that people get cramps and die after having eaten certain berries, so you tell your tribe not to eat them etc. Your tribe survives, others, who may not have been so attentive, do not. Humankind survived by observation even through ages where no one knew about any Christian or other single and sole God. They even survived on observation before they had a concept of GOD (since their language was not sufficiently developed to have such a concept). Man has always created theories/explanations that could make sense of what he observed. God is one of those, not more, but not less either. If this made sense or if this helped you to survive in a better condition than others, thats fine. (of course you say God wants you to be circumcised or not to eat pig-meat in hot climate, because that gives an authority to the rule it otherwise may not have). As an ancient Jew you couldn't say: you should be circumcised because it prevents germs lodging in your private parts. Those people didn't know that there was such a thing as germs). 
What you do with your faith in God (or in anything else) or with science depends not on God or science, but on you. You can believe in God and in evolution, in humans decending from apes, monkeys, small mammals and, in the end, from clusters of carbohydrates. Is this not wonderful too? Is it not marvellous how nature works? I personally don't need a thinking, willing, all loving entity behind the theatre of the universe. If you do, ok, but you still are a highly organised cluster of carbohydrates who has a responsibility towards other highly organised clusters of carbohydrates.

----------


## holograph

Science and Religion are equally unreliable. I do not understand why you cannot, however, find them compatible. I work in a laboratory hehe. I can tell you that science solely allows humans to explain the human experience through calculable means. How would be have medicine without science? We need science to explore the depths of the human robot. Religion has been used as a replacement to science for thousands of years, meanwhile, it is still necessary to explain what science will never be able to. Hehe, science does not offer the meaning of life or its purpose, it just tried to explore every facet of our physical purpose. Now, if you want to go into the string theory, that is a different story.  :Smile: 

oh btw i wrote a poem a while back, and i think it's oddly and amusingly fitting:

..."And I know I am able
To aid their poor plight
But God is Charles Darwin
And Im a termite."

heh think about it.

----------


## Thorwench

oh I find them entirely compatible because religious truth has to do with believing whereas science at least makes an attempt at knowing. You can, I think, prove lots of thinks but you cannot prove the existence of God, that's why all proofs of God reek of doubt and scientific method. (there are some very beautiful ones though, like Anselm of Canterbury's: "and so we believe that nothing higher than thou is thinkable"). But, what I think this discussion of evolution vs. creation is asking is: Is Genesis true? The compatibility of religion and science requires that you don't take the Bible literally. And of course, science and religion are fruits of the same tree. The first shamans were proto-scientists since they too tried to find and to give a comprehensible explanation of phenomena observed. If, however, it would be required to take the bible literally to be a person who believes in God or who is a Christian, I would be a scientist (which I am anyway).

----------


## Dolwen

Hello there Thornwench,
Ahhh!(she screams in horror) MUST YOU MENTION MATH! I am just kidding. I wasn't crazy about math in school, but that's really not to the point.
I, and I hope most Christians, have nothing against science. I am not a scientist, but I think science is wonderful and is compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I do have much against evolution. It is not nearly as scientific as it claims.
This is from Websters dictionary
science-1. a systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation.
I agree with your argument about maths to a point, but not completely. When God created the universe, he created the scientific laws that govern it. 
I have more to say, but I have dishes to wash.

----------


## Thorwench

Hi, Dolwen, get a dishwasher. (it's German humour, never mind) Lets get really philosophical here and let us take for granted: God (whenever) created the universe. Now that things have been created (doesn't matter what things, just any things) there is now more than one thing, they are few, you can count them and find relations not between the things, but between their numbers. if you have * and another * this makes: ** you can call their number "2" or call them "3", doesn't matter, they are just signs. What you cannot change is that there are ** of them. GOD HIMSELF CANNOT CHANGE THIS. Whatever world or universe he would create, there would always be ** unless he only made one single thing. But even if he would create only one single thing, there would be * and nought, i.e. 0. Therefore, there would be ** states of existence and everything would become the same as above. That is why God cannot move beyond numbers. Even if he made only immaterial things, like Angels, you still would have entities, which means that they can be counted. Just like in Sesame Street. 
So, if the concept of GOD entails that he is all powerful and that he is the creator of everything, the creator you have to do with cannot be GOD. To avoid the refutation of GOD you would have to change the concept, i.e. God is the creator of everything but he is not all powerful. Is such a concept of God compatible with christianity? Or you could say, God is somehow numbers and he created the universe (including, but perhaps not only, man) to his image (or nature): which (also) is numbers. This would be nice, don't you think? It entails the trinity 1 is 3 as well as eternity since numbers are infinite. But if so, we can scientifically explain and prove many things, because they have to do with numbers (oversimplified in evolution: numbers of genoms). And by being scientists, we would even follow God's work.
What's wrong with evolution anyway? Why does it bother you? Why do you think you have to take the Bible literally, you wouldn't do with any other text - you would always interpret. The Bible, especially the New Testament, has not been written by God, it has been written by people giving their accounts of their experience of God. The only thing which is supposedly directly from God is the ten Commandmend tables, and they, alas und luckily for me, have apparently gone lost.

----------


## Adelheid

But Thorwench,

Aren't you placing God in a box, and limiting Him? If He created math, numbers and all, He is just as capable to change it as not. He rules it, because He made it. Just as an when an inventor creates something, he has the ability to change it because He knows what He is doing. It's not a perfect example, because even an inventor has to create his invention out of something. God created out of nothing. Also, an inventor only knows so much. God knows everything.

The NT (New Testament) or even the OT is written by God. God gave the words to men to put down on paper. The Bible is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16) Also, the Word of God is pure. (Prov 30:5) God preserved it for generations (even in a pass the message game of 10 people, we could not do as much for 1 sentence, much less 66 books!!!!) It has not been changed, only translated to different languages. Given, sometimes the translation is not exactly the same as the original Hebrew and Greek because there exists no such word in the translated language, but much care has been taken to ensure accuracy.

----------


## Thorwench

Hi Adelheid, I like your inventor example. It expresses the gist of this latter discussion quite nicely. Has, and is, the world not full of inventors who could not and cannot control their own inventions? Even if your were a creationist you must love this, Adam and Eve going haywire and having to be thrown out od Eden.
Anyways, philosophically speaking, and even theologically speaking it doesnt sound right that God created out of nothingness. There was God, i.e. something. If God created at all, he created out of himself and his creation would be the refutation of nothingness. If there had been nothingness outside of God, God would have been quite limited and finite, Since there was something next to him which he was not. Now this is not what you want, is it?
If however God created out of nothingness because nothingness was within him, I don't know what we are talking about apart from nothing. 
If you ask me about putting God in a box, I cannot see why numbers would be such an uncomfortable container. You can stretch in almost every direction ad infinitum but, as always, there are some inherent rules you cannot bend. No one can, not even God. Just like God couldn't decide to be evil or can he? Could he decide to cease to exist? If the answer is no, he is limited, is he then God? Now, I also believe in something, namely that there is a principle that governs everything. But the principle is what it is, it cannot change but it is at work everywhere. I also believe that this principal could be expressed in numbers although we will never know exactly how since we cannot go beyond the scope of our experience and cannot know about what happened before the big bang.
The Bible however, was certainly not written by God, the early Christians held many conventions about what should be in there and what should not. In the beginning, they even could not agree on how to present and how to understand the trinity and even if there was such a thing. They eventually agreed on the version we have now by essentially killing the other Christians who didn't share their opinion or branding them as heretics. The bible texts originate from people who went out to spread the word as they were told. They were more than God's stenographers. The only biblical text, which can be seen as an 1 to 1 account of God's message (received by direct contact/vision) is the Apocalypse. This is what makes the Apokalypse so special. 
Anyway, I greatly enjoy this discussion even if I cannot agree with you.

----------


## Gawaine

It is my understanding that any good theory must be falsifiable. If this is the case, then evolution must make a great theory. Is it 'fact'? Well, despite my relativism, I would say certainly not. There are holes in evolution, it would be silly to ignore them. The 'missing link' is indeed still missing, despite some clamouring to the contrary.

As for intelligent design, it seems absurd to me. A rather last-minute scrapped-together plan by Christian scientists to save face. Again, a theory.

Lastly, creationism. It would take a truely pious fellow to ignore the problems with this one. Whether one believes a divinity created the earth does not negate any one of these creation theories. This one in particular has very little bearing on todays world however. Regardless of whether or not people remember it, it will go down in history along with 'The World is Flat' and 'The Earth Is the Centre Of the Universe' theories of ages past.

Overall, none of the three are 'fact', as another poster mentioned. However, there is far more evidence showing us that evolution is more likely to have occurred rather than the other two theories. Looking at Darwin's evidence, it is certainly not perfect, but it explains much. Again, the idea of 'Why has the missing link not been found yet?' is a troublesome one for evolution, but less troublesome as an invisable father in the sky for me.

----------


## yodan

Did you ever work on a jig saw puzzle and when you're done there are two or three missing pieces? Happens all the time. Still when you get the thing put together you know what the picture is. That's the way I look at this. Evolution and natural selection are on going processes. I find it amusing that some people who deny evolution, and all it's implications, readily take advantage of scientific advances based on the theory. At the moment it's Bird Flu. The possibility of developing an immunization for bird flu derives from the basic idea of evolution and natural selection. I'm much more concerned with finding my missing cufflinks than THE MISSING LINK. It may be missing to some but I'm sure it wandered around someplace.

Regards,

Yodan

----------


## Gawaine

Well, yodan, let me also equivically say that there is no doubt at the scientific evidence of evolution of species. In this arguement, with the possibility of divinity (which it is in our nature, it seems, to think about), there is nothing wrong with the logic of creationism based on the omnipotent being at the head of it (a convienent device, no?).

Evolution has happened. We can see it every day, in peice of nature that surrounds us, nevermind just a few species in another era. Humankind routinely engages in evolution through the course of our species

My understanding of the subject ends there. This thread has gotten me interested in the idea, however. Think I shall have to do some studying.

----------


## Thorwench

Gawaine,
I have a good one for you, it is called "Fly: an experimental life" by Martin Brooks. It is actually about the fruitfly (drosophila) which is heavily used in genetic and related research because it breeds very fast and because all its genomes are known. Although scientific, the book is nicely written and is also entertaining. In addition of paying hommage to drosophila and the knowledge this little insect gave us, it also contains a very comprehensible discussion on the current problems of evolutionist theories.

----------


## Pendragon

I wrote this for the PB&J Band on the General Chat Thread, but since it's in honor of this thread, I'll also post it here. Remember, my friends, this song is all tongue-in-cheek, mean to be not taken too seriously. It's quite an honor to have been a participant in this long-running thread!

Parody of Margaritaville by Jimmy Buffet

Wastin' Away Again Here In Forumville (In honor of our longest running thread!)

Throwing out ideas,
Through sleepy eyelids,
Hoping that we'll find reward for our toil.
And prayin' this evenin'
People are ruled by reason,
Because this thread not pretty at all when it starts to boil!

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
If I started to lay blame, I'd never stop naming names:
But in fact: It ain't nobody's fault.

Some think the solution.
Is straight evolution.
Others think it was a Higher Power out there in the blue.
It's a question that sages,
Have pondered all down through the ages,
Somehow I think we better study again because we haven't a clue!

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
Some might even claim, that the LitNet's to blame:
But I know: It ain't nobody's fault.

We've all blown our cool now.
Got into a few rows.
Some of the ones that we loved had to move it along.
Tell me, is this whole question,
Worth so much stress and rejection?
And did it ever occur to any of us that we all could be wrong?

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
Some people claim, too much study is to blame:
But learning is fine: It ain't nobody's fault.

Yeah, I know. Could have left it alone. So it's my own fault.

 :Angel:   :Angel:  ;angel:

----------


## Steve Canyon

I guess it's been said before on this Forum; haven't taken time to read all. My personal opinion is one I formulated long before I ever heard of Intelligent Design, but that is my belief. To wit: God created, and used evolution as His tool. This is the belief that makes the most sense to me.

----------


## Vedettedujour

I don't know if anyone is still active on this thread- but I'll post anyway because I feel I need to. First off, there are several misconceptions plaguing this debate.

In more recent posts you have used the term 'Intelligent Design' as if it reffered to something other than creationism when, in fact, they are synonimous.

Another misconception that seems a running element from the first to last post is this idea of 'evidence'. Evidence belongs to no specific point of view- it is merely observations (scientific, historical . . .) that can be interpreted one way or the other. So to say that there is more evidence for evolution is an invalid thesis. 

Additionally to say that the Bible is false, is in itself a false statement. The old testament is historically sound (for the moment we will exclude the debated creationist tale) There are even accountings in the Bible that have been long disputed by historians but were, in fact, proved accurate by archaeological finds. 
(If you want specifics on any of this, let me know, I just don't want this to go on for too long right now).

Allright, it is late, I will post again later with the rest, but I just wanted to get some of those misconceptions out of the way first.

----------


## Vedettedujour

More misconceptions. To say that by science you have come to the fact of evolution would be an invalid statement because science is observation. To draw a conclusion not completely and inconclusively supported by the evidence would be unscientific-- and though much evidence exists it will never be conclusive because of the millions (so the scientists say) of years before man existed or was capable of recording history-- anything based on the 'evidence' can only ever be considered an educated guess-- which is by no means conclusive.

Following this logic, you could well say that this must also hold true for creationist ideology-- and yes that is true we also can take the evidence that is available and interpret it to support our view-- which leaves us with a best guess since there was no one around-- however, our beliefs allow us one very important concession-- there was someone there and he did leave a record of what occured. 
This returns to my first post . . . the old testament has been found factually accurate-- and Genesis is a book filled with Historical accounts, not parables or songs, but Historical accounts, which brings us to the much disputed beginning of Genesis, a passage considered even by some Christians to be a legend or myth-- how many history texts can you find that include among their endless facts and recountings a random section of fiction with no preface or explanation. That makes no sense, and these first few books of the Bible, read them if you doubt me, are nothing if not methodical, rational, sensical (at times seemingly too much so) and historical accounts.

Next post-- a different interpretation of the 'evidence'.

----------


## Bookworm89

I believe that an omniscient, omnipotent God created everything. Evolution is just a belief for people who don't want to believe in God. Neither can really be fully scientifically supported: they are based upon faith. To quote Sir Fred Hoyle, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged [through evolutionary processes] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

----------


## miss tenderness

> so in brief: God did it!



cool one,Stan.
again:

on brief:

God did itYes,He did :Thumbs Up:

----------


## ShoutGrace

> In more recent posts you have used the term 'Intelligent Design' as if it reffered to something other than creationism when, in fact, they are synonimous.


Define both Creationism and Intelligent Design, please.

----------


## akfarrar

I propose taking a look at some of the 'revealed' techniques I find in the 'Awake!' special Issue for September 2006: Is There a CREATOR? (Published by the Jehovah's Witnesses - and with a claimed print-run of over 32 million!)

In fairness to the very charming young men who frequently attempt to engage me in conversation, I must say the first page does say: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah's witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists."

With this in mind, I intend here to look at one of the techniques used by the leaflet to counter the accepted scientific explanation of Evolution. The first is:

The Creation of Straw Men:

_Did God Use EVOLUTION to Create Life?_ (Title, pg. 9)

and

*WHAT IS EVOLUTION? One definition of evolution is "A process of change in a certain direction." However, the term is used in several ways. For example, it is used to describe big changes in inanimate things - the development of the universe. In addition, the term is used to describe small changes in living things - the way plants and animals adapt to their environment. The word is most commonly used, though, to describe the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions. This third notion is what is meant by "evolution" as used in this article.* (Box at bottom, pg. 9)

A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponents position (Wikipedia). It can be a successful way of persuading people, but is not actually very truthful  the argument has not been countered, people have simply been persuaded.

So where is the straw in the examples above?

It is packed around the definition of Evolution.

Evolution is:

_"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."_

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
(Quoted : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html )

Two things to notice:

1) There is no mention of the Origin of Life (or Creation if you take the religious view);
2) There is a clear distinction made between the Biological use of the word and other Scientific and everyday uses.

I suspect, judging from the first part of the Awake definition, the writer of this argument is very aware of the slight of hand he (or she) is trying to perform here  No scientist would ever claim EVOLUTION created life  life, and its reproduction, needs to exist before evolution can take place.

I also suspect (but do not know enough to state more definitely) that those many members of the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as Muslims and Jews, who both believe in an act of creation by Divine Intervention and the theory of Evolution would be a little upset at the representation of their views in such a distorted way.

A second straw man is set up in the article: _Is Evolution a FACT?_ (page 13)

*The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

The fossil record documents macro-evolutionary changes in plants and animals.*

(The *BOLD* is in the original  and there is a note to point one, which I dont reproduce.)


The biggest amount of straw here is in the third point.


The suggestion is that fossils, and only fossils, provide evidence for macro-evolution.


This is very far from the case.


Four major areas of evidence exist for evolution in general (including macro-evolution):


the Fossil Record

the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

the geographical distribution of related species

the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

(Quoted from: Evidence of Evolution).


By ignoring what is by far the larger amount of evidence, focusing on (what is perceived to be) the weaker and then challenging it, the article attempts to disprove, in the popular mind, evolution as a fact.


It is worth noting I think at this point that Darwin himself used the anatomical similarities between species as a major piece of evidence and to claim the argument for evolution doesnt include anatomical similarities is downright misleading: But that is the point of a Straw Man  set him up, make sure he cant fight back, then knock him down.

----------


## Adelheid

Hi, Pendragon- I like your poem very much!

You know guys- genes CAN mutate and adapt to their environment, BUT, only to a certain degree.

It is absolutely inconceivable and impossible that a creature of the seas should change into a bird, and later change into a land animal. Impossible, I say! Yet that is what people believe?! It is far easier to believe God created the world in 6 days. But when people don't want to believe, they HAVE to make up some excuse and theory, don't they? Sort of to 'prove' that they are right.

Darwin noted the varied beaks of the same type of birds at the pelagos islands. From there his hypothesis began taking shape. The birds are of the same kind, same type. They didn't change into another 'race'. Evolution claims that- not just improbable, but also impossible.

Most of the 'evidence' found to support evolution are rather dodgy. They can be used to support Creation too. It is the way people rationalize. They legalize what they want to think. They establish it, so that others have no other choice but to believe it too. (So that they won't be the ones left out.)

----------


## Guzmán

> They legalize what they want to think. They establish it, so that others have no other choice but to believe it too. (So that they won't be the ones left out.)


You are talking about the Inquisition; right?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> You know guys- genes CAN mutate and adapt to their environment, BUT, only to a certain degree.


What stops them once they reach that degree?




> It is absolutely inconceivable and impossible that a creature of the seas should change into a bird, and later change into a land animal.


Why?




> Most of the 'evidence' found to support evolution are rather dodgy. They can be used to support Creation too.


Like what?

----------


## Pendragon

> Hi, Pendragon- I like your poem very much!


Thank you, Adelheid, nice to see you back!  :Wave:

----------


## Neovia

Why can't one believe in both of them? It doesn't have to be evolution versus creation; what if God created the world via evolution?

Well, anyway, I'm tired of this kind of discussions. Maybe in future scientists will prove that the world began from gigantic rabbit's **** :).

----------


## kat7

> Why can't one believe in both of them? It doesn't have to be evolution versus creation; what if God created the world via evolution?
> 
> Well, anyway, I'm tired of this kind of discussions. Maybe in future scientists will prove that the world began from gigantic rabbit's **** .


agreed.. one theory does not rule out the other. What gets to me is that evolution is taught as fact, when it is a theory.

----------


## BobbyMacG

Evolution not creation because God is being per se. Aseitas- of its very nature to exist. God was not created. God's nature is as a super high energy atom which splits to form stars which splits into lower energy atoms to form planets and the splitting continues into low energy animal vegetable and minerals. Therefore God is within all matter....all matter is God. 

In my humble opinion.............

----------


## brainstrain

I noticed several people saying how sceintists recreated the condinitons under which earth was some billion years ago, and (after several weeks and several other variables) some kind of life-forming protein was found

I would like to point out that the conditions of one of the more famous experiments (the name escapes me) were not those of our earth some billion years ago, but the conditions most likely to create that life-forming protein.

I believe that evolution is more likely, but i am undecided...

----------


## Pendragon

This thread has certainly come a very long way. We have been through the days when people called each other names, questioned each other's sincerity, and generally had an old-fashioned no-holds-barred knockdown, drag-out fight. Things seem much calmer these days. Maybe we all are finally learning something. That would be this: If you sit down and take a moment to first lock prejudice out of the room, then you can actually discuss things. Oh, you may never reach a point where you are going to agree. But you will suddenly stop seeing the other side as your enemy. A question was asked over 2000 years ago: "And what is truth?" To each of us, it means something a little different. It may be based on science; it may be based on Religious faith, but it has a basis somewhere that is very real to each individual. If we go to the discussion bound and determined that if what we hear doesn't fit what we believe to be true then we will just discard that, how can any of us say that we are entering this with an open mind? What we have there is a doorway that is shaped so that only certain things may pass through, in essence, a filter. If we are going to filter out what we don't like, our mind is still closed to a single point of view. Nobody is saying you must believe anything, but listen to things from different aspects. I have found friends that way. We may disagree a little, but we took the time to listen. It's not all that hard.  :Smile:

----------


## Pendragon

Sometimes I wonder why I stir the pot again, buy I can't help myself. 

We speak so often of experiments in a closed system, when I have tried to argue against chance, and for Intelligent Design. I used Probability Math and a deck of cards, which as was pointed out, does limit the experiment somewhat.

So we will use the Earth and every living person. Now, if we take that _n_ = a positive integer , so that _(n ≥ 1 and ≤ ∞)_, no closed system, and _n_ represents a human individual:

How can chance possibly consistently produce each _n_, so that that _n_ is unique? The human individual is so completely individualized. They have unique fingerprints, footprints, voiceprints, retina-scans, and DNA maps that can be used to identify them beyond any reasonable doubt. It is even said by scientists, that a persons lip prints are unique. There are simply too many factors to trust to chance. This is design, and design so remarkable that to call it anything except Intelligent would be foolish.

And even if the child is born from an egg and sperm germinated in a Petra dish, this child will still have the unique factors. Even a clone would share the unique factors of the host. If we could clone replacement organs, there would be no rejection, it would be in essence that bodys own organs. Just a thought. 

And Intelligent Design requires an Intelligence to do the designing. There is where science and God meet. God Bless.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> So we will use the Earth and every living person. Now, if we take that n = a positive integer , so that (n ≥ 1 and ≤ ∞), no closed system, and n represents a human individual:
> 
> How can chance possibly consistently produce each n, so that that n is unique?


How can it not? There are an awful lot of positive intergers between 1 and infinity.

----------


## Pendragon

> How can it not? There are an awful lot of positive intergers between 1 and infinity.


Quite true. I wasn't taking chances on "you aren't doing your experiment enough" this time! But anything that produces a consistant result is not chance. It is a given thing.  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Quite true. I wasn't taking chances on "you aren't doing your experiment enough" this time! But anything that produces a consistant result is not chance. It is a given thing.


But getting a different result every time _isn't_ a constant result. There are, according to my friend who takes biology, more than 30,000 human genes. Even if there were only two allels per gene (and there are sometimes dozens), that would mean that the chances of producing a randomly selected human is roughly the same as having a coin come up heads 30,000 times in a row, a number so low that I have no calculator within reach that can express it.

----------


## Pendragon

> But getting a different result every time _isn't_ a constant result. There are, according to my friend who takes biology, more than 30,000 human genes. Even if there were only two allels per gene (and there are sometimes dozens), that would mean that the chances of producing a randomly selected human is roughly the same as having a coin come up heads 30,000 times in a row, a number so low that I have no calculator within reach that can express it.


What I said was that it consistently produces a _unique_ person, which means that each thing must come up on the gene chart responsible for such things as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina-scan, footprint, etc, as a unique marker _every time._ That is staggering to contemplate. I could see chance creating a template which then repeats itself ad infinitum, but many things which science has created by accident (chance), would be of great use to us, except that they cannot figure out exactly how the original formula was created. When they can, as with Vulcanized Rubber, the basis for our automobile tires, the accident becomes a great discovery. But then, I will never convince one who does not wish to believe in Intelligent Design, and I do not say that you are wrong for your stand. My major point made long ago still stands for us all. Has it ever occurred to you that _YOU_ could be wrong?, which applies as much to me as anyone else! Nice day, Cuppa!  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> What I said was that it consistently produces a _unique_ person, which means that each thing must come up on the gene chart responsible for such things as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina-scan, footprint, etc, as a unique marker _every time._ That is staggering to contemplate.


Yes, I see what you mean, but I don't think that consistently producing a unique person counts as a consistent result as such. There are so many variables at work that a unique result every time is precisely what you would expect, with or without an intelligent designer rigging the experiment. The number of heads, tails, heads patterns that one can produce from flipping a coin 30,000 times is, according to the cheap calculator softwear that came with this computer, infinity. I've tried to explain to my computer that infinity is not actually a number, but it seems that it is rather thick. And genetic code is only one factor of human uniqueness. Your exampes of fingerprint and retinal scan, for example, are not the result of genetic code at all: but rather are determined and formed by some bizzare process _in utero_, which is why even identical twins have unique fingerprints and retinal paterns. Even then, fingerprints can be changed by events later in life. I, for example, have no fingerprint on the tip of my left index finger, just a mass of callus.

In fact, this kind of variation is exactly the kind of thing we _don't_ see in things that we do know for certain to be intelligently designed. If my computer, for example was subject to that kind of variety, I would be sending it back to the manufacturer. God, however, is usually seen more in the vein of artist than atisan, and could certainly produce unique works each time if He wanted, but, since uniqueness is just what we would expect from chance, I have trouble seeing human variation as evidence either for or against design. Regardless, said variation is, and you could not possibly have put it better, staggering.




> But then, I will never convince one who does not wish to believe in Intelligent Design, and I do not say that you are wrong for your stand. My major point made long ago still stands for us all. Has it ever occurred to you that _YOU_ could be wrong?, which applies as much to me as anyone else! Nice day, Cuppa!


Indeed, I think my more pressing problem might be convincing myself that I might be _right_ before opening my mouth. My very best wishes to you as well, Pen.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Some critiques of ID by people who hold far more PhDs than I do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

This is fascinating lecture by Ken Miller, if you have the time, the bandwidth and the inclination to watch (it is over two hours long). Mr. Miller is the author of the textbook which had the infamous "Evolution is theory and not fact" stickers attached to it, before being presented to students for their consideration. Miller is not, as one might expect, an atheist, but rather a Roman Catholic, although I'm not quite sure that this fact qualifies him as a balanced viewpoint, seeing as the Vatican endorses Darwin.

http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-a...y11122006x.mp3

That one's a bit shorter. It's a Guardian podcast talking mainly about the ID controversy on the British Isles. The speakers include an ID proponent from the Truth in Science group, a theistic Darwinist and an atheistic one, who sounds quite a lot like Sir Ian McKellen. McKellen is, of course, the actor who recently charmed the American intelligent design crowd by being a homosexual atheist who appeared in _The DaVinci Code_ and made smart remarks about Jesus on television. There are side discussions of life on Mars, left-handedness and rapping urban birds. Really.

----------


## Guzmán

Excellent link. The Ken Miller lecture is fantastic. Too bad i couldnt see the whole thing: it is supposedly two hours long yet it only runs up to 51 min?
I cant believe that guy isnt an atheist.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I get 117 minutes, but who knows?

----------


## Pendragon

> I, for example, have no fingerprint on the tip of my left index finger, just a mass of callus.
> 
> 
> Indeed, I think my more pressing problem might be convincing myself that I might be _right_ before opening my mouth. My very best wishes to you as well, Pen.


I regreat to inform you, Cuppa, that you are not unique. Left-index finger? I also have a mass of callus, from a botched skin graft when I got said finger hung in a machine! Makes a good weather predictor, but makes it difficult sometimes to play guitar well!

And you are ever the Gentleman, mon ami. I would that many more were. God bless!  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Ouch! Interestingly, my callused left hand is a result of playing that same instrument to excess. I've met people with the shapes of strings permenantly etched into their fingers, but I'm not quite at that point yet. Most instruments will destroy your hands one way or another, except, for some reason, the piano. Pianists always have beautiful hands.

But I digress...

----------


## Stephanie B.

In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on


No, there are plenty of coherent abiogenic theories.

----------


## Miss Darcy

> In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on


Does it not, therefore, also prove that a recurring myriad of other gods existed before the present one, each creating the next?

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Miss Darcy,

Y'all have pretty much debated this to death, so I won't add to it--other than to say that to me, evolution is fact, and does not necessarily preclude a creator. My real reason for posting is to introduce myself (I just joined the forum a few minutes ago). And to tell you that your Aldous Huxley quote is one of my favorites too.

Cheers

----------


## Stephanie B.

I never specified which god or God it was evidence of and a question for all evolution believers, if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?

----------


## Wintermute

> ... if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?


Hi Stephanie,

I'd suggest that you take this opportunity to learn. Sign up for a biology class at your local college; talk to a biologist; research on your own. The questions you have asked demonstrate your ignorance on the subject. The evidence is there, all you need do is open your eyes and your mind.

But the key is happiness. If your happiness will be diminished by learning some stuff that may contradict what you've always believed, then don't take that step. When you get to the end of your life and look back, the amount of true happiness you've experienced will be all that really matters.

----------


## Guzmán

> I never specified which god or God it was evidence of and a question for all evolution believers, if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?


Try watching the video linked in cuppajoes post a few posts ago, there's an explanation at the beginning about theories and facts in science. 
Still:
Evolution: Scientific theory
Creationism: Religious belief
Should beliefs be taught in schools instead of theories?
Not in my opinion.

----------


## Stanislaw

what is the difference between a belief and a theory? aren't both the same thing?

but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...

and a belief has no facts, is 100% untrue, and cannot be proven...

...I think I believe the same as Galileo, that science and religion are both acceptable. and infact do confirm/blend together...
Let me explain: 

In my opinion, science is a tool that can be used by people to examine and explore their world, and explain what has happened. and religion is the metaphor, or story that presents the facts in a means that is universally understandible. by this I mean, that not all people are "scientists", and need to be able to understand there surroundings...

the problem is with extremes, and the inability to accept that what one is saying is wrong, ignorant or biased. both for religeous and scientific fanatics. 

The thing is that people should live in a balance or harmony, and accept both, because though they are presented differently, they are the same damned things.  :Smile:

----------


## Pendragon

> what is the difference between a belief and a theory? aren't both the same thing?
> 
> but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...
> 
> and a belief has no facts, is 100% untrue, and cannot be proven...
> 
> ...I think I believe the same as Galileo, that science and religion are both acceptable. and infact do confirm/blend together...
> Let me explain: 
> 
> ...


Let me put my spin on your first two statements, as if I'm not always in over my head enough, Cap'n.  :Biggrin:  

1.) A theory has (accepted) facts and is (accepted as) 100% true, (because it) cannot be disproven...

2.) A belief has no (accepted) facts, is (accepted as) 100% untrue, (because it) cannot be proven...

So one is right because you can't prove that it is wrong and one is wrong because you cannot prove that it is right—both are taken on accepted (what science would call "given" facts). i.e. “Given the following circumstances you should get the following results...”

----------


## Stanislaw

> Let me put my spin on your first two statements, as if I'm not always in over my head enough, Cap'n.  
> 
> 1.) A theory has (accepted) facts and is (accepted as) 100% true, (because it) cannot be disproven...
> 
> 2.) A belief has no (accepted) facts, is (accepted as) 100% untrue, (because it) cannot be proven...
> 
> So one is right because you can't prove that it is wrong and one is wrong because you cannot prove that it is rightboth are taken on accepted (what science would call "given" facts). i.e. Given the following circumstances you should get the following results...


I suppose it's just a matter of empirical data...quantity vs qaulity...but...there are some very questionable theories protected, by lack of disproof, and but beliefs, IMO, are the same as tehories...one must believe in the theory or not...both "sides" ( a term I hate since I consider science and religon to be as the same) have theories, with their own concept of fact.

(BTW I am not a scientologist...I just think science and religion, are basically the same things described differently)

----------


## brainstrain

I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of evolution/creation (both seem unlikely to me. I prefer to not think about it.), but my take on the bible is that it is in NO way different from the hundreds of other religious books.

Yes, it has some historical base, but there is no historical record of Jesus. You'd think a historian or two would've noticed a guy going around doing mircales...Many other religious books have that much historical basing, and much more.

Anyway, I like to keep in mind that in the long run it doesn't matter too much what I think on this subject. It matters a lot, of course, to me, but no very many other people.

The main problem with Christians is that they believe if you don't agree with them on anything (especially creation though) you're going to hell. Don't say that I'm stereotyping, I grew up in a conservative chruch, it's true.

Basically both evolution and creation are unprovable, so I personally do not bother get stressed out about it. Which is my philosphy for life in a nutshell: avoid stress.

unless that stress will provide you with food. or a dog. than its excuseable (gah I really get off topic sometimes...)

Ok, i'm done now =P

----------


## Pendragon

> The main problem with Christians is that they believe if you don't agree with them on anything (especially creation though) you're going to hell. Don't say that I'm stereotyping, I grew up in a conservative chruch, it's true.


Not this one, mon ami. I am not God, I am not qualified to judge you or anyone else. My major statement has always been "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" which applies alike to everyone, including myself. Many disagree with me. I don't put them in hell, or of necessity believe that's where they are headed. In fact, I find it a little coldhearted. "God is not willing for any to perish, but that all should come to repentance." "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." Those scriptures mean it is not my choice to make, so why would I make it? That is judgment, which we are forbidden to do. Somehow I think there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, and take into consideration I am a Christian. Many that think they are going to make it may miss, and many that people would throw out will be there. Gods choice, not mans. God bless.  :Smile:

----------


## Stanislaw

Judgement from the church...the religion...or from the "followers"?

In my exp. its not the church, or even the religion that throws one into the 'hell category' but ones own peers and oneself.

I think it is a terrible misfortion to be born a christian...it seems to me that you are destined for hard times...where as if you don't know anybetter...you just sort of get in via the ignorance card...maybe I'm just misreading the situation, but thats what it looks like to me...If anyone knows better (which I am sure someone here must) I would be grateful if they could explain it to me.

----------


## Triskele

the christian church is not necessarily one entirely devoted to religious belief, the ethos of this religion is primarily one of community, to be born into a christian household automatically includes you in a family of love that goes around the world, yes, many of the beliefs if find hard to take, intolerant even, but to condemnt the church itself and the religion seems too black and white, yes the church has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, but name an organization/religion/family/individual that has lived for 2000 years without making mistakes. to be born a christian is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it an especially good thing. it is like all other things, what you make of it.

----------


## Stanislaw

> the christian church is not necessarily one entirely devoted to religious belief, the ethos of this religion is primarily one of community, to be born into a christian household automatically includes you in a family of love that goes around the world, yes, many of the beliefs if find hard to take, intolerant even, but to condemnt the church itself and the religion seems too black and white, yes the church has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, but name an organization/religion/family/individual that has lived for 2000 years without making mistakes. to be born a christian is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it an especially good thing. it is like all other things, what you make of it.


I was thinking more in the terms of doctrine, rather than practice...ie...the fables in the bible stating that the rogue...or the ignorant, or the rebel child/person has a greater chance to get into heaven...maybe I am just being to literal, but that seems awfully unfair...as dose the random, but intense testing.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"but that seems awfully unfair..."

Not unfair, just unfashionable.

It used to be that you demanded/expected higher standards from your own children, because you loved them, than from others.

Nowadays, love is seen as an undemanding mushy slop, that always forgives and never judges. Well, that is OK for breeding jellyfish, but it won't do for the Sons of God.

As Pendragon says, more reasonably, you have to act better than you preach.

.

----------


## mtpspur

My apologies for accidently voting twice on the poll. I thought since the site did not have a mark that I had ever written anything that I had passed it by. But the computer caught it so I think the results are safe. No hanging chads here.

One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.

So the religions of man are fairly well documented in recent times yet the rise from evolution is barely recorded.

Just a thought.

Rich--a believer in the living Christ

----------


## Silv

Before I began forming any decision regarding my choice between Evolution vs. Creationism, I first asked myself if I were able to completely and utterly denounce all the attributes/ideas that either one is advocating. 

To a certain extent I believe in science and empirical observations and discoveries - in other words, I believe that we are in some ways related to chimpanzees. Yet, I'm nowhere near that stage where I can simply accept other theories of evolution that say we were once fish. To an even further extent, it is equally puzzling that such things as the "golden ratio" exist in our world and are found in nature. How is it possible that something so well-calculated and precise could exist? The answer I arrived upon for my question is therefore an emphatic no.

Have any of you chanced upon the above picture before, or its concept? According to Wikipedia: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design (a form of creationism) as an alternative to biological evolution. 

Like Bobby Henderson, it is rather difficult for me to have faith in the thought that a supreme being or deity created us. But it is possible. Our present-day science is gravitating towards the experimentation of life forms, DNA, cloning, and such other similar activities. Who is to deny the fact that humans could easily create a life form, yet a life form not intelligible enough to realize it is a mere guinea pig of mankind? Now take that, and multiply it so that you have an entire civilization of these "guinea pigs". Who is to say that humans and all other life forms in this reality are not a part of something similar?

While earlier I mentioned I could not believe solely in either of the theories, I can, however, believe in a mixture of both of them at once. At some point of time, everything that the universe is made up of had to have a beginning. All these elements, matter, entropy: they had to come from somewhere. It is The Beginning of the existence of such "things" that I found troubling. However, suffice to say, something similar to Creationism seems to explain the reasoning behind how these "things" got here better than Evolution. After these "things" came into the story, I am more inclined to believe in Evolution then taking over. 

As you can see, the above synthesis is only if I were _forced_ to believe that how the world came into being today is a cause of either Creationism or Evolution. But, this is not so. From what we know, both theories are equally flawed and disputed amongst people. We do not _have_ to believe that it was either Creationism or Evolution that brought us to the present. Therefore, my position in this matter is that I neither believe nor disbelieve in either of the two - I believe that a better reasoning for our existence, one that will incorporate the believable points of Creationism and Evolution and have the evidence to back it up, is ahead of us, waiting to be discovered.

(I guess I would be one of the minority who voted in the poll as believing in "None of the Above" - neither Creationism, nor Evolution)

----------


## Stanislaw

> (I guess I would be one of the minority who voted in the poll as believing in "None of the Above" - neither Creationism, nor Evolution)


Exactly...It's impossible (for me atleast) to pin down one idea...

----------


## Stanislaw

> "but that seems awfully unfair..."
> 
> Not unfair, just unfashionable.
> 
> It used to be that you demanded/expected higher standards from your own children, because you loved them, than from others.
> 
> Nowadays, love is seen as an undemanding mushy slop, that always forgives and never judges. Well, that is OK for breeding jellyfish, but it won't do for the Sons of God.
> 
> As Pendragon says, more reasonably, you have to act better than you preach.
> ...


So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?




> My apologies for accidently voting twice on the poll. I thought since the site did not have a mark that I had ever written anything that I had passed it by. But the computer caught it so I think the results are safe. No hanging chads here.
> 
> One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.
> 
> So the religions of man are fairly well documented in recent times yet the rise from evolution is barely recorded.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Rich--a believer in the living Christ


 :Biggrin:  awesome observation...easily justified by...er justifications.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?"

That is one side of the coin.

Paul to the Hebrews, chapter XII:
"My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if if ye be without chastisement, whereof ye are all partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."

The other side is:
"The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

----------


## Stanislaw

> "So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?"
> 
> That is one side of the coin.
> 
> Paul to the Hebrews, chapter XII:
> "My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
> If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
> But if if ye be without chastisement, whereof ye are all partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."
> 
> ...


This sounds like an abusive relationship. Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill."

Well, I'm not going to argue that it is right - only that it is a paradox not to be dismissed lightly. 

Of course I have over-simplified. However, even in the bit that I have quoted there is enough to show that the relationship is not abusive. "joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be gloriied together." Given that most Christians believe that Christ is God, and suffers as god and as a man, it is consistent that humans should share in God's suffering in order to share in God's glory.

That brings us to a point beyond which I have no explanation - I can only suggest that you read Paul's letters to the Romans and to the Hebrews, with a view to understanding what he is saying, rather than looking for reasons to reject what he is saying. When you understand him, then reject him if you like.

----------


## Stanislaw

okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion."

You weren't being confrontational - and my closing comment certainly looks rude, when I re-read it - apologies for that - please take it literally, not as an expression of contempt.

I seem to remember somewhere that you said you were a Roman Catholic. If so, then you should be able to accept the notion that, amongst God's other attributes, He has a capacity for suffering. This idea is madness to non-Christians, but it is an essential part of Christianity.

The implications of God's suffering are far too complex for forum discussions, and they just give me brain-ache. Paul wrestled with the concepts, and you can imagine him beating them into some sort of submission, as he wrote. And all the time, trying to relate off-the-wall theology to every day behaviour.

Anyway, if you are a Christian, you start with the idea that God puts himself through greater suffering than anything that humans endure. So, suffering is something that Christians share with God, not something He inflicts on them. OK - back to Paul, i am out of my depth.

.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:

Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?

To say "rejoice" in suffering is not to say "enjoy" it, or that God wills it. To be told to "rejoice" means that we are being told that our definition of the value of suffering may not be correct - that rather than a time of mourning because we believe something "bad" is happening, we're being told that there is something (however incomprehensible to us) _good_ about what we are experiencing. Christianity is built on paradox: this is one of them.

----------


## brainstrain

> Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:
> 
> Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?


A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it _was_ good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God. 

All this does is show that in suffering, humans tend to get their priorities straight. Those who don't are often referred to as vengeful (instead of grieving for their mother's death, they assume someone killed her and become a...a...*the word escapes me* mass murderer *close enough*).

If, however, that person cannot find a way to deal with that suffering then they try to find something to help them. That is the main purpose of religion: to provide comfort in times of suffering. I won't get into my personal views too much, just wanted to point out your slightly flawed example.

nota bene - good luck finding an example that works with my views  :Sick:  

- If the above post makes no sense, tell me. I have nerotic tendencies  :FRlol:  comes from being a mild Schizofrenic i suppose.

----------


## brainstrain

> Not this one, mon ami. I am not God, I am not qualified to judge you or anyone else. My major statement has always been "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" which applies alike to everyone, including myself. Many disagree with me. I don't put them in hell, or of necessity believe that's where they are headed. In fact, I find it a little coldhearted. "God is not willing for any to perish, but that all should come to repentance." "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." Those scriptures mean it is not my choice to make, so why would I make it? That is judgment, which we are forbidden to do. Somehow I think there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, and take into consideration I am a Christian. Many that think they are going to make it may miss, and many that people would throw out will be there. God’s choice, not man’s. God bless.


>_< you're right. That statement was a bit bold, sorry. I really tend to get carried away. I was in a mood that day, i'm considerably better now  :Biggrin:  

You say all this assuming there will be a Judgement day. I don't think there will. I've been trying for years to fit religion into my view of the world. I've tried to alter my view of the world, but I can't change who I am to please our culture.

By culture I mean the traditions, stereotypes, and general kind of person which follow a certain religion.

 :Sick:  sorry I just had to fend off my mother, shes been nagging me all day...I have yet to figure out what for. something about email...

anway, I appreciate your open-minded view. It has taken me years to break free of the bonds I was bound by through growing up in surronded by people who...its hard to find a word to describe them. Narrow-minded is a good start though.

I apologize if I am rambling, congealing my many thoughts is difficult...

basically, it has not truthfully occured to any of the people i grew up with that they could be wrong, which makes it difficult for me to adopt a healthy view.

And, a general thought to anyone who reads this: never take for granted beign surronded by people who accept you for who you are. Out of the hundreds of people I know...4 know deep the charade I put on for my church extends. Why? because no matter how narrow-minded they are, i love my family, and if they knew just how anti-christian I am they would never understand...

again, I apologize. In my current state I'll pour out my soul just about anywhere. It shouldn't last more than a few hours ^_^

----------


## Redzeppelin

> A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it _was_ good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God.


Right - God is not the automatic "result" of this priority shift, but He becomes an option when we are forced to find meaning in our suffering, because without God, the meaning of suffering, uh, "suffers."

----------


## SoundOnPekes

> One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.


Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it can't be too controversial to suggest that perhaps Man couldn't always write.

----------


## Miss Darcy

Oh, this thread is _still_ going!

*quietly vanishes into the air*

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Oh, this thread is still going!"

No - its evolving creatively.

.

----------


## ShoutGrace

:Biggrin:  But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . .  :Confused:

----------


## Pendragon

> >_< you're right. That statement was a bit bold, sorry. I really tend to get carried away. I was in a mood that day, i'm considerably better now  
> 
> I apologize if I am rambling, congealing my many thoughts is difficult...
> 
> basically, it has not truthfully occured to any of the people i grew up with that they could be wrong, which makes it difficult for me to adopt a healthy view.
> 
> And, a general thought to anyone who reads this: never take for granted beign surronded by people who accept you for who you are. Out of the hundreds of people I know...4 know deep the charade I put on for my church extends. Why? because no matter how narrow-minded they are, i love my family, and if they knew just how anti-christian I am they would never understand...
> 
> again, I apologize. In my current state I'll pour out my soul just about anywhere. It shouldn't last more than a few hours ^_^


No blood, no foul. May I also state that never assume people will always stand by you no matter what. When I had my own problems, my genetic condition that had already caused havoc with panic attacks and whatnot finally took me for good, the people I trusted in churches I preached in across the country deemed me demon-possessed and threw me out. It didnot kill my faith in God. I keep fighting the battle. But I am a changed man. If I can reach one person, I will go for that one. One has become as important as a churchfull. And to reach the world, you must not attack, but reason. You can't show the love of God if you have none of your own, and are ill-mannered towards people. What do you expect them to want that you're selling, when they can get talked about, run down, and called names anywhere? My Native American ancestors would say, "Speaking with forked tongue." God bless.  :Smile:

----------


## Pendragon

> Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it can't be too controversial to suggest that perhaps Man couldn't always write.


Quite true. Which is why so many cultures are so rich in oral history. My Native American blood is Cherokee. The tribe could not write until Sequoyah invented the alphabet that written Cherokee uses.  :Smile:

----------


## brainstrain

> Right - God is not the automatic "result" of this priority shift, but He becomes an option when we are forced to find meaning in our suffering, because without God, the meaning of suffering, uh, "suffers."


Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.

I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks  :Biggrin:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.
> 
> I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks


Wow - how cool. That just made my day.  :Biggrin:  


(PS: Shoutgrace: "But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . . " - _Nice_  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Pendragon

> Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.
> 
> I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks


You just made a lot of people's day a little brighter. Any help I may be in anyway, don't hesitate to PM me. We all need somebody to lean on sometimes. God bless you as you seek out your path.  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> ...if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?!


You've heard of HIV? SARS? Avian Flu? All completely new species of virus that have evolved by completely natural means within the past century.


> but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...


Wrong wrong wrong, it's so very very wrong. Theories _explain_ facts, and _can_ be disproven. Any scientific theory can, if it is incorrect, be disproven by experiment. The theory of evolution would have to be thrown out if some paleontologist were to, say, find a complete human skeleton in pre-cabrian rock. The theory of gravity could be disproven by an experiment whenin one drops lead weights in a vacuum to see which direction they fall. The Big Bang theory would be thrown out if a red-shift experiment gave conclusive evidence that the universe is not, in fact, expanding. Scientific theories are not monotlithic, carved-in-stone slabs of physical law. They are constantly changing and evolving to account for new evidence and better explainations. The modern scientific concensus on evolution and gravity would be almost indistinguishable to Darwin and Newton were it not for the fact that both of those gentlemen are, in actual fact, dead.


> Yet, I'm nowhere near that stage where I can simply accept other theories of evolution that say we were once fish. To an even further extent, it is equally puzzling that such things as the "golden ratio" exist in our world and are found in nature. How is it possible that something so well-calculated and precise could exist? The answer I arrived upon for my question is therefore an emphatic no.


First off: there are no widely accepted 'other' theories of evolution that extend our family tree to include chimpanzees, but not fish, that I am aware of. The evidence for our relation to fish is almost exactly the same as the evidence for our relation to chimps: genome comparison, parallel structure and the fossil record. It should be noted that modern fish are our cousins, not our ancestors. We share, with modern fish, a common ancestor, now extinct, which, if you saw it, you would call it a fish. (I know there are a lot of commas, but if you read it a few times I promise that it will make sense). 

I'm going to give an explaination of phi a shot, but math is not my dicipline, and I encourage you to find out about it from somebody who knows what they are talking about. To the best of my understanding, phi is simply an efficient ratio that spirals, such as those of snail shells and the like, tend to fall into. The fact that it is a very complicated ratio, and must be expressed using irrational numbers, should not imply design. Pi is a very complicated number. You can, if you wish to waste your money, buy a very thick book consisting of pi to a terrifying number of decimal places, and ending with an elipsis. However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.

----------


## Silv

> First off: there are no widely accepted 'other' theories of evolution that extend our family tree to include chimpanzees, but not fish, that I am aware of. The evidence for our relation to fish is almost exactly the same as the evidence for our relation to chimps: genome comparison, parallel structure and the fossil record. It should be noted that modern fish are our cousins, not our ancestors. We share, with modern fish, a common ancestor, now extinct, which, if you saw it, you would call it a fish. (I know there are a lot of commas, but if you read it a few times I promise that it will make sense).


Hm..I think I should clarify my point. My intended meaning is that I will believe the theory of Evolution up to a certain extent - that is to say, I believe it verily possible for humans to have evolved from chimps, but am more doubtful as to whether that line of evolution stretches all the way back to fish. While it is true that the evidence for the relation follows from the same line of empirical methods used to identify our connection with chimps, you could say that this line grows thinner as we travel further into the past, where evidence then becomes sparse. Hence my doubts for the concept of humans having evolved from fish. It should also be noted that empirical data is not always to be trusted, as it is our observations of the empirical data that determines their meaning; human interpretation may not always be 100% accurate. 




> ...that just happens to be the way geometry works.


By that statement, you are already accepting the fact that "things work because that's how they are", and therefore are assuming that our theories are to be trusted. While you believe in that, at the same time you don't know _why_ it works that way.




> However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.


I agree with you that it is "difficult to comprehend" such concepts as well as to prove that such rules hold true for every single case. The other thing we have to know is that it is also for this same reason that we call them mathematical "postulates" - because we have no way of proving them absolutely, and as a result have to just to assume based on reason and logic that they will hold true (because logic and reason tell us this must be the case - yet another dependence on human intelligence which has its own flaws). These are, after all, theories designed by humans as models for the sake of convenience. 

What the true way to solve such mysteries as well as how they work still remain veiled and unknown to us. It is because of this that I believe some sort of divine intelligence may be at work here, excluding that belonging to humans such as Einstein and the like. To better explain this, we could recall the example of Copernicus and his heliocentric theory of the solar system. At the time before we could understand and appreciate his theory, we believed Ptolemy's system to be the valid one, and that Copernicus was crazy. Later, we accepted Copernicus's as opposed to Ptolemy's since it soon became evident from our studies. Now, what's to stop someone from coming along and proving us otherwise? The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.

Therefore, as I said earlier, I believe in certain aspects of Divine Creation and Evolution, but not by all means do I strictly narrow my mind to either one or the other.

*//Edit: Typos and re-positioning of paragraphs.*

----------


## Wintermute

> However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.


Thank goodness for you rationality Cuppa. I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion. 

The universe is a wonderful thing. By my [human] logic, there should be nothing--an empty void. Yet here we are, reading, laughing, and loving! To me that indicates that something really amzing is going on. But to take it any further than that is folly. To assume that I'm going to burn in the firey pits of hell because I'm unable to accept that the creator of the universe would send someone to this little planet to get nailed to a cross because things weren't working out as it planned is just plain egotistical. The idea that humanity is central in some sort of grand cosmic plan is just the product of ignorance, ego, hope and a fear of death.

That being said, damn I'm glad I'm alive! What an gloriously beautiful thing we have here! Rejoice!

----------


## Silv

> Thank goodness for you rationality Cuppa. I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion.





> The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know *why* or *how* this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.


The above quotation of what I said earlier can be applied to what you're saying about Pi, or anything similar. Pi is a number humans found that happens to aid in calculations - a ratio or number that's there for us to work with.

I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe. It could be Evolution, or it could be Intelligent Design. My point is that it could be _anything_, and we don't have to restrict ourselves to either Evolution or Creationism.

----------


## Wintermute

> I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe.


No, I don't either Silv. I think assigning specific attributes or properties to this 'something' based on our hopes and fears is silly. Anything is possible, nothing is certain.

----------


## Silv

> No, I don't either Silv. I think assigning specific attributes or properties to this 'something' based on our hopes and fears is silly. Anything is possible, nothing is certain.


Hm...well, we have to acknowledge that it [life, the world, the universe] exists*, don't we? o.o
If we acknowledge that somehow the universe got here, then it follows that we're acknowledging that something happened, whether it was evolution, creationism, or anything else.

Basing something on our hopes and fears is silly, but in this case we're basing it on what we know: we didn't create the Universe. If we didn't, something, someone, or some process must have. I think that's where we agree, in that it could be _anything_ - anything is possible.  :Biggrin: 

**This is assuming none of us here are discussing other things like subjectivism, which would be an argument from ignorance (there's a word for this but I can't remember it at the moment. If anyone does please post it, it's bugging me. XD)*

//Edit: Eek. Wrong post. XD *deletes stuff here and goes to "Taming of the Shrew" thread*

----------


## Laindessiel

> Yeah creationism is primarily my belief, but I believe that perhaps evolution was a tool....
> 
> so in brief: God did it!


YES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.

----------


## WriterAtTheSea

I have posted a link to an nteresting article surrounding this topic... There are a myriad of convictions surrounding these philosophies and some actually embrace the reality of both. Given your interest in the subject matter, I thought you would find this article 

While I am a creationist, I also believe in evolution to a point. I do not believe man evolved from apes though.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter5.html

----------


## Laindessiel

> I do not believe man evolved from apes though.


It's what scientists and their relatives say to keep on earning.  :Sick:

----------


## Wintermute

> It's what scientists and their relatives say to keep on earning.


So what do the preachers say so that they can keep on earning? 

Do you have any idea how much the average research scientist at a university makes?? It ain't making them rich, I can tell you that. Also, by making such an uneducated statement you are condeming all scientists as liars. Why? Real evidence bothers you?

----------


## Wintermute

> YES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.


Really? Did he (it) create himself?

----------


## Laindessiel

No. That was supposed to be humorous! And I'm definitely not generalizing all the scientists in different fields, Winter. All I'm saying is that WE don't come from animals, which is what they are saying! It's completely ludicrously ridiculous. We came from the ashes; made by God. (Read the book of Genesis, man.)

----------


## Laindessiel

> Really? Did he (it) create himself?


He is already a "someone" before anything. Nobody can answer where He came from.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I think assigning specific attributes or properties to this 'something' based on our hopes and fears is silly.


Only if you're right - but what if you're wrong? 




> Anything is possible, nothing is certain.


Exactly - hence the existence of God becomes possible, and science - perhaps - uncertain.

Silv's point still stands: why _should_ anything be "like it is"? To just say (as cuppa did) that "that just happens to be the way geometry works" creates a problem with the words "that just happens." What is "just happens" - magic? Life "just happens"? The Golden Ration "just happens" to show up everywhere in nature? Ideas about "right" and "wrong" "just happen" to have "evolved" from human experience? The conditions on this planet that make it conducive to life "just happened"? Chemical reactions in my brain "just happen" to create the feeling of joy, sadness, heartache? The answer that much of reality "just happened" to me is equal to any charge against the vague, un-empirically proven ideas of God that atheists level at Christians.

And, finally, Wintermute, what makes it OK for you to dismiss something many people find very profound as "silly"? Is an attempt to trivialize your opponent's argument supposed to be a solid response to the issue - or simply an attempt to devalue your opponent's position and put them on the defensive?

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I do not believe man evolved from apes though.



Who _does_ believe this? Certainly not evolutionists . . . or have I completely misdigested the entire theory? I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor (?).

By the way, that Leadership U is a great website. They hold WLC's material.  :Wink:

----------


## Scheherazade

> Originally Posted by Stanislaw
> 
> 
> Yeah creationism is primarily my belief, but I believe that perhaps evolution was a tool....
> 
> so in brief: God did it!
> 
> 
> YES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.


Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Only if you're right - but what if you're wrong?


Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?



> To just say (as cuppa did) that "that just happens to be the way geometry works" creates a problem with the words "that just happens."


What problem? All circles are much the same. They have a common ratio between the circumference and the radius. The word (or rather letter) for that ratio is pi. Pi, expressed mathematically, happens to be an irrational number. I'm not sure which part of this implies the existence of deities.



> The Golden Ration "just happens" to show up everywhere in nature?


No, as I've explained, phi shows up a lot of places in nature (hardly 'everywhere', but in a lot of places) because it is an efficient to build certain structures in that ratio. If you are a gene which builds more efficient structures, you are more likely to propogate yourself. Give it a few hundred thousand generations, and the best genes win out by building more efficient snail shells. 'More efficient', in this context, means 'closer to phi'. It's not a coincidence by any means. Note that I am not a mathematician, so all of the above should be taken with a grain of salt, but I would be willing to bet that the correct explaination is very close to what I just said.



> Ideas about "right" and "wrong" "just happen" to have "evolved" from human experience? The conditions on this planet that make it conducive to life "just happened"? Chemical reactions in my brain "just happen" to create the feeling of joy, sadness, heartache?


Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.



> Who does believe this? Certainly not evolutionists . . . or have I completely misdigested the entire theory? I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor (?).


If you saw that common ancestor walking around on the street you would say "Hey look, there's an ape walking around on the street".

----------


## Pendragon

> So what do the preachers say so that they can keep on earning? 
> 
> Do you have any idea how much the average research scientist at a university makes?? It ain't making them rich, I can tell you that. Also, by making such an uneducated statement you are condeming all scientists as liars. Why? Real evidence bothers you?


Well, do you know what I made/still make as a minister, taking into account that I am, while ordained quite properly, non-denominational? Nothing. I traveled as a evangelist at my expense, and if they took up collections and it covered my expenses and I had extra, OK, and if not, I'd still be back next time. I usually stayed with a family, no four star hotel treatment, and drove as much as 750 miles one way. Now, church is in my home, and whosoever will comes, no one is refused. I ask for nothing. If God ever grants that I can start a church again, I will do so. Until then, we press on. But I'm not the one to argue with scientific fact. Evolution partially explains things for me, but not how they began. For that, God works.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> If you saw that common ancestor walking around on the street you would say "Hey look, there's an ape walking around on the street".


That's me you're quoting, cuppajoe.  :Biggrin:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Right, sorry. Long day.

----------


## ShoutGrace

Just for Redzeppelin's sake.  :Wink:  But it is getting late, at that . . .

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?"


There's a difference: if I'm wrong, I've lost little. I die with an illusion and am never conscious of my delusion; but, my life was of value to others (if I lived out my convictions properly). If you're wrong, your loss is _eternal_. As to the listing of deities, well, I never _denied_ they existed. Whether they do or not doesn't change anything. Why do you think God says in Commandment #1 "thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Those "gods" may be figurative, but neither I nor C.S. Lewis have ruled out the existence of other "gods."




> What problem? All circles are much the same. They have a common ratio between the circumference and the radius. The word (or rather letter) for that ratio is pi. Pi, expressed mathematically, happens to be an irrational number. I'm not sure which part of this implies the existence of deities."


Again: I did not post that the existence of this number implied any deity. The presence of the "golden ratio" in biology, art, and mathematics points to something beyond simple chance. That the ratio "just happens" to show up in such varied areas strikes me as suggestive of something guiding the universe beyond blind force.




> If you are a gene which builds more efficient structures, you are more likely to propogate yourself. Give it a few hundred thousand generations, and the best genes win out by building more efficient snail shells. 'More efficient', in this context, means 'closer to phi'.


OK - but why pi? Why not some other ratio? Why is pi more efficient? Why should the blind forces of nature construct along these lines?




> Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.


Fine. But explaining _how something happened_ does not necessarily mean that the origin of that event is a settled thing. If I walked into a room that had never before been entered by another person and saw a spinning ball that perpetually spun, I could explain what it's doing, but I'd have no idea but mere guesses as to what got it moving in the first place. (And personally, I'm not much interested in how weak that analogy is, so deconstructing it - in my opinion - won't accomplish much.) I think my point is clear.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> There's a difference: if I'm wrong, I've lost little. I die with an illusion and am never conscious of my delusion; but, my life was of value to others (if I lived out my convictions properly). If you're wrong, your loss is eternal.


Pascal's Wager? Surely you jest. My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.




> The presence of the "golden ratio" in biology, art, and mathematics points to something beyond simple chance. That the ratio "just happens" to show up in such varied areas strikes me as suggestive of something guiding the universe beyond blind force.


The laws of physics guide the universe. I've explained the prevalence of phi twice now, and you have simply repeated that you don't understand. It's an efficient ratio, so evolution selects those genes which build stuctures which employ it. As to art: I would imagine that it's considered beautiful precisely because it appears so often in nature.




> OK - but why pi [sic]? Why not some other ratio?


Meaningless question. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what number value of phi happened to be.




> If I walked into a room that had never before been entered by another person and saw a spinning ball that perpetually spun, I could explain what it's doing, but I'd have no idea but mere guesses as to what got it moving in the first place.


I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before. Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Pascal's Wager? Surely you jest. My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no [sic] that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.


It's different if you die and that's the end than if you die and "wake up" to find that eternal life could have been yours. And, God does not "send" anybody to hell. He allows you to _choose_  (there's that pesky word again!) your destination. One theologian put it nicely: he said that the people who will be in heaven will be people who would enjoy what heaven has to offer. C.S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce_ contends that not everybody would like what heaven has to offer. It's a great (quick) read.




> The laws of physics guide the universe. I've explained the prevalence of phi twice now, and you have simply repeated that you don't understand. It's an efficient ratio, so evolution selects those genes which build stuctures which employ it. As to art: I would imagine that it's considered beautiful precisely because it appears so often in nature.


You're right - I don't understand. That may be due to my ignorance, or your inability to offer me something that answers my question in an effective, convincing way. I'm not sure which it is - I'm not a math guy, so I should probably step away from the phi debate. My initial comments were in support of Silv's comments. I'm not sure I buy that physics - as a non-sentient natural force - explains the prevalence of phi, but I'm not going to debate that point because I have no authority in that area.




> Meaningless question. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what number value of phi happened to be.


Perhaps it is "meaningless", but it was meaningful to _me_. The number doesn't matter - it's its _reoccurrence as a pattern_ that interests me. Physics can explain some patterns - can it explain them all?




> I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before. Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.


Well, as much as you feel you repeat yourself, I feel the same. If you examine my posts, I am not drawing a syllogistic conclusion that the "unknowability" of the origin of the universe points to the existence of God; rather, I'm pointing out that your position is just as etherial as mine - but your language suggests that science's speculations point to a certainty. Like yourself, I think the universe offers clues as to its origins. I'm asking you (or whomever wishes to pick up the argument) to explain why certain things should be the way they are if there is no guiding intelligence to the universe. Finally, who says the Big Bang happened at all? Your statement implies that you _do_ know how at least part of our universe "started."

----------


## Silv

cuupajoe, I hope you didn't miss out my response to your arguments earlier on - at the bottom of P.78




> Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.


So could Ptolemy. I don't see a point here. Pinker can explain to you how those things happened based on human intelligence - what we believe to be true, even the simplest things. He also uses simple theories and concepts which were formulated by us humans. We take a lot of things for granted, believing in our reasoning. *Who's to say our reasoning is correct, perfect, and flawless?* Is it not just how our brain interprets things in such a way as to make sense out of the world? Unless you're willing to say for sure that human knowledge is absolutely flawless and perfect, then that point is invalid.




> My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.





> Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?


How do you know whose loss is eternal, and whose isn't? For that matter, how do you know God exists and that he would "send you to hell anyway"? That is a consequence that you believe in - who's right? who's wrong? Do we know _for sure_?
..Hence the reason I advocate that either of the two theories could work, and that it could be _anything_.




> OK - but why pi? Why not some other ratio? Why is pi more efficient? Why should the blind forces of nature construct along these lines?





> The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.


I think what cuppajoe is saying is that we're just using pi as an example, and that it would be the same case for any other theory or model.




> I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before.


All the underlined bits already show uncertainty. We have no more proof of how the universe started than of God existing, or of Evolution having done that. Even the simple notion of believing in the Big Bang is already casting your faith on Evolution, when either of the two cannot be proven valid over the other.




> Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.


The above is what Wintermute said earlier:



> I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion.


To which I replied:



> I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe. It could be Evolution, or it could be Intelligent Design. My point is that it could be _anything_, and we don't have to restrict ourselves to either Evolution or Creationism.


I also re-explained this point later on:




> Hm...well, we have to acknowledge that it [life, the world, the universe] exists*, don't we? o.o
> If we acknowledge that somehow the universe got here, then it follows that we're acknowledging that something happened, whether it was evolution, creationism, or anything else.
> 
> Basing something on our hopes and fears is silly, but in this case we're basing it on what we know: we didn't create the Universe. If we didn't, something, someone, or some process must have. I think that's where we agree, in that it could be _anything_ - anything is possible.


..It is not an argument from ignorance that we did not create the universe. We _know_ humans didn't do it. Therefore, it follows that something, someone, or some other process did it.

As I said before and I'll repeat again, there is not a reason for us to believe strictly in either Evolution or Creationism: _anything_ is possible.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> One theologian put it nicely: he said that the people who will be in heaven will be people who would enjoy what heaven has to offer.


Well it that's all it takes, then what does it matter whether or not I believe in God?




> If you examine my posts, I am not drawing a syllogistic conclusion that the "unknowability" of the origin of the universe points to the existence of God; rather, I'm pointing out that your position is just as etherial as mine - but your language suggests that science's speculations point to a certainty.


You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that it is _certain_ that no gods exist, I simply do not _believe_ that no gods exist and, furthermore, all the empirical evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that it is very _likely_ that no gods exist. Nothing is certain.




> I'm asking you (or whomever wishes to pick up the argument) to explain why certain things should be the way they are if there is no guiding intelligence to the universe.


That question lends itself more to an encyclopaedia than a message board, but I think I've been giving it a shot. Evolution is one important part of the answer. Simple structures combine to form complex structures when their environment demands that they do so.




> Finally, who says the Big Bang happened at all? Your statement implies that you do know how at least part of our universe "started."


The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre. We do know a bit about the origins of the universe, but nothing at all about the actual moment at which the universe began to exist.

----------


## Silv

*doubletakes* You're an *AP ENGLISH TEACHER?*

----------


## cuppajoe_9

From earlier (I did, in fact, miss that response, and I apologize):




> [Concerning pi]By that statement, you are already accepting the fact that "things work because that's how they are", and therefore are assuming that our theories are to be trusted.


Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.




> At the time before we could understand and appreciate his theory, we believed Ptolemy's system to be the valid one, and that Copernicus was crazy. Later, we accepted Copernicus's as opposed to Ptolemy's since it soon became evident from our studies. Now, what's to stop someone from coming along and proving us otherwise?


I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.




> So could Ptolemy.


Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.




> Who's to say our reasoning is correct, perfect, and flawless? Is it not just how our brain interprets things in such a way as to make sense out of the world? Unless you're willing to say for sure that human knowledge is absolutely flawless and perfect, then that point is invalid.


You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show *why* it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.




> How do you know whose loss is eternal, and whose isn't? For that matter, how do you know God exists and that he would "send you to hell anyway"?


Well if he wouldn't then Pascal's Wager is invalid anyway, and I remain entirely without a reason to believe in God.




> That is a consequence that you believe in...


The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.




> Hence the reason I advocate that either of the two theories could work, and that it could be anything.


Of course it _could be_ anything, but it only _is_ one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?




> We have no more proof of how the universe started than of God existing, or of Evolution having done that.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, oh so very emphatically wrong. We DO have evidence for evolution. Mountains of evidence. Huge piles of evidence. Large museums filled with evidence. Wonderfully thick, lucid, well-written books filled with evidence. I can't prove that there is no God, or that there is no Thor, or that there is no Flying Spaghetti monster, true, but do you want me to accept that all of those things are equally likely just because I can't meet your impossible standard of proof?




> It is not an argument from ignorance that we did not create the universe. We know humans didn't do it. Therefore, it follows that something, someone, or some other process did it.


Correct. However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.

----------


## Redzeppelin

In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.




> Well it that's all it takes, then what does it matter whether or not I believe in God?


*Sigh* - for the sake of brevity I spoke thusly, so as not to turn this thread into a sermon. "Believing in God" is kind of a prerequisite since He's the landlord. The point was about being "sent" to hell - not the requirements for getting into heaven.




> You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that it is _certain_ that no gods exist, I simply do not _believe_ that no gods exist and, furthermore, all the empirical evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that it is very _likely_ that no gods exist. Nothing is certain.


Sorry if I've done this - but my post did not say the "certainty" was connected to the existence of gods. The "certainty" applies to your assertion of the evolutionistic beginnings of the universe.




> The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre. We do know a bit about the origins of the universe, but nothing at all about the actual moment at which the universe began to exist.


The red shift of which you speak I am aware of - but that expansion does not definitively suggest the Big Bang as an _exclusive_ source of that expansion; it suggests a highly probable source. And, it does not suggest that God was not behind the origin of that Bang.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> *doubletakes* You're an AP ENGLISH TEACHER?


Me? Why yes, as a matter of fact.

----------


## Silv

BOTH OF YOU? *faints and slides away*

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> "Believing in God" is kind of a prerequisite since He's the landlord.


Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.




> The "certainty" applies to your assertion of the evolutionistic beginnings of the universe.


Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.




> The red shift of which you speak I am aware of - but that expansion does not definitively suggest the Big Bang as an exclusive source of that expansion; it suggests a highly probable source.


And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.




> And, it does not suggest that God was not behind the origin of that Bang.


And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Man, you're energetic. How do you keep up?




> Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.


Again: I don't want to turn this into a theological seminary, so I will have to be content with saying that the God you're describing is not one that the Bible describes. Everyone is given a chance (probably more likely many, many chances) to "find" God. Nobody who dies the "second death" (because I don't believe in eternal suffering either for sin that was committed during a finite lifetime) will do so without having been given ample chance to choose otherwise.




> Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.


Again: I was only responding to your charge of "putting words" in your mouth. You're quibbling over terminology that I did not attempt to pick up. If I'm a little loose with my terms, forgive me - I'm not even slightly scientifically literate. And, I'm not "demanding" anything - I'm simply asking for clarification. Christians will generally admit that we cannot "prove" God exists - but you rarely hear an atheist admit the same; many speak of evolution and/or cosmological origins as if science has all but nailed them down - a "certainty" so to speak.






> And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.


Yep.




> And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.


I didn't say it did. I'm pointing out that the process we observe as "red shift" has a number of possible origins besides a spontaneously occurring explosion.

----------


## Silv

*le sigh* XD I still have a bunch of rhetorical pr&#233;cis to write for Monday. Oh and um, cuppajoe (oO 19? I doubt you're an AP English teacher)..you spelled my sn wrong in all the quotations..o.o




> In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.


Actually, I'm just an AP Lang student. 




> Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.



Yes but taking again from my earlier example of Copernicus and Ptolemy: both their calculations always led to the same conclusions. However, now we believe in Copernicus's. What I'm saying is that our *reason* cannot always be trusted.




> I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.
> 
> You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show why it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.
> 
> Of course it could be anything, but it only is one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?


We've got to work with what we have - That I agree with. But we don't have to choose to believe in either of the theories we come up with. We can work with them, but we don't have to pick one and stick to it. That's the whole point of working and investigating on them: to come up with further explanations. In order to do that, we should not reject one theory for the other, but should rather keep both in mind.




> Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.
> 
> We DO have evidence for evolution.


Evidence yes, and all of it is valid only IF we describe it to other humans. Suppose now there is a being of another species and we explain the laws of physics to him and he goes: nono, we believe it works this way..
So we work it out using his methods, and voil&#224;: we arrive at the same conclusion. What then? For that is exactly what happened with Ptolemy and Copernicus until further knowledge was discovered. It's not supernatural thinking per se, it's that "explaining morality" is all taking place in terms of human reasoning. If we believe in human reasoning as being absolute and flawless, then there's no problem. The point is that this evidence is also created for and based on our understanding. You could say, then, that all of this is just models for us to interpret the world - not that the world really and truly works this way. That is something we don't yet know. There's no way of ruling out every single thing that Creationism OR Evolution brings up. Mentioning earlier that you chose Evolution because it's the _likelier_ of the two to have happened doesn't really stand in itself, because you're ignoring all the other points of Creationism that could be valid.




> The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.


Apologies. Was probably getting my facts mixed up over who believed in what.  :Blush:  




> However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.


Don't recall implying God did it - if I did, that wasn't my intended meaning. What I do imply is that something, someone, or some process did it (and it could be any of the three, I'm not holding either one of them above the others). It could be _anything_.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Again: I don't want to turn this into a theological seminary, so I will have to be content with saying that the God you're describing is not one that the Bible describes.


Maybe not, but it doesn't make Pascal's wager any more valid. Assuming that God and hell exist, people who die atheists either go to hell or they don't. If they don't, then I have no reason to worry about it, and I remain an atheist. If they do, then I think God is a...well, I go to hell anyway.




> Christians will generally admit that we cannot "prove" God exists - but you rarely hear an atheist admit the same


That's not ture, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Christians can't prove that God exists.

Anyway: the point is that when you ask for the evidence that evolution happens, or that the Big Bang is the best explaination for the origin of the universe, I can point you to a large pile of evidence. When I ask for evidence for God's existance, I get arguments from ignorance, Pascal's Wagers, and appeals to religious faith. This tells me that we are dealing with two very different kinds of beliefs.




> Oh and um, cuppajoe? You spelled my sn wrong in all the quotations..o.o


My apologies. It's been a long day, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't go back and correct it.




> Suppose now there is a being of another species and we explain the laws of physics to him and he goes: nono, we believe it works this way..
> So we work it out using his methods, and voil&#224;: we arrive at the same conclusion. What then?


Then we were wrong, and we'll have to admit that. As I've said, though, you still have to show *why*, we're wrong. What you are doing is saying that ID and evolution are on equal footing because evolution may, at some future point, be proven to be false. Yeah, mabye they're both wrong, but it's still on the shoulder's of whoever I'm arguing with to knock down my evidence.




> Mentioning earlier that you chose Evolution because it's the likelier of the two to have happened doesn't really stand in itself, because you're ignoring all the other points of Creationism that could be valid.


I most certainly am not, I'm adressing those points. No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.




> Don't recall implying God did it - if I did, that wasn't my intended meaning.


Just making sure.




> What I do imply is that something, someone, or some process did it (and it could be any of the three, I'm not holding either one of them above the others). It could be anything.


Yes, it could. The question is what?

----------


## Silv

> Yes, it could. The question is what?


That is where I arrived at. Yay!  :Biggrin:  




> I most certainly am not, I'm adressing those points. No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.


But do you agree that there are some points - even if few - of creationism that you agree with?

Either way I'm here just to share my view, which is that both theories have their valid and invalid points, and it may be that either one or even none of the two eventually will hold.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's not ture [sic], I'm perfectly willing to admit that Christians can't prove that God exists.


Ha ha - I won't insult your considerable intelligence by pointing out my implied object to the word "same."




> Anyway: the point is that when you ask for the evidence that evolution happens, or that the Big Bang is the best explaination for the origin of the universe, I can point you to a large pile of evidence. When I ask for evidence for God's existance, I get arguments from ignorance, Pascal's Wagers, and appeals to religious faith. This tells me that we are dealing with two very different kinds of beliefs.


I never asked for evidence of the Big Bang because there is none that definitively proves it happened - at least in the way science claims. It is - to quote you - a "high probability." And, most Christian apologists will flat out tell you there is no real evidence for the existence of God (hence faith); I have not proffered any of my arguments as '"evidence" for anything. You'll not get evidence for the existence of God. What I question is the veracity of _your_ "evidence."





> I No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.


Who's trying to do that? I'm not seeking a "fatal flaw" in evolution; I'm asking evolution to offer me something reasonable - to defend itself against some questions I have. If a "fatal flaw" could be laid out, well many WAY smarter than me would have already offered it and shut the argument down - but then again, even if we found what we considered a "fatal flaw" - would you "buy" it?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> But do you agree that there are some points - even if few - of creationism that you agree with?


I suppose that we agree that organisms are complex, and that the bacterial flagellum is really neat and that the sky is blue and that chocolate is delicious, yes, but I still think that evolution happens.




> Who's trying to do that?


Michael Behe springs to mind. I wasn't refering to you in that comment.




> ...but then again, even if we found what we considered a "fatal flaw" - would you "buy" it?


Good question. That would entirely depend on what it was. If they finally came up with a structure that actually is irriducibly complex (none have so far been discovered), then I would admit that the theory needs to be reviewed. If an organism was discovered that coded for proteins using a molecule other than DNA, I would have to seriously reconsider the validity of the theory. If it was, say, a human skeleton found in pre-cambrian rock, and then dated by several radioactive decay tests and found to be the same age as the mater around it, I would have to completely abandon evolution.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Good question. That would entirely depend on what it was. If they finally came up with a structure that actually is irriducibly complex (none have so far been discovered), then I would admit that the theory needs to be reviewed. If an organism was discovered that coded for proteins using a molecule other than DNA, I would have to seriously reconsider the validity of the theory. If it was, say, a human skeleton found in pre-cambrian rock, and then dated by several radioactive decay tests and found to be the same age as the mater around it, I would have to completely abandon evolution.



Interesting. See, I have a hard time believing that science couldn't come up with an explanation for the "fatal flaws" you listed. In my mind, if science can explain how we got here, well - then it should be able to come up with a pretty convincing explanation for _anything_.

----------


## Silv

> yes, but I still think that evolution happens.


Well then, you believe in some points of Creationism, therefore you cannot completely refute it. In other words, you believe in Evolution, but you also believe in Creationism - though arguably, to a lesser degree. But, you have taken to refuting Creationism and all that it stands for. You're actually casting aside a list of points belonging to Creationism that you yourself can't object against. If you can't completely disagree with certain points of Creationism, you can't rule it out and simply go with Evolution.

For me, again, I'm not leaning towards either one or the other.

----------


## Redzeppelin

*yawn* - ok I'm off to bed. You guys are way too energetic for me. I'll check in tomorrow and see where the arguments have gone. Thanks for the discussion  :Yawnb:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Interesting. See, I have a hard time believing that science couldn't come up with an explanation for the "fatal flaws" you listed.


Of course it could (hopefully), but that explaination wouldn't be Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.




> Well then, you believe in some points of Creationism, therefore you cannot completely refute it.


Non sequiter. I probably agree with some points of phrenology (your head is located on top of your neck, for example), but that doesn't mean phrenology isn't complete nonsense.




> In other words, you believe in Evolution, but you also believe in Creationism - though arguably, to a lesser degree.


No I don't, because creationism is the theory that the earth was designed by some sort of deity. I do not believe any part of that sentence. Just because creationists occasionaly have to make some statement that has something to do with reality, it doesn't mean that their basic premise is correct. I certainly *can* reject creationism and accept evolution, because one theory explains the evidence, and the other doesn't.

----------


## Pendragon

> And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.


Thank you, Joe. You may not realize it, but this seems to be something many people have a hard time understanding. Science takes what facts it can collect, and since there _are no eyewitnesses to question_, have to draw their conclusions based on that evidence, which sometimes is fragmentary and a real "toss-up". So "most likely", "most highly probable", and "best guess" often have to win out. It is still based on facts, there are simply parts of the puzzle that are missing at the moment or unclear. When they become available or the fog clears, the statement may change. But this type of fragmentary evidence is what convicts criminals and solves crimes. The tiny pieces hold truth, but it is hard to get it out of them. Some investigations take years, but truth will out. Doesn't stop my belief in God, but I do admire science!  :Smile:

----------


## Whifflingpin

Life is too short to follow all this discussion, but I noticed this comment from Cuppajoe:
"The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre."

Would the observable phenomena be the same if the universe were pulsating - but currently in an expansion phase?

The question has nothing to do with the discussion, but I'm just curious.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Thank you, Joe. You may not realize it, but this seems to be something many people have a hard time understanding.


Well, it seems that many people don't want to understand it, and I can see their point. Absolute certainty is comforting, and I imagine that having it suddenly taken away would leave one reeling.




> Would the observable phenomena be the same if the universe were pulsating - but currently in an expansion phase?


The red shift would look the same, but a lot of other things wouldn't. The main problem with the Big Crunch theory, in my limited understanding, is that the universe is a bit lopsided, with relatively large clusters of mass in some parts and vast expanes of nothing in others. This means that if an when the universe stops expanding and starts contracting it will not colapse back into a singularity as neat as the one that apparently initiated the last Big Bang. I have also read that the expansion of the Universe appears to be be _accelerating_, rather than slowing down, which means that, if it continues, the universe will not colapse back into itself, but instead be torn apart at the atomic level. Exciting things happening in astrophysics these days.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Of course it could (hopefully), but that explaination wouldn't be Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.


Right - but it wouldn't point to God either, so our argument would more than likely continue on (and on and on and on).




> Just because creationists occasionaly have to make some statement that has something to do with reality, it doesn't mean that their basic premise is correct. I certainly *can* reject creationism and accept evolution, because one theory explains the evidence, and the other doesn't.


In your opinion. In mine, not so. As I've said before, once we choose our position, the "evidence" for it (whether "scientific" or not) becomes convincing. Your evidence would only become convincing to me if I decided that God wasn't real - but I wouldn't make that decision because of any "evidence" you could offer me. I'm inclined to believe the same is true _vice versa_.

You know, Joe, I respect your arguing, but your rather patronizing tone tends to get abrasive after a while. I'm here in the cooperative spirit of debate, but comments like these are attempts to belittle the position of creationists. I'm pretty sure nothing in my posts is nearly as condescending as your language often sounds. You dismiss people's questions/comments as "meaningless" and "nonsequiter," make jokes out of points someone makes or split hairs over their language (when it's a pretty sure bet you understand the intended point). This all makes you a very intimidating debate partner - but is that what you want? 

I can respect your position - it's well argued and you have a ready command of endless factoids to defend it. Bravo - but please don't act as if creationists only "occasionally" make a statement "that has something to do with reality." There are respected Christian scientists who do good research and have drawn valid conclusions. The "reality" comment is based on the idea that your position is "reality" while ours is some fantasy. Our world view is every bit as valid to us as is yours to you - but you come off pretty flippant about our position. I could easily be as partonizing about some of the things evolutionists postulate about the origins of human beings - but I don't think that's conducive to a cooperative discussion. And before you fire back about how your "evidence" makes your reality correct, I would remind you that your evidence is no more convincing to me than mine is to you. Sometimes, my friend, I think the "health" of a discussion is maintained not so much by always having a ready retort as it is by communicating a willingness to accord honor to your opponent's position. Humans are emotional as well as rational - and any good debater knows that rock solid evidence can fall on deaf ears if those ears are being patronized or insulted. Just a thought  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I imagine I can get pretty irritating, and I apologise, and that comment was not directed to you. I was reacting to the position that I am unable to reject creationism because creationists and I agree on a very few points, a fairly condescending position in itself, in my opinion. I was in no way thinking of you when I made that statement, but rather to those Intelligent Design scientists who persist in pushing ideas such as irreducible complexity when, in actual fact, they have been unable to come up with anything fitting their own definition of irriducibly complex in nature. There certainly are respectable arguments for creation, but those are not them. Again, I apologise if I've offended you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

No real offense taken. I know I'm capable of coming on strong as well- and I enjoy how you keep me on my toes. But perhaps because I'm a bit older (twice your age if I'm guessing correctly) I'm less interested in "winning" an argument than in winning my opponent's respect (not to say that you are guilty of the first - just clarifying _my_ priorities). I would rather lose every argument I posed but feel like I'm among friends who love a good argument than to win a debate at the cost of a potential intellectual friendship (much more valuable to me than any "point" I could make). 

I understand you point thoroughly. Thanks - I appreciate the time you took to respond. I look forward to our future discussions (I'm sure there'll be many  :Smile:  ).

----------


## Laindessiel

> Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.


Uncle Pen explains this quite thoroughly and reasonably. Please, I don't want a debate. As my Secret Santa clue says, "I try to veer away from the religious threads because I don't want no arguments."

That is, *I try.* Sometimes, I can't help it. And besides, if I see someone on my side and if I agree completely with what he/she says, why add to the ruckus?

I know that arguments and discussions will take you to greater heights to make you understand and comprehend fully about the subject, but as I said, I'll leave it to my companions.

I'm a creationist, that is all.

----------


## Pendragon

> I imagine I can get pretty irritating, and I apologise, and that comment was not directed to you. I was reacting to the position that I am unable to reject creationism because creationists and I agree on a very few points, a fairly condescending position in itself, in my opinion. I was in no way thinking of you when I made that statement, but rather to those Intelligent Design scientists who persist in pushing ideas such as irreducible complexity when, in actual fact, they have been unable to come up with anything fitting their own definition of irriducibly complex in nature. There certainly are respectable arguments for creation, but those are not them. Again, I apologise if I've offended you.


 Joe, mon ami, I image we all seem a bit irritating from time to time as we defend our positions, and try to see the other's points without making offensive remarks when we get frustrated. We are all only human. But we have continued to be gentlemen with each other, and that counts for a lot. Don't worry yourself. You manage to be very unoffensive while sticking to your guns, and that in itself is admirable. Respect for those one disagrees with is sadly lacking in many these days. My hat is off to you, a philosopher and a gentleman!  :Smile:

----------


## Scheherazade

> Uncle Pen explains this quite thoroughly and reasonably. Please, I don't want a debate. As my Secret Santa clue says, "I try to veer away from the religious threads because I don't want no arguments."
> 
> That is, *I try.* Sometimes, I can't help it. And besides, if I see someone on my side and if I agree completely with what he/she says, why add to the ruckus?
> 
> I know that arguments and discussions will take you to greater heights to make you understand and comprehend fully about the subject, but as I said, I'll leave it to my companions.
> 
> I'm a creationist, that is all.


Lain,

We all respect your right (not) to take part in these discussions and / or to believe in whatever theory that suits your belief system. 

However, whenever you do decide to take part and express your (dis)agreement, please do not rely on bigger fonts to make your points in this part of the Forum, where the discussions are often heated and people's sensitivities are at their highest.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.


sorry...that was in my younger brasher days... :Biggrin:

----------


## Laindessiel

> Lain,
> 
> We all respect your right (not) to take part in these discussions and / or to believe in whatever theory that suits your belief system. 
> 
> However, whenever you do decide to take part and express your (dis)agreement, please do not rely on bigger fonts to make your points in this part of the Forum, where the discussions are often heated and people's sensitivities are at their highest.


I'm sorry Scher. Got a bit carried away. Never to do it again.  :Smile:

----------


## dramasnot6

> No. That was supposed to be humorous! And I'm definitely not generalizing all the scientists in different fields, Winter. All I'm saying is that WE don't come from animals, which is what they are saying! It's completely ludicrously ridiculous. We came from the ashes; made by God. (Read the book of Genesis, man.)


What would explain the millions of genetic links and similarities to other primates then? Is it just a coincedence we share over 98% of our DNA with them?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Is it just a coincidence we share over 98% of our DNA with them?"

Although I happen to accept that evolution has occurred, and that Genesis is not a material description of the origin of species, I don't think that the "98% of DNA" argument proves anything at all. If God created all living species instantaneously out of dust, there is no reason why He should not have endowed them with similar DNA. 98% of the functionality of living things is the same, after all.

----------


## dramasnot6

If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?

----------


## Whifflingpin

I don't think anyone denies that we are animals. It appears, however that we differ from other animals in a unique way.

The difference can be described in many ways, but it is clear that we have some mental/emotional/spiritual capacity that, as far as we can tell, is not shared by any other animal species. For example, we have the ability to see a joke, or discuss ethics, or consciously to reflect upon ourselves and our origin.

If this capacity is unique in kind, then it is difficult to see how it may be arrived at by evolution.

----------


## Pendragon

> If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?


Many think animals have no souls, and that man does, so he is superior. I don't completely agree with them, but they will still believe what they want. An animals such as a dog, cat, or other pet has been known to risk death delibertly to save its owner's life. Sounds like love to me...

----------


## Whifflingpin

"An animals such as a dog, cat, or other pet has been known to risk death delibertly to save its owner's life. Sounds like love to me..."

I wouldn't want to argue with your conclusion, and certainly not to get involved with discussion on souls. But, in this respect, I think it is likely that only humans would have the capacity to risk their lives knowingly to save strangers, or even enemies.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?


Perhaps the ability to reason - our ability to contemplate ourselves, our lives, our universe (kind of like the conversation we're having now  :Smile:  ). Animals (as far as I'm aware) are not _self-aware_ in that they have self-consciousness. As well, the Bible makes a clear distinction between humans and animals - that we (not the animals) were created "in God's image."

The answer is we are divinely created _human beings_.

----------


## Lioness_Heart

um... I don't want to offend anyone, but isn't evolution kind of proved? Like with the Galapagos birds and stuff?

----------


## Redzeppelin

"Proved"? Hardly. Evolution is termed a "theory" because it is based upon speculations. That some things in nature _appear_ to point in evolution's direction doesn't "prove" anything. The only way you can "prove" evolution is to find the "transitional forms" that theorists theorize occurred to bring us where we are. And, from what I've heard, even Darwin admitted that evolution worked at a "micro" level, but not a "marcro" level.

Science would like us to believe it's proved, and people routinely talk about it as if it is. It's not. There is some convincing evidence on evolution's side of the table, but evolution still can't answer all questions.

----------


## Scheherazade

The creationists had at least 2000 years to make their cases whereas the Evolutionists only couple of hundred years. Considering the short time they have had, I think they are doing a pretty good job and closer to be a fact than Creationist theory, me thinks.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The creationists had at least 2000 years to make their cases whereas the Evolutionists only couple of hundred years. Considering the short time they have had, I think they are doing a pretty good job and closer to be a fact than Creationist theory, me thinks.


Perhaps. But do you think it really took 2000 years to come up with the _Genesis_ narrative? One of the primary reasons it seems that atheists reject the creation story is that it sounds too much like an unbelievable fairy tale - I don't think fairy tales take 2000 years to compose. (Besides, it's only fairy-tale-ish if one assumes that nothing beyond humanity and nature exists.)

"Fact" is an interesting term - evolution appears "closer to fact" because it jives with how WE view the world. To a child, the idea that the sun "sets" (moves downward towards the horizon) is far more believable than the reality that it doesn't move anywhere - the earth _turns away_ from it - but, based on observation, that's what it _appears_ to do. We accept that which conforms to our view. When an atheist says evolution is more "factual," all the atheist is really saying is "this is more believable to me because the evidence supports my world view." I don't believe any evidence exists that is capable of convincing either side of the coin that the other is "right": first you make a choice to believe, then you "see" the "evidence."

----------


## Scheherazade

> Perhaps. But do you think it really took 2000 years to come up with the _Genesis_ narrative? One of the primary reasons it seems that atheists reject the creation story is that it sounds too much like an unbelievable fairy tale - I don't think fairy tales take 2000 years to compose. (Besides, it's only fairy-tale-ish if one assumes that nothing beyond humanity and nature exists.)


I did not say that they took 2000 years to compose their theory. I said they had 2000 years to make their point.

And yes, Evolutions are still 'composing' their theories and facts but as a teacher which one would you find more worthwhile? A work which is done in a very short time through some inspiration or a work which is based on long research and keeps improving with new facts?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The only way you can "prove" evolution is to find the "transitional forms" that theorists theorize occurred to bring us where we are.


There are quite a few discovered transitional forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils.


> And, from what I've heard, even Darwin admitted that evolution worked at a "micro" level, but not a "marcro" level.


I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's absolutely not true. _On the Origin of Species_ is almost entirely devoted to evidence for marcro level evolution.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I did not say that they took 2000 years to compose their theory. I said they had 2000 years to make their point.


Fair enough - I didn't read your post as carefully as I should.




> And yes, Evolutions are still 'composing' their theories and facts but as a teacher which one would you find more worthwhile? A work which is done in a very short time through some inspiration or a work which is based on long research and keeps improving with new facts?


But the choices you provided are two books that may have been written for very different _purposes_, very different _audiences_. I don't want my science books written by "inspiration" and I don't want my literature based on "research and facts" (which is not an invitation to go "Oh, so the Bible's _just_ literature then, eh?") The Bible was never meant to do what a science book does - just as _The Old Man and the Sea_ isn't meant to be a fishing manual. When evolutionists pit their "evidence" against the _Genesis_ narrative they tend to go "See? How ridiculous is that?" - but the comparison is not completely fair because God did not intend for the Bible to be a science book. If God decided to write a science book, I'm certain it would make our own scientific masterpieces look silly and simplistic by comparison. But God's not interested in that. Evidence that points _towards_ something is not necessarily evidence that connects _to_ something.




> There are quite a few discovered transitional forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils.I.





> I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's absolutely not true. _On the Origin of Species_ is almost entirely devoted to evidence for marcro level evolution.


OK - slam-dunk. You'd been quiet lately, so I thought I could get away with some fast-and-loose comments. My info is probably outdated hearsay - which I'll only partly apologize for because I'm not in the habit of doing research to post in these threads. I'm certainly no expert on this stuff - but I've read articles that suggest that the accurate commentary Darwin makes on micro-evolution was extrapolated into macro-evolution, and that the extrapolation is not valid: just because something happens at the micro level does not inevitably suggest that that same process goes "macro" in the same (or even comprable) way. 

As I've said before: you have loads of evidence - I can't compete with it, primarily because God did not leave us "evidence" with which to debate non-believers with. He never intended us to convince non-believers of anything - except, perhaps, that living the Christian life was something of value.

----------


## Pendragon

> OK - slam-dunk. You'd been quiet lately, so I thought I could get away with some fast-and-loose comments. My info is probably outdated hearsay - which I'll only partly apologize for because I'm not in the habit of doing research to post in these threads. I'm certainly no expert on this stuff - but I've read articles that suggest that the accurate commentary Darwin makes on micro-evolution was extrapolated into macro-evolution, and that the extrapolation is not valid: just because something happens at the micro level does not inevitably suggest that that same process goes "macro" in the same (or even comprable) way.


Alas, Red, mon ami, when it comes to a debate you have to be prepared to present your side and expect that it will be micro-examined by the other. You must also be prepared to cross-examine the other, which you will never be able to do without research. Have you never heard the old proverb, "know thine enemy?" If you don't know what they will most likely say in return to your statement or how to try to counter, you are defeated before you start. And on a subject like this "fast-and-loose comments" will be picked up by the opposing side and tossed back to you. Think before you post, and then think some more.  :Smile:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Think before you post"

That's cheating, and takes all the fun out.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Alas, Red, mon ami, when it comes to a debate you have to be prepared to present your side and expect that it will be micro-examined by the other. You must also be prepared to cross-examine the other, which you will never be able to do without research. Have you never heard the old proverb, "know thine enemy?" If you don't know what they will most likely say in return to your statement or how to try to counter, you are defeated before you start. And on a subject like this "fast-and-loose comments" will be picked up by the opposing side and tossed back to you. Think before you post, and then think some more.


Thank you, Pen - I don't have a problem getting nailed like that. I admitted that I asked for it, and I knew my comment was on shaky ground. That's OK with me. I'm quite prepared to be micro-analyzed and to admit when my point is less (sometimes _far less_) than valid. I'm not convinced, however, that every poster here has gone out and "done the research" - whether that means reading scientific journals or the Bible. If this were a formal debate, then yeah, I'd have done some reading - but I do this for relaxation and fun. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt to "bone up" on some of the endless info cuppajoe seems to have access to.

----------


## Scheherazade

> but the comparison is not completely fair because God did not intend for the Bible to be a science book. If God decided to write a science book, I'm certain it would make our own scientific masterpieces look silly and simplistic by comparison. But God's not interested in that. Evidence that points _towards_ something is not necessarily evidence that connects _to_ something.


Then, people should not bringing up the Creationist theory as a scientific fact and say 'God did it!' when we are talking about our material existence and physical origins in this world. We should be able to make the distinction between physical and spiritual existence.

Oh, looking forward to the day when God finally decides to present us with such a book as you mentioned. Would have saved lots of trouble on earth, don't you think?

----------


## The Jackle

Well, when christ comes back upon this earth in the second comming ill ask him to write one. Anyway the creation theroy will always be in stalemate with the evolution theroy.There is an theroy that God started it all off in eden but when man was expelled for sins against god that God enabled animals and plants to change in order for them to populate the earth.That theroy is in my opinion most senceable, however the everlotion vs creation is currently more of an Atheiest Vs Belivers argument hence the stalement will continue.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> ...however the everlotion vs creation is currently more of an Atheiest Vs Belivers argument hence the stalement will continue.


It's not at all a God vs. No-God debate. Plenty of theists support biological evolution. The Vatican endorses Darwin nowadays (though they've never been big literalists) and Ken Miller, one of the most respeced cell-biologists in the field, is a practicing Roman Catholic.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then, people should not bringing up the Creationist theory as a scientific fact and say 'God did it!' when we are talking about our material existence and physical origins in this world. We should be able to make the distinction between physical and spiritual existence.


Who here is doing _that_? I don't think I've ever claimed it was a "scientific fact" - I'm pretty sure I've just been saying that I _believe_ the Genesis account is a factual account. I've never asked anybody to accept it as "scientific fact" because the Bible does not present it as such. But - if I see correctly, this thread is titled "Evolution vs Creation." That tells me that two distinct views are being contrasted - one a view based on the claims of human observation, the other on divine revelation. As such, I'm not really bothered that I can't counter modern science's claims with science of my own - if I could, well, then why bother with God at all? I don't ask anybody here to believe what I believe, or to accept my position as fact. I do not believe that it is possible to offer the atheist anything even remotely as "convincing" evidence-wise as can be pointed my way by the evolutionist. So? Does that disqualify me from claiming that I believe my view to be factual? 




> Oh, looking forward to the day when God finally decides to present us with such a book as you mentioned. Would have saved lots of trouble on earth, don't you think?


Do I detect some sarcasm here? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this particular publication to be issued - if you've read the Bible, you might have noticed that God has more pressing issues than providing science books for those who are skeptical. Saved what trouble? That there might be people who wouldn't believe Him without "scientific proof"? I don't see the trouble. There's plenty of reality that believers and nonbelievers alike accept without "factual" proof. 

Here's an idea: why don't you share _what_ exactly it _would_ take for you to believe in God? What would He have to do to convince you He's "real"?

----------


## Pendragon

You know, I have been with this thread or following its progress for a long time. It is going nowhere. The people who believe Creationism still arent going to budge. The people who believe in the Big Bang and Evolution only, (no Intelligent Design), arent going to change either. And the ones who can see both sides and meet somewhere betweenGod as Creator and Evolution as things adapt to an ever-changing worldwe arent going to move from that point as well. Stick a fork in this thread, I think were done!  :Wink:   :Smile:   :Biggrin:

----------


## lumiere08

As a newcomer to this forum, I confess being stunned at the results of the poll I saw, having then quickly scanned this discussion.

What is the foundation for adhering to creationism? Surely, it cannot be simply "belief." Belief itself has to be founded on some principle. If we accept that belief is founded on the superiority of the position which can most consistently account for the widest range of observations, surely this case has been won hands down by evolution!

Let me ask for a more specific explanation. How does the creationist view account, for example, for species extinction, of which there is unrefuted evidence? On a personal level, I have been to several places in the world (e.g. Madagascar) where discovery of species and its recorded extinction has occured in our lifetimes. I am at a loss to see how creationism consistently accounts for these and other similar episodes of change in the biosphere.

I can anticipate the counter-arguments, but would be curious to see the creationist argument come out of the closet clearly and transparently. :Biggrin:

----------


## Lily Adams

> You know, I have been with this thread or following its progress for a long time. It is going nowhere. The people who believe Creationism still arent going to budge. The people who believe in the Big Bang and Evolution only, (no Intelligent Design), arent going to change either. And the ones who can see both sides and meet somewhere betweenGod as Creator and Evolution as things adapt to an ever-changing worldwe arent going to move from that point as well. Stick a fork in this thread, I think were done!



Cereally. But this topic was really fun and interesting to read for the past half an hour for me...quit it, everyone, your'e distracting me from my homework!  :FRlol:  I kid, I kid! What a great topic!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What is the foundation for adhering to creationism? Surely, it cannot be simply "belief." Belief itself has to be founded on some principle. If we accept that belief is founded on the superiority of the position which can most consistently account for the widest range of observations, surely this case has been won hands down by evolution!


Only if you wish to treat Creationism as a "theory," subject to laws of human logic and reason. The idea of a Divine Being like God contradicts what human reason would reasonably speculate in terms of existence. In other words, since our "reason" is based on what we observe as "reality," then it makes sense that the idea of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being is nothing less than absurd. So, your parameters for ascertaining the strongest position is flawed from the beginning. Evolution only wins "hands down" if one is a naturalist and views the universe as composed of nothing but matter. 

Your premise that belief is founded on principle is certainly not a given. There's plenty of things people believe without having some "principle" standing as its foundation. 




> Let me ask for a more specific explanation. How does the creationist view account, for example, for species extinction, of which there is unrefuted evidence? On a personal level, I have been to several places in the world (e.g. Madagascar) where discovery of species and its recorded extinction has occured in our lifetimes. I am at a loss to see how creationism consistently accounts for these and other similar episodes of change in the biosphere.


Evolutionists' demand that Creationism account for all of science's discoveries, hypotheses and conclusions is their attempt to make us fight on their territory - the field of observable science. While I think Intelligent Design is making some headway in that direction, I still challenge this mindset that we have to provide answers for everything that contradicts the Bible. Only God knows those answers because He created everything. The idea that something is only "real" if it's irrefutably proven is fascinating - do you have empirical proof that your parents really loved you? Do you have empirical proof that we went to the moon? Do you have empirical proof that your mind is composed of a "conscious" and "unconscious"? Even if you dismiss these question, the point persists: there is plenty of reality that we accept without absolute "proof." Even evolution's arguments are still inductive in nature.





> I can anticipate the counter-arguments, but would be curious to see the creationist argument come out of the closet clearly and transparently.


Then perhaps you should go back and read through this thread - I'm pretty sure we've laid out our position quite clearly.

----------


## lumiere08

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;316224]Only if you wish to treat Creationism as a "theory," subject to laws of human logic and reason. The idea of a Divine Being like God contradicts what human reason would reasonably speculate in terms of existence. In other words, since our "reason" is based on what we observe as "reality," then it makes sense that the idea of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being is nothing less than absurd. So, your parameters for ascertaining the strongest position is flawed from the beginning. Evolution only wins "hands down" if one is a naturalist and views the universe as composed of nothing but matter. 

Your premise that belief is founded on principle is certainly not a given. There's plenty of things people believe without having some "principle" standing as its foundation. [QUOTE]

OK, if a Divine being exists and is responsible for all creation, why did this Divine being create human reason? I never understood how Creationists deal with this one. 

I find it astounding that an one can say that belief does not have to based on principle. If this is a serious claim, I wonder whether the implication is that Creationists are renouncing human reason as a faculty for understanding the world.




> Evolutionists' demand that Creationism account for all of science's discoveries, hypotheses and conclusions is their attempt to make us fight on their territory - the field of observable science. While I think Intelligent Design is making some headway in that direction, I still challenge this mindset that we have to provide answers for everything that contradicts the Bible. Only God knows those answers because He created everything. The idea that something is only "real" if it's irrefutably proven is fascinating - do you have empirical proof that your parents really loved you? Do you have empirical proof that we went to the moon? Do you have empirical proof that your mind is composed of a "conscious" and "unconscious"? Even if you dismiss these question, the point persists: there is plenty of reality that we accept without absolute "proof." Even evolution's arguments are still inductive in nature.



Thank you for you comment. It is unfortunate, in my view, for Creationists to become defensive towards demands to explaining how potent their views are in terms of explanatory capacity, to the point of rejecting any standard of proof. To renounce any standard of "proof" is simply an abdication of willingness to engage in an open debate. Certainly, there are reasonable standards of proof which can respond affirmatively to questions such as whether your parents loved you or we went to the moon (these questions are different questions of whether consciousness" and "uncosnciousness" exists). I also see no problem with so-called inductive proof. Are you implying that Creationsts have deductive proof? Or perhaps that proof is an irrelevant standard for the Creationist argument?

I still find no response to the problem of species extinction and how Creationism account for this.




> Then perhaps you should go back and read through this thread - I'm pretty sure we've laid out our position quite clearly.


Actually, I did. Unfortunately, I did not find it illuminating in terms of argument. Sorry. It may be that there cannot be a debate on this because there is simply a lack of willingness to agree on standards for a debate.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> OK, if a Divine being exists and is responsible for all creation, why did this Divine being create human reason? I never understood how Creationists deal with this one.


He created human reason for the same reason you probably think it exists - to process the world around us, examine it, draw conslusions about the world. He gave us "reason" because He desired us to be independent thinking creatures. In fact, the existence of reason is an argument for God - because without God, then what agent would you attribute to the existence of the rational faculty in human beings?




> I find it astounding that an one can say that belief does not have to based on principle. If this is a serious claim, I wonder whether the implication is that Creationists are renouncing human reason as a faculty for understanding the world.


Define "principle." I believe that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers of all time. To what "principle" should I attribute this belief? 

We are not renouncing "human reason as a faculty for understanding the world" at all; I am rejecting it as sufficient to understand God - since He's the basis of the creationist claim, then understanding Him cannot be separated from understanding the account of creation that the Bible gives us. I'm simply telling you that human reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to ravel out God; as such, His creation - an expression of Him, His power and creative ability - will ultimately transcend human reason. I'm not invalidating human reason - I'm claiming its limits.





> Thank you for you comment. It is unfortunate, in my view, for Creationists to become defensive towards demands to explaining how potent their views are in terms of explanatory capacity, to the point of rejecting any standard of proof. To renounce any standard of "proof" is simply an abdication of willingness to engage in an open debate. Certainly, there are reasonable standards of proof which can respond affirmatively to questions such as whether your parents loved you or we went to the moon (these questions are different questions of whether consciousness" and "uncosnciousness" exists). I also see no problem with so-called inductive proof. Are you implying that Creationsts have deductive proof? Or perhaps that proof is an irrelevant standard for the Creationist argument?.


Don't know where you got "defensive" from. 

This debate has no end - largely because the standard of proof the evolutionist demands to "convince" him/her that creationism is correct does not exist (at least not yet; but I'm not sure it ever will). The Bible wasn't written as s scientific treatise: it is the revelation of God's character. You talk of "standards of proof" - but the problem is that God is not that which can be "proven." But of course, neither can evolution. Despite its impressive finds, science has not _definitively_ proven anything. You want us to engage, but to what end? So you can simply dismiss everything we say, because ultimately, our argument falls back on a premise you will always reject: God says so, and we believe God. What argument would actually convince you that creationism is correct? I don't think there is one. You can't convince anybody of anything when each party is basing his argument on a different foundation.






> It may be that there cannot be a debate on this because there is simply a lack of willingness to agree on standards for a debate.


Probably the only thing you've said that I agree upon.

----------


## lumiere08

Thanks again.


[QUOTE]


> He created human reason for the same reason you probably think it exists - to process the world around us, examine it, draw conslusions about the world. He gave us "reason" because He desired us to be independent thinking creatures. In fact, the existence of reason is an argument for God - because without God, then what agent would you attribute to the existence of the rational faculty in human beings?


(1) But, it would seem to me, you are arguing this faculty of reason whose existence you accept, is irrelevant to the process of accepting a belief.

(2) The existence of reason by itself is not a necessry argument for God. You can explain the existence of reasons in many ways -- why do you claim that God is the only explanation?




> We are not renouncing "human reason as a faculty for understanding the world" at all; I am rejecting it as sufficient to understand God - since He's the basis of the creationist claim, then understanding Him cannot be separated from understanding the account of creation that the Bible gives us. I'm simply telling you that human reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to ravel out God; as such, His creation - an expression of Him, His power and creative ability - will ultimately transcend human reason. I'm not invalidating human reason - I'm claiming its limits.


Again, my question is whether reason plays ANY role in establishing the existence of God, in the Creationist view, according to you. What is this role, if any? Your comment above "...reason will ultiamtely fail in its attempt to ravel out God..." suggests that reason is anathema to belief in God.


Still no answer to how Creationism accounts for species extinction -- perhaps it doesn't?
 :Biggrin:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> (1) But, it would seem to me, you are arguing this faculty of reason whose existence you accept, is irrelevant to the process of accepting a belief.
> 
> (2) The existence of reason by itself is not a necessry argument for God. You can explain the existence of reasons in many ways -- why do you claim that God is the only explanation?


1) I didn't say "irrelevant" - I'm saying that it is not a _prerequisite_. Human beings believe plenty of things that go _against_ reason. Think about some of the great inventors of the past - how many of them were thought to be reasonable? Orvil and Wilber Wright come to mind. People thought their belief that human flight was possible was sheer insanity - Harvard professors predicted that humans would never fly - and Harvard professors are supposed to be reasonable, rational beings, aren't they?

2) I didn't claim God was the "only" explanation - I said I believe the existence of reason supports the idea that God exists.







> Again, my question is whether reason plays ANY role in establishing the existence of God, in the Creationist view, according to you. What is this role, if any? Your comment above "...reason will ultiamtely fail in its attempt to ravel out God..." suggests that reason is anathema to belief in God.


It suggests no such thing. Reason and God are not opposites. I said: reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to explain/comprehend God. Reason has its place in life - I'm not dismissing its value; I am - as I said earlier - claiming its limits.





> Still no answer to how Creationism accounts for species extinction -- perhaps it doesn't?


I'm probably going to give a really stupid answer here. Species get extinct because we kill them. Did I miss something? Why should an event in the far past explain why species disappear today?

----------


## lumiere08

> 1) I didn't say "irrelevant" - I'm saying that it is not a _prerequisite_. Human beings believe plenty of things that go _against_ reason. Think about some of the great inventors of the past - how many of them were thought to be reasonable? Orvil and Wilber Wright come to mind. People thought their belief that human flight was possible was sheer insanity - Harvard professors predicted that humans would never fly - and Harvard professors are supposed to be reasonable, rational beings, aren't they?
> 
> 2) I didn't claim God was the "only" explanation - I said I believe the existence of reason supports the idea that God exists.


Well, species became extinct long, long, long before humans emerged to kill them. Plenty of incontrovertible evidence to that effect. The question for the Creationist is this: If God created species, why would he want some of them to become extinct? Actually, until empirical evidence started pouring in in the nineteenth century evidencing species extinction, most people (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, who was an amateur scientists) were not aware of extinction, nor would they understand why a Supreme Creator would will it. Species extinction has created a real quandry for the Creationist argument -- and I am wondering how the Creationists are dealing with it, if other than simply to dismiss it. :Biggrin:

----------


## lumiere08

> Don't know where you got "defensive" from.


Sorry, I had meant, but overlooked, in my previous post, to reply to this point above too. 

The "defensiveness" of the Creationist argument, as you have laid it out, seems to come from an unwillingness, if not incapacity, to submit to a standard of proof. It seems the Creationist argument is that proof is unnecessary. The unfortunate consequence is that this type of argument can lead to naked intellectual terrorism, rather than enlightenment.

The Creationist argument seems to build on maligning reason as imperfect and limited. However, if the faculty of reason is used to its fullest, we can enter into a community enterprise where the "rules of the game" for accepting propostions are agreed upon, and we can test, prove and disprove propositions.

Such is the method of the evolutionist framework. It can test its propositions. Einstein himself used a mathematical framework to develop relativity which yielded testable propositions (it took several years for astronomical observations to test some of these). So startling were some of his predictions that Einstein himself refused to accept some of them -- like the one that the universe was expanding, which observational astronomy verified much later (leading Einstein to later admit his "greatest blunder" for not believing his own theory!).

Sadly, the Creationist argument remains a "closed" system impervious to such open validation, as further developed in my previous post.

Hence, its defensiveness.

 :Wink:

----------


## lumiere08

:Smile:  



> Reason and God are not opposites. I said: reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to explain/comprehend God. Reason has its place in life - I'm not dismissing its value; I am - as I said earlier - claiming its limits.


I may not have addressed the above point fully in my previous posts. Sorry.

It seems that in order to persist, the Creationist argument must survive by a continual assault on the faculty of reason. Reason, in the Creationist creed which has been laid out, is faulty, limited, and imperfect. Oddly, it is also at least part of the Creationist proof of God's existence -- a leap of faith I frankly find baffling.

This Creationist argument is built on a misleading foundation and total misunderstanding of the nature of human reason. Logic and empiricism -- the basis of the Evolutionist argument -- do not demand an unswerving intellectual loyalty impervious to refutation. The Evolutionist argument instead allows a standard for falsification and invalidation -- and in doing so, leads to more potent explanatory power. 
 :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It seems that in order to persist, the Creationist argument must survive by a continual assault on the faculty of reason. Reason, in the Creationist creed which has been laid out, is faulty, limited, and imperfect. Oddly, it is also at least part of the Creationist proof of God's existence -- a leap of faith I frankly find baffling.


One of the reasons that I think Pendragon tried to end this thread above is being demonstrated in this conversation - I feel like we're both just repeating ourselves. Your posts essentially repeat themselves: the Creationist position goes contrary to reason; hence the evolutionist position has a more substantial basis for belief because it is not contrary to reason. In a nutshell, that's what I'm hearing. My position, that I have to keep repeating is this: Creation is a product of a Divine Being - a being who, based on the account He gives of Himself in the Bible, is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. Those three adjectives describe a being that humans cannot fully comprehend because the terminology used to describe Him contradicts the characteristics of the world we observe (and science is based upon the observable world - whether "observable" means with the naked eye or other measuring devices). The creationist argument will never really be satisfying to an evolutionist because the evolutionist demands "scientific proof" for our claims - but how do you provide "proof" for a being that exists beyond human comprehension? You're right: the "leap of faith" involved is "baffling" - if you read the Bible, you would see that Christianity - at its base - offers a rather revolutionary vision of life - one that is almost paradoxical to human reason and human nature. To believe that all of reality can be apprehended through reason strikes me as absurd as my claims may seem to you. The human heart is pretty resistant to "logic," "reason," "rationality." The existence of love is almost an argument against reason - don't tell me that the romantic episodes of your life were chosen and based on your _logic_, your _reason_, your _rational faculties_. (Which, by the way, points back to the examples I listed earlier that you neglected to address.)





> This Creationist argument is built on a misleading foundation and total misunderstanding of the nature of human reason. Logic and empiricism -- the basis of the Evolutionist argument -- do not demand an unswerving intellectual loyalty impervious to refutation. The Evolutionist argument instead allows a standard for falsification and invalidation -- and in doing so, leads to more potent explanatory power.


Evolution does require the same "leap of faith" that Creationism does. Ultimately, no matter how much "evidence" science amasses to support its position, ultimately it doesn't know - because _we weren't there at the beginning_. As such, since science cannot go back in time, the best it can do is search nature for clues and fashion those into a _convincing hypothesis._ As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between our positions is the basis of our choice: you have chosen science as your authority; I choose God. Neither of us chose our position because it was _proven_ to us - we _chose_ the one that we felt, believed was true. 


As far as reason being evidence for God: if the universe is nothing more than measurable material, then there is no reason for human thought to say anything of truth - because the naturalist view of the universe indicates that there is only nature. If there is only nature, then the thoughts in my head are merely the consequence of chemical reactions, neuroelectric charges randomly firing in the brain, etc. How can these events produce _truth_? The naturalist argument "eats itself" because there is no reason that science (a product of random, uncontrollable chemical/biological processes in the brains of scientists) should believe its own claims because those claims were _determined_ by physical/chemical/biological processes.

I'm fine if you'd like to go around in circles some more, but really - the choice to choose creation comes _after_ choosing God. That's why we can't convince you of our position - you deny the very _reason_ that creation is real to us.

----------


## brainstrain

I see some people doubting the point of continuing this thread. Well, is that really your choice? If you're tired of discussing it, then don't! And leave this arguement to the next generation of LitNeters ^_^

----------


## Redzeppelin

Thanks for the advice.

----------


## Pendragon

Certainly, mes amis, if you wish to continue to beat the dead horse, continue to do so, it cannot make it any less dead. I still see nothing that has not been brought up before, discussed, even violently argued about with both sides (to their like disgrace) calling names. It is not really a discussion, as in "Let me hear your point of view and I'll consider it carefully." It is simply put an all or none situation, with no room for people like myself who can actually find reason to believe both in a Creator and Evolution. I go to far for the Creationist and not far enough for the Evolutionist. So we are at an impasse. No one is listening, but everyone is talking.  :Nod:

----------


## yingqiee

Dear Pendragon, 
I agree with your point of view:

Please forgive if I repeat something that has been said before; I did not read all the previous posts. I believe evolution occurs, because all animals definitely change over time. For example, the progression of increasingly "human-like" humanoids that have been found. However, I believe that Darwin's theory that we all come from 1 ancestor is flawed. According to Morowitz, a professor at Yale, even with optimistically rapid rates of reaction, the calculated time for JUST BACTERIUM to form from random interaction of particles as implied by Darwin's original theory exceeds not only the 4.5 billion years of the Earth, but also the 15 billion years of the entire universe.

Hence, I find that while evolution in the sense of organisms changing slowly over the years is true, Darwin's original (please note that i mean "original") theory has little scientific backing. Hence, creationism and evolution can coexist; i.e. A superior entity created something(s), and that something(s) slowly evolved into the somethings now.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Hence, creationism and evolution can coexist; i.e. A superior entity created something(s), and that something(s) slowly evolved into the somethings now.


This would strike me as a great answer if the Biblical account didn't fully contradict it.

----------


## yingqiee

Apparently, according to Schroeder, Genesis was meant to be read like a poem. Hence, 7 days might not be literally seven days and the world from my point of view as a Christian(which might not reflect that of other Christians) may not have been created in "7 days". (IMHO)

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Apparently, according to Schroeder, Genesis was meant to be read like a poem. Hence, 7 days might not be literally seven days and the world from my point of view as a Christian(which might not reflect that of other Christians) may not have been created in "7 days". (IMHO)


Well, perhaps. But who is Schroeder, and what makes his/her claim authoritative? How did s/he establish how Genesis was "meant" to be read?

Granted: there are things in the Bible that are meant figuratively, but one would assume that God would (knowing the human brain and language as He does) make it fairly clear where we should take Him figuratively and literally. Schroeder (and other like-minded critics) strike me as individuals who wish to harmonize the Genesis account with science. Why? Why must the actions of God (who exists _outside_ nature) harmonize _with_ nature? Why is it so hard to believe that any Being _capable_ of bringing the world into existence could do it in a week?

----------


## yingqiee

Dr Gerald Schroeder used to be a professor of nuclear physics at MIT. The information I posted was taken from his book, "The Science of God". I guess that ultimately I can't prove my position, because accoprding to current scientific theory, nothing can be proven; it can only be disproven. However, I am inclined to think that Genesis possesses certain figurative elements due to other sources, like this: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html While I agree with you that God is most certainly omnipotent, and need not harmonize with nature, I believe that God decided to act (at least mostly) according to the laws of nature, due to the large emphasis on obtaining knowledge in the Bible(my interpretation)

e.g. 
Proverbs 8:1
Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

and also due to the verses in Job e.g.

Job 39:1 Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve? 

which I interpret as God laying out certain rules for the way the Earth works, and hence (this is my inference) how it was created.

I personally feel that although science is not crucial to understanding God, God does not mind if we discover more about the world around us and how it works and was created. However, we do not need to place excessive faith in Science, because as seen in history, many scientific theories get refuted after a while. However, the Bible has been around for ages and I personally feel that nothing can refute it. I tried myself to look for contradictions in it, and I examined those on the many web pages on the net. Their "contradictions" are simply interpretations out of context, for example, : http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tellalie.html ("contradiction" and refutation are both there. I'm too lazy to answer some on this forum  :Smile:  )

In the end, I think that ultimate knowledge is not about the physical world around us and how it works(scientific knowledge) but about God and how He works(that I feel can only be obtained from a very personal relationship with Him and not through science, because while the Bible did not really say anything about how we should gain knowledge about how the world works, it does say that we ought to learn more about God through a relationship with God sustained through prayer, etc.)

----------


## Redzeppelin

> While I agree with you that God is most certainly omnipotent, and need not harmonize with nature, I believe that God decided to act (at least mostly) according to the laws of nature


Then why not just say so in the original account? Why say "6 days" if God really means "6 million years"? Why be intentionally misleading about something that is crucial (in my opinion) to our picture of Who God Is? Schroeder's a smart guy all right - who wants to argue with MIT? But his explanation sounds like an attempt to harmonize science and the Bible at the expense of what God told us.

God created the "laws of nature" for us - not for Himself. The laws of nature that govern the world didn't exist until He created them. Why take the long way?

----------


## yingqiee

Like I said earlier, I think that that parts of the original book of Genesis was like poetry, implying that it may not have been intended to be literal: http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/v...method=display 
I believe the original poetic effect was lost in certain bible translations, and I think that time may work differently for God as opposed to us humans. Hence, the 6 days as stated by the Bible(from God's point of view) relative to us may have been of a different value.

Personally, in the end, I see no reason to argue about how the earth was created with a Christian; I think that God would rather us asking Him what to do with our lives as opposed to asking Him how the world was created. I just did not like it that posters were dismissing arguments for Creationism as being "an assault on the faculty of reason" when their arguments against Creationism were worse.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Like I said earlier, I think that that parts of the original book of Genesis was like poetry, implying that it may not have been intended to be literal: http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/v...method=display 
> I believe the original poetic effect was lost in certain bible translations, and I think that time may work differently for God as opposed to us humans. Hence, the 6 days as stated by the Bible(from God's point of view) relative to us may have been of a different value.


Right: and I'm willing to admit that this may very well be true. What I'm asking is based on logic (I guess): if you were God, and you had to provide your believers with a sort of "manual" that was supposed to guide their lives and their choices and their beliefs, why not be direct about things that do not gain any power by being metaphorical? How do 6 million years become 6 days in a translation error? I guess I'm asking whether or not God says what He means. Granted: some parts of the Bible are metaphoric or parable-based - but the context often makes that clear. What context (besides the desire to harmonize science with God) makes Genesis figurative instead of literal? It's identity as poetry does not imply that it must be figurative in nature. Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its _structure_ more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc).






> Personally, in the end, I see no reason to argue about how the earth was created with a Christian; I think that God would rather us asking Him what to do with our lives as opposed to asking Him how the world was created. I just did not like it that posters were dismissing arguments for Creationism as being "an assault on the faculty of reason" when their arguments against Creationism were worse.



I agree. But I do think it matters how things came into being because each method says something different about _who God is_. While the time-table for creation is not necessarily a crucial issue (I think there will be those in heaven with all kinds of interpretations), I do think it matters.

----------


## MattG

Why not jump right into the fray for my first post here?

I believe in God but generally dislike organized religion. My beliefs would definitely tend toward Christianity, but I'm not a card carrying member of a church. 

I also believe that evolutionary theory has a lot of merit and that as a whole it doesn't really conflict with my other beliefs unless I start making unfounded leaps in logic. 

I believe in both things to a point so I'm thinking I'll pick 'other'. 

-SF

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its structure more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc)."

"Moab is my wash-pot and over Edom will I cast out my shoe"

"He maketh me to lie down by still waters"

"Your hair is like a flock of goats, frisking down the slopes of Gilead"

Are these poetic devices merely tricks of translation? The psalms, the Song, even the prophets are full of poetical and rhetorical device - is all that down to St Jerome?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Hebrew poetry, in fact, is *generally distinguished* by its _structure_ *more than* traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc).


My post makes it clear that I did not say figurative devices are totally absent from Hebrew poetry. My use of "generally" makes that point clear. Either way: poetic language does not necessarily mean that something should be interpreted figuratively.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "I did not say figurative devices are totally absent from Hebrew poetry. My use of "generally" makes that point clear. "

My objection is precisely to your use of the word "generally." I am quite aware that it does not mean "totally," but Hebrew poetry is very rich in figurative language, and to imply otherwise (as use of "generally" does) is misleading. I have just browsed through the psalms, and every one of them contained metaphors or similes, at least. The Song of Solomon is almost one vast collection of similes, and may indeed be pure allegory.

Not only are such poetic devices used in passages designed as poetry, but the prophets speak largely using "the traditional poetic devices." Isaiah looks forward to a time when swords are beaten into ploughshares, and lions lie down with lambs. There is not one of them that speaks without recourse to figurative language.

So - in general - traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc.) are a major feature of Hebrew writings, poetic and other.

Please note, I am not arguing against your assertion that Genesis should be taken literally - only against one part of your supporting argument. The fact that excited Hebrews rarely spoke without resorting to figuative language does not mean that any particular passage may not be taken literally if you so wish.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Fine. Perhaps I need to recheck my source (it's been a while since I read it). I'm not bent on pushing this point, because the real point is that poetry does not necessarily imply a figurative reality. Metaphoric language that implies something TOTALLY different than the truth the poet intends to express without establishing a context that points to _how_ the metaphor points _to_ the truth is badly written poetry. I do not think God is a bad poet (and, I assume that anybody writing under the inspiration of God would do a reasonably clear job of it).

----------


## WriterAtTheSea

> Who _does_ believe this? Certainly not evolutionists . . . or have I completely misdigested the entire theory? I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor (?).
> 
> By the way, that Leadership U is a great website. They hold WLC's material.



Anthropologists by the bucket loads (lol) believe that. At least the few that I have known do. I think you might have mis-digested your pepperoni pizza with green peppers, sausage and onions... (Just kidding) I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor too... But it is not the apes... surely not... Sigh, it simply cannot be!  :Crash:  

Yeah, Leadership U is fascinating.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Stanislaw

> Why not jump right into the fray for my first post here?
> 
> I believe in God but generally dislike organized religion. My beliefs would definitely tend toward Christianity, but I'm not a card carrying member of a church. 
> 
> I also believe that evolutionary theory has a lot of merit and that as a whole it doesn't really conflict with my other beliefs unless I start making unfounded leaps in logic. 
> 
> I believe in both things to a point so I'm thinking I'll pick 'other'. 
> 
> -SF


You tend to be in the state that I am now. I don't really think evolution contradicts religious thinking.

nice avatar btw

----------


## Pendragon

> Originally Posted by yingqiee 
> Hence, creationism and evolution can coexist; i.e. A superior entity created something(s), and that something(s) slowly evolved into the somethings now.





> This would strike me as a great answer if the Biblical account didn't fully contradict it.


I am so tired of this subject that it is unbelievable, yet no one seems to want to build the poor old horse a coffin and bury it. Red, mon ami, the wording of Genesis leaves room for a lot of time. First of all, it states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was with out form, and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. This is *Prior* to the seven _days_ of creation, for the next thing stated is that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light.", and there was light. Then He divided the light from darkness and called it day and night, the first day. 

How long did the Earth hang there void? It doesn't say. But there is a verse that states that a thousand years is a day with the Lord and a day as a thousand years. So The time span could be measured in thousand year increments, for the six days of creation, then God rested, recall for a day-- so tack on another possible thousand years.

Please do not try to tell me that the events described in Genesis 2 are but repeats of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, God speaks, and it happens. In Genesis 2, He forms the stuff out of the things that make up the Earth, which is why we are carbon-based lifeforms. He now plants the grasses and trees, forms man and the animals. How long were they in Eden? The Bible doesn't say, but they were there for a time, because God came down in the cool of the eve to talk with them.

Genealogy in the Bible starts with the fall. That's when time as we know it began. 

You can disagree, and that is your privilege. But don't claim there is no evidence there for the other side, that God created, and animals and man have evolved since into what we are now. We Are not all one race, are we? Yet we started with Adam and Eve. People moved to different areas, the great land mass (dry land) broke apart, stranding some in various places, and adapt or die. 

Take a place like Madagascar. Why does it have so many life forms found nowhere else? The Galapagos? Borneo? See!?

God Bless. 

Pen.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I am so tired of this subject that it is unbelievable, yet no one seems to want to build the poor old horse a coffin and bury it. Red, mon ami, the wording of Genesis leaves room for a lot of time. First of all, it states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was with out form, and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. This is *Prior* to the seven _days_ of creation, for the next thing stated is that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light.", and there was light. Then He divided the light from darkness and called it day and night, the first day. 
> 
> How long did the Earth hang there void? It doesn't say. But there is a verse that states that a thousand years is a day with the Lord and a day as a thousand years. So The time span could be measured in thousand year increments, for the six days of creation, then God rested, recall for a day-- so tack on another possible thousand years.
> 
> 
> You can disagree, and that is your privilege. But don't claim there is no evidence there for the other side, that God created, and animals and man have evolved since into what we are now. We Are not all one race, are we? Yet we started with Adam and Eve. People moved to different areas, the great land mass (dry land) broke apart, stranding some in various places, and adapt or die.


Pen - I respect that you're tired of this argument; perhaps some of us haven't been engaged in it long enough yet to reach a similar feeling as yours. As well, I'm not here to "win" - I'm here to listen to the arguments and understand how others see them as valid and to explain (as best I can) how I see mine to be valid. I do not intend to convert anybody here - I believe that discussion and debate is less about winning than it is about understanding the opponent's position and evaluating it and examining my own position for areas of weakness.

As far as the theory you presented, yes - I'm aware of the "gap theory" (which states that an indeterminate period of time elapsed between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) as well as the "day age" theory (a day = 1000 years) and I do not buy either of them. They may both be right, the may both be not. As a literary critic, I have difficulty playing around with the biblical narrative and interpreting certain things based on a lack of certain language. Speculating on what an _omission_ means is very tricky in my book. I don't want to get into competing interpretations with you - you clearly are much more knowledgable than I in terms of the Bible - but I like to think that God speaks literally unless there is more to be gained by figurative speaking because figurative speaking requires interpretation.

Honestly, I don't know. If God meant for the creation narrative to imply thousands of years or multiple creations, why not make that clear - as opposed to requiring us to interpret the "silences"?

----------


## JGL57

> ...Honestly, I don't know. If God meant for the creation narrative to imply thousands of years or multiple creations, why not make that clear - as opposed to requiring us to interpret the "silences"?


Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that abortion is murder?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that slavery is morally wrong?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that homosexual behavior is especially heinous?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that evolution is incompatible with creationism, and that Genesis "days" mean 24 hr. long days?

- if, indeed, all of this is of the greatest importance, as many fundie Christians believe?

Also, why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T.m that no Christian, at any time, under any circumstances, should ever be converted at the edge of a sword, and failing that, be killed in the name of Jesus? IOW, why did not say at something straightforward to kick the legs from under the inquisitions, witch-burnings, Jew murders, genocidal crusades, Catholic/Protestant murders, and other tortures and murders - all in the Name of Jesus? He just couldn't be put out - had better things to do - what? 

To put it mildly - and in a nutshell - the bible is less than clear on a lot of important issues.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that abortion is murder?


You mean it's not obvious that abortion is murder? You needed to be told that?




> Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that slavery is morally wrong?


Jesus was not a social revolutionary. He did not come to "fix" society or address all of its problems. Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America.




> Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that homosexual behavior is especially heinous?


God made it clear in both the OT and in the NT through the words of Paul.




> Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that evolution is incompatible with creationism, and that Genesis "days" mean 24 hr. long days? - if, indeed, all of this is of the greatest importance, as many fundie Christians believe?


Why does Jesus have to say all this? These things were not his priority - saving human souls was. Here: 

"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. _And there was evening and there was morning, the first day_." Genesis 1:3-5

Which part of that is unclear?





> Also, why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T.m that no Christian, at any time, under any circumstances, should ever be converted at the edge of a sword, and failing that, be killed in the name of Jesus? IOW, why did not say at something straightforward to kick the legs from under the inquisitions, witch-burnings, Jew murders, genocidal crusades, Catholic/Protestant murders, and other tortures and murders - all in the Name of Jesus? He just couldn't be put out - had better things to do - what? 
> 
> To put it mildly - and in a nutshell - the bible is less than clear on a lot of important issues.


Your questions, understandable as they are, reveal that you do not have even the slightest understanding of Christ's mission on earth; as well, they imply that you've not read very closely the book you are choosing to criticize. As a matter of fact, Christ did have "better" things to do - saving humanity from the consequences of its sin. Christ was not a social revolutionary; He did not come here to correct society's ills with a neat listing of new commandments. He came here to show us a better way of living, and to offer us the gift of eternal life - all of us. A careful examination of the NT clearly reveals principles that are to guide us in making decisions about abortion, slavery, etc. Christ did not have to address every social/personal problem in order for us to understand how to address them - behaviors inconsistent with the principles put forth in the Bible ought not be done. Period. 

For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't points of confusion, but that clarity can be found in the Bible - provided one is being led by the Holy Spirit. Non-believers reading without God's guidance may very well be confused by certain things that make perfect sense to believers.

----------


## ennison

Someone above said that atheists were often looked on as 'hedonistic sociopaths' 

Hedonists I can live with. Sociopaths are different but you don't judge a sociopath by what he/she says but by actions and if the sociopathic behaviour is based on or justified by a set of beliefs then it is normal to be suspicious of these beliefs - theist or a-theist. But of course being sociopathic it may be that a claim to justify actions by beliefs is only a lie or smokescreen for a deeper underlying malaise. Sin is what I believe that refers to. I doubt if many people are persuaded one way or the other by what is posted here but feel themselves more akin to poster A than poster B or C and so on. Maybe later a thought might take root that was first aired here - who knows. People are touchy and would rather not face up to unpleasant truths about things that have been done by their co-believers and frequently find themselves adopting apparently rigid positions in order not to give an inch in argument. It is usually easier to discuss these matters with those who have similar beliefs - everything else is argument.

----------


## Iago

> Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America.


I just picked that one randomly, coz it's easy to address quickly  :Wink:  




> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)





> If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)





> When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)





> When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)






> For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear.


 :Wink:   :Wink:   :Wink:

----------


## ennison

Point? There is a passage in the OT that refers to men making their own laws (end of Judges) Are you suggesting that we base our Biblical authority on old Jewish laws or are you suggesting that the abolitionists did not get support from the Bible or are you saying they were mistaken. Dash and I so need a slave right now too..... if only these Wilberforces and others had been more knowledgeable about what the Bible REALLY said

----------


## JGL57

> ... You mean it's not obvious that abortion is murder? You needed to be told that?..


Yes I do - so do 80 per cent of extant Americans, and most of the world - especially during the first month or two, and especially in the first week or two. It would have been helpful if Jesus (not Paul) had said "from the moment of conception, before the fertilized ovum is even implanted, or when there is only a blastocyst smaller than the eye can see - or words to that effect. Again, if this is such an important issue, why did not Jesus (not Paul) address it? Abortions, BTW, are not a modern phenomenon - they performed them back then also.




> ...Jesus was not a social revolutionary. He did not come to "fix" society or address all of its problems. Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America...


That's a copout. Jesus took the time to whip the thieves out of the temple, yet he didn't have time to address one of the more heinous sins of man against man? Slavery is less a sin than dishonoring one's parents? Or coveting one's neighbor's ***? Or committing adultery? Why do civilized nations today generally have laws against slavery but not against most of the 10 commandments, including adultery and coveting? By any decent standards the "moral" teachings of the bible, including the N.T., are totally out of whack.




> ...God made it clear in both the OT and in the NT through the words of Paul...


Again, a copout. If homosexuality is SUCH a big deal one would think Jesus (in addition to Paul) would have uttered a few lines specifically denouncing it. It certainly is a big deal to many Christians today. Why the lack of emphasis on this "sin" by extant Christians but not by Jesus? He took time to forgive the women caught in adultery - his famous "Let he who is without sin" speech, but didn't think it worth the time to address the leading "sin" issue of today? I thought Jesus, as the alleged son of god, was prescient?




> ...Why does Jesus have to say all this? These things were not his priority - saving human souls was. Here: 
> 
> "And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. _And there was evening and there was morning, the first day_." Genesis 1:3-5 ...





> ...Which part of that is unclear?..


As poetic expression, nothing. As science it is crap, as the sun was created on the fourth day, four days after god began separating light and dark. The ancients would wrote Genesis was primitives regarding their understandings of natural processes - they didn't even understand that the sun is the light, and the earth rotation causes the night.




> ...Your questions, understandable as they are, reveal that you do not have even the slightest understanding of Christ's mission on earth; as well, they imply that you've not read very closely the book you are choosing to criticize. As a matter of fact, Christ did have "better" things to do - saving humanity from the consequences of its sin. Christ was not a social revolutionary; He did not come here to correct society's ills with a neat listing of new commandments. He came here to show us a better way of living, and to offer us the gift of eternal life - all of us. A careful examination of the NT clearly reveals principles that are to guide us in making decisions about abortion, slavery, etc. Christ did not have to address every social/personal problem in order for us to understand how to address them - behaviors inconsistent with the principles put forth in the Bible ought not be done. Period...For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't points of confusion, but that clarity can be found in the Bible - provided one is being led by the Holy Spirit. Non-believers reading without God's guidance may very well be confused by certain things that make perfect sense to believers...


Right. You and yours are right and everyone else - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and thousands of other religions, plus atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, etc. are all wrong. Because you and a privileged few have plugged into the true god and have the ability to understand the biblical messages from god that the majority of us lack because..... You say so. Those many Christians who do not interpret the bible your way are just wrong and not under the guidance of the "holy spirit" because....you say so. Everything you say and believe is true and correct because.... you say so.

Yeah - I get it. Everyone should never contradict you because you know exactly what you're talking about because....you say so. You speak for god, the creator the universe because....you say so. Your interpretation of the bible is the correct on because....you say so.

Well - isn't that special.

----------


## Scheherazade

**** Please carry on your discussions without personalising them. ****

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Right. You and yours are right and everyone else - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and thousands of other religions, plus atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, etc. are all wrong. Because you and a privileged few have plugged into the true god and have the ability to understand the biblical messages from god that the majority of us lack because..... You say so. Those many Christians who do not interpret the bible your way are just wrong and not under the guidance of the "holy spirit" because....you say so. Everything you say and believe is true and correct because.... you say so.
> 
> Yeah - I get it. Everyone should never contradict you because you know exactly what you're talking about because....you say so. You speak for god, the creator the universe because....you say so. Your interpretation of the bible is the correct on because....you say so.
> 
> Well - isn't that special.


I am sorry that my answer has bothered you so. I was simply trying to answer your question. I am not the privileged "mouthpiece" for God, but all believers are called to defend the faith. Anybody who is truly searching for truth can read the Bible and it will "speak" to them - but its meanings become clearer when one allows the guidance of the Holy Spirit to inform his/her reading. Nothing is because "I say so" - I tell things as I understand them from years of reading the Bible and asking God to open my eyes and heart into the true understanding the Bible has to offer. If one reads the Bible merely to rebut it or scoff at it, then yes, it will appear fairly ridiculous. Certainly you understand how the attitude one has towards someone/something "shapes" our view? That my love for my wife or children makes them lovely to me - while you might find my wife unattractive and my children obnoxious and unlovable. The Bible and God are the same way: the attitude with which one approaches them will largely decide how they appear. There is no secret, esoteric knowledge - but there is understanding given to those who earnestly seek to understand for the right reasons.

Jesus was not a social revolutionary; He only had so much time on this earth and His primary mission was to save humanity from the consequences of sin and the Law. Other social problems He left up to us to deal with, along with the guidance offered by scriptures. Yes - He could have made a few issues less "gray" - but then again, how much of life exists in the black and white you seem to desire? Just because Jesus didn't say something doesn't mean it has no validity - you can't extract Christ out of the Bible and say the rest of it is invalid: either it all is valid, or none of it is. It is sufficient that God, Paul or some other writer made a statement.

I'd like to have a peaceful discussion, but I'm losing hope that that's possible.

----------


## Pendragon

One thought here. People keep talking about *empirical* proof. I find that defined as _provable or verifiable by experience or experiment_. Now we come to something called *burden of proof.* The burden of proof lies with the person presenting the case, not the ones to whom the case is being presented. With something this big, there can be no room for simple *preponderance of the evidence.* This needs to be *beyond reasonable doubt.* The fact is, there are holes in evolution theory. There are problems with Creation, some that are not going to go away. The burden of proof lies with those who present the evidence. The other side doesn't have to do anything. There is no empirical evidence one way or another. There is what we call most likely. There is what we call "Faith." Either could be wrong. Neither wrong could also be correct. No unimpeachable proof, just a universe of endless posibilities. Why do we tie ourselves to a single viewpoint? "With God, all things are possible."

----------


## Wintermute

> ... Either could be wrong. Neither wrong could also be correct. No unimpeachable proof, just a universe of endless posibilities. Why do we tie ourselves to a single viewpoint? "With God, all things are possible."


Hi Pen,

Hehe, looks like you may be up here on the fence with me. Anything is possible, nothing is certain, imo.
Cheers

----------


## JGL57

> Hi Pen,
> 
> Hehe, looks like you may be up here on the fence with me. Anything is possible, nothing is certain, imo.
> Cheers


What reasonable person wouldn't agree that "anything is possible, nothing is certain"? But not all assumptions are equal. Knowlege is not UTTERLY subjective. All ideas are not equal, just because no human can know anything for absolute certain.

Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.

Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.

People are free to "believe" in whatever the heck they wish - invisible pixies hiding behind tree stumps in the forest, if that makes them happy. Who should care if such people obey the law?But science tries to actually understand the universe, not interpret it according to some faith-based initiative of dogmatic adherence to two thousand year old "science".

Live and let live works here - when people know their places and actually live and let live, not just say the words. E.g., when school board members pronounce on what science is or isn't, even thought they are laymen, and inject politics (it's really politics, not religion) into science, then we have a problem.

Every judge to date - pretty much - has thrown the creationists out of the business of interfering with science classes. Believers in creationism have changed the language used recently name to promoting "Intelligent Design", but they are not fooling anybody - a wolf in sheeps' clothing is still a wolf.

If scientists don't get to teach science in Sunday school in churches on some equal time basis, then creationists don't get to push their foolishness on public school science classes - just like astrologers can't sell their garbage in public school astronomy classes.

THAT is the issue. And if the scientific community doesn't win this particular fight, and similar fights, then it may very well be back to the dark ages for us all.

Let science be science and religion be religion. That's the best that can happen, giving the circumstances of our society, composed as it is of such a huge number of people who are as ignorant of science as I am of 15th century French literature.

----------


## Wintermute

> Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.


Agreed. My mistake, I was talking about the more foggy questions like, "does an intelligent universe creator exist?" ...forgot which thread I was in. My bad.

Yes, I've seen enough evidence to be completely convinced that evolution is fact. There is definatly a ton more evidence than an Adam & Eve like scenerio.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.
> 
> Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt.


Would you mind directing me to the source of this statement? Do you have a published reference that evolution is "proved beyond any reasonable doubt," or is that simply your opinion/preferrence? 

Atomic theory, germ theory of disease and heliocentricity all deal with things/processes that continuously occur/exist, and are therefore observable NOW; evolution provides a theory as to how things began and progressed in the far removed _past_ - totally unobservable in the present and understood only through speculation based upon clues found in nature. Evolution is in a different category than the others listed.

The source, please?

----------


## Guzmán

> Would you mind directing me to the source of this statement? Do you have a published reference that evolution is "proved beyond any reasonable doubt," or is that simply your opinion/preferrence? 
> 
> Atomic theory, germ theory of disease and heliocentricity all deal with things/processes that continuously occur/exist, and are therefore observable NOW; evolution provides a theory as to how things began and progressed in the far removed _past_ - totally unobservable in the present and understood only through speculation based upon clues found in nature. Evolution is in a different category than the others listed.
> 
> The source, please?


Hey there. By mere coincidence i just adressed a while ago the issue about evolution being observable and the whole controversy about it on the "Atheists..." thread. Maybe you could check out what I wrote and give me your opinion. I look forward to your response.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

well normally i take an ignorant position for fun to attack the close minded christians i know but i think i will limitedly use my actual opinion here.

there really isnt a way to debate this effectively. people have to have doubts on their own whether they be atheist agnostic or religious before any sort of discussion benefits them. this topic is pretty much a watse of time in achieving any actual sort of conversion of the opponenet. im quite happy to see some more or less intelligent debate which is a nice change from waht i am used to. in my opinion the best evidence of god not existing is the affect that atheist and even religous scientists have created. heliocentricity and germ theory seem to me to be very powerful arguements for the bible being wrong. the church ahs been forced quite a bit to alter its claims when good and supportive evidence for a theory turns up. the constant revision of a system (the chruch especially) which claims to have the answers to every issue in comparison with science which agrees that many of its ideas are geusses suggests that either god is not real or that the bible wasnt inspired by god. i cant agree with the idea about them not udnerstanding issues and thus god waiting to allow them to discover them.

----------


## darkmage2003

Personal bias: I don't like to think that we're evolved from monkeys. That's kind of disturbing.

I will situate this now. I am a Christian and I believe in Creationism. However, that does not mean that evolution isn't real. The power of evolution is all around us. People adapt by forcing nature to adapt to us, nature changes to accept us, animals feed off of our wastes (trash type, I mean).

Now Matrim, I want you to think about this: the Bible was finished over 1700 years ago. Can you _really_ expect medical science to be the same back then as it is now? Also, according to what I've heard (though I do not assume that what the person said is God's own opinion), the "unclean" animals were deemed thus for the safety of humans. If you undercook pork, you can die. If you don't prepare shellfish and certain other seafood, you'll die. The list goes on and on. Since the people of the time could not prepare the food correctly back then, they would have died had they eaten it. However, by the time Christ came to save us, people could properly prepare the food.

And when you say "the church", do you mean the _Catholic_ Church or Christianity as a whole? Because "the church", as used in the Bible, refers to all Christians as one body.

And although society groups Christianity and Protestantism together, I personally think that they're not one in the same. The beliefs and requirements are much, much different. Such as the belief that the virgin Mary is holy. By definition, she'd have to be sinless if she were to be considered holy. There's other stuff too.

----------


## Pendragon

It is perfectly reasonable to doubt that the animal life evolved from Primordial Soup, as they call it, given the vast diversity of life on this planet. And if Darwin was correct, why has evolution as he described it passed up some things that remain unchanged, while others change so rapidly that we cant keep up with them? It is also perfectly reasonable for people to doubt the existence of an all-powerful God when they see so much go wrong in the world. In the end, it is all a question of what you choose to believe. Choice is the gift of mankind that sets him above the animal. God bless.

----------


## Wintermute

> Choice is the gift of mankind that sets him above the animal. God bless.


When our cat Indy jumps in bed with us at night, she makes a choice--should she curl up next to me or my wife? Her decision varies based on some thought process of her own.

Also, if one assumes choice to be a 'gift', then one must also assume something gave the gift--which kind of limits one's choice, no?

----------


## JGL57

> When our cat Indy jumps in bed with us at night, she makes a choice--should she curl up next to me or my wife? Her decision varies based on some thought process of her own.
> 
> Also, if one assumes choice to be a 'gift', then one must also assume something gave the gift--which kind of limits one's choice, no?



Maybe "gift" is the wrong metaphor. Maybe the universe is a free lunch. No reason that it can't be.

Where's your god then, Moses?

----------


## ennison

Well if one takes 'choice' to be along the lines of .... If not A Then B, I'd have to say yes it's fairly obvious that animals work at that level. My sheepdogs do anyway. But perhaps what Pendragon means is a more complex form of choice, which involves moral decisions and the choosing between the good and the better. My sheepdogs cannot do that but mind you I reckon we are not all that consistently good at doing that ourselves.

----------


## Stanislaw

> One thought here. People keep talking about *empirical* proof. I find that defined as _provable or verifiable by experience or experiment_. Now we come to something called *burden of proof.* The burden of proof lies with the person presenting the case, not the ones to whom the case is being presented. With something this big, there can be no room for simple *preponderance of the evidence.* This needs to be *beyond reasonable doubt.* The fact is, there are holes in evolution theory. There are problems with Creation, some that are not going to go away. The burden of proof lies with those who present the evidence. The other side doesn't have to do anything. There is no empirical evidence one way or another. There is what we call most likely. There is what we call "Faith." Either could be wrong. Neither wrong could also be correct. No unimpeachable proof, just a universe of endless posibilities. Why do we tie ourselves to a single viewpoint? "With God, all things are possible."


 :Biggrin:  well said




> What reasonable person wouldn't agree that "anything is possible, nothing is certain"? But not all assumptions are equal. Knowlege is not UTTERLY subjective. All ideas are not equal, just because no human can know anything for absolute certain.
> 
> Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.
> 
> Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.
> 
> People are free to "believe" in whatever the heck they wish - invisible pixies hiding behind tree stumps in the forest, if that makes them happy. Who should care if such people obey the law?But science tries to actually understand the universe, not interpret it according to some faith-based initiative of dogmatic adherence to two thousand year old "science".
> 
> Live and let live works here - when people know their places and actually live and let live, not just say the words. E.g., when school board members pronounce on what science is or isn't, even thought they are laymen, and inject politics (it's really politics, not religion) into science, then we have a problem.
> ...


 :Rolleyes:  science and religion don't really have to be seperate...they are not opposites, nor are they completely different:

Both require blind faith.
Both require people.
Both compliment eachother.

and...science has not proven what has created the universe. and...theories...theories...theories...nothing human is a fact.




> Maybe "gift" is the wrong metaphor. Maybe the universe is a free lunch. No reason that it can't be.
> 
> Where's your god then, Moses?


*sigh* your right...this has proven to me that religion is useless...science is correct...oh but wait...it can't be correct either because its not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt since perception using the senses is involved...

I guess it could be said that we don't exist...or maybe...just maybe...theres something else...I know its whacked out...but possibly theres something that answers the most basic question...something that ties all the theories together...but thats impossible...

----------


## ranzy

> :
> 
>  science and religion don't really have to be seperate...they are not opposites, nor are they completely different:
> 
> Both require blind faith.


Science does not require blind faith. Science requires proofs, theories and explanations. If scientists had blind faith as regards scientific theories, science wouldn't change a bit through time and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe.

----------


## Pendragon

There is a difference between conscious choice and instinctive or learned behavior. Your cat has learned that it can sleep on the bed and it merely curls up where it feels most comfortable. 

BTW, JLG57, please do not compare me to Moses. I am not worthy to hold Moses staff for him. 

The truth is where you find it. Seek, and ye shall find. If you are convinced of what you believe, let me say this: It should be strong enough a conviction that you will stand for it against all odds. Do not waver from point to point, remain with what you believe. God bless.

I think I have meddled enough in a thread I washed my hands of long ago.  :Smile:

----------


## Stanislaw

> Science does not require blind faith. Science requires proofs, theories and explanations. If scientists had blind faith as regards scientific theories, science wouldn't change a bit through time and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe.


Blind faith in a theory, and supposedly an open mind to accpet a change, i am not so sure. 

There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.


Absolutely. Science can only prove certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some things it has a pretty good argument (and proof!) for - but other things are based upon the best estimate/measurement/speculation/"facts" currently available. Those things do not consitute absolutely verifiable "proof" - for some of science's claims, faith (in science and its claims) needs to be exercised.

----------


## JGL57

> Absolutely. Science can only prove certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some things it has a pretty good argument (and proof!) for - but other things are based upon the best estimate/measurement/speculation/"facts" currently available. Those things do not consitute absolutely verifiable "proof" - for some of science's claims, faith (in science and its claims) needs to be exercised.


Yes, science proves scientific theories true beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not provide certainty to people who demand certainty, or they will just fall back on the religion that was instilled in them as children - because it offers certainly and thus is comforting to their fragile egos.

This is really just so sad. Science is what it is. If it can't give you what you desire - who's fault is that? I think it is the religionist, demanding something from science that it never promised in the first place.

As I indicted in previous posts, too many people do not even understand what science is all about. And all most of them know about religion is their own religion which was inculcated into their brains as children.

If a person wants a feeling of certainty, then pick a church and go. If a person wants to actually know something about reality, I would suggest they get into science. Viewing science through the eyes of religion is goofy.

Have a nice day.

----------


## ranzy

> Blind faith in a theory, and supposedly an open mind to accpet a change, i am not so sure. 
> 
> There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.


It is true just if you don't know enough of the argument to have a real opinion about it. I think maybe I'm not expressing myself very well (btw english is not my mother tongue). Let me make an example: I don't know much about physics so if you talk me about the relativity theory either I don't accept it or I accept it with an act of blind faith. But if you study in depth relativity (or evolution or whatever) no act of blind faith is required. You have to decide rationally if the proofs the scientists bring in support of their theory are enough and the theory works or you can bring forward other arguments that prove that that theory is wrong. 
If you say that science requires blind faith, this would stop this whole discussion about evolution. Because being faith something that doesn't have to be rational, it cannot be discussed. It must be accepted as it is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Yes, science proves scientific theories true beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not provide certainty to people who demand certainty,


These two statements contradict each other. Which is it?




> or they will just fall back on the religion that was instilled in them as children - because it offers certainly and thus is comforting to their fragile egos.


Can you make your point without trying to insult people, please?




> This is really just so sad. Science is what it is. If it can't give you what you desire - who's fault is that? I think it is the religionist, demanding something from science that it never promised in the first place.
> 
> As I indicted in previous posts, too many people do not even understand what science is all about. And all most of them know about religion is their own religion which was inculcated into their brains as children.
> 
> If a person wants a feeling of certainty, then pick a church and go. If a person wants to actually know something about reality, I would suggest they get into science. Viewing science through the eyes of religion is goofy.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Do you even read my posts? I'm not asking science to do _anything_. I'm not complaining that it doesn't offer "certainty," I'm pointing out that its inability to do so in all cases makes it similar to religion: both require faith, and some questions simply cannot be answered with definitive, unequivocal evidence. In terms of "reality" - science and religion offer two different versions (which are not always contradictory of each other). Just because you don't understand one doesn't mean it's any less "real." It just means _you_ don't get it.

----------


## Virgil

I don't usually enter religious discussions, especially when the break down to "I'm right-your wrong" dichotomy, but since this one has trned on science, of which I know a little something about, let me venture in, not to pick a side but to throw in my perspective.

As someone who believes in God and is an engineer who works with physics, I believe that science itself is the hand of God. I will also say that we do not have a complete understanding of science. Perhaps humanity will never have a complete understanding. To me the more we learn of science, the more firmly I believe that all this could not have been randomly generated. I proudly stand on this with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.

----------


## Stanislaw

> I don't usually enter religious discussions, especially when the break down to "I'm right-your wrong" dichotomy, but since this one has trned on science, of which I know a little something about, let me venture in, not to pick a side but to throw in my perspective.
> 
> As someone who believes in God and is an engineer who works with physics, I believe that science itself is the hand of God. I will also say that we do not have a complete understanding of science. Perhaps humanity will never have a complete understanding. To me the more we learn of science, the more firmly I believe that all this could not have been randomly generated. I proudly stand on this with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.
> 
> I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.


Thankyou. That is what I have been attempting to say...

...I follow Galileo and Copernik, both were devote in their fatih, but also studied science. They both believed that science was a means to understand God's creation...even Darwin stated as such.

...but my point about science is more one of philosophy, we require our senese to determine empirical value, and our senses can easily be decieved.

...however time for a little sharing of my personal belief: everything can be true, it just all dempends on you point of view and how true it is for you...ie, in you mind it is the truth, so for you it is true, it really depends upon perspective...

...also, real scientinst admit they don't know everything...

...time for a pointed comment: not all realigeous people are dumb to science, some infact hold degrees and work in the sciences. So claiming ignorance based on association is blatent biggotry.

----------


## Wintermute

> I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.


As an agnostic, I can say with certainty: You might be right! The question is, which God? The Christian one? The Hindi one? Zeus? Ra?

No one can say for certain that a universal creator exists or not (imo). But one can certainly postulate the attributes of such an entity assuming it exists. And, to date, none of the gods I've learned about have the properties I can accept. Perhaps God is a little 'more' than its current status in earthly religions? I certainly hope so.

----------


## ennison

Practising Catholic
Devout Baptist
Confirmed Atheist
Uconvinced Agnostic 

OH and Contradictory Calvinist - That's me ... well up-to-a-point

----------


## Stanislaw

> As an agnostic, I can say with certainty: You might be right! The question is, which God? The Christian one? The Hindi one? Zeus? Ra?
> 
> No one can say for certain that a universal creator exists or not (imo). But one can certainly postulate the attributes of such an entity assuming it exists. And, to date, none of the gods I've learned about have the properties I can accept. Perhaps God is a little 'more' than its current status in earthly religions? I certainly hope so.


well...think of it this way, God is a bad label, infact, any earthly label is bad, because, atleast in my humble opinion, God cannot be defined by Human definitions, God is perfect beyond human definition.

Hence why there are many different religions, perhaps, they are all right, yet not 100&#37; there, maybe together an aproximate can be reached...but people aren't ready to percieve such an Idea yet.

----------


## JGL57

> These two statements contradict each other. Which is it?...


No they don't. Beyond a reasonable doubt and certainty are anything but the same. If you aren't just trying to be a contrarian and really don't understand this fact, then I am going to have to insult your intelligence by questioning it.




> Can you make your point without trying to insult people, please?...


You react to someone effectively questioning and criticizing your fondest wishes by thinking they are just trying to insult you? 

No further comment needed here. I will let others draw their own conclusions.




> Do you even read my posts? I'm not asking science to do _anything_. I'm not complaining that it doesn't offer "certainty," I'm pointing out that its inability to do so in all cases makes it similar to religion: both require faith, and some questions simply cannot be answered with definitive, unequivocal evidence. In terms of "reality" - science and religion offer two different versions (which are not always contradictory of each other). Just because you don't understand one doesn't mean it's any less "real." It just means _you_ don't get it.


I hate to have to go over all this - one more time - but you seem incapable of understanding the difference between science and religion. That is sad, in a way, but if you are happy in your world, then I am happy for you.

For those of us who DO know the difference, we will continue to fight for keeping religion out of science. Sunday school is not the subjective logical equivalent of science class. Science is based on facts in evidence and the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible in understanding the facts. Religion is about emotional comfort. That is the primary reason for the "faith" in things unseen, unproved and non-provable, and outside of scientific examination.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No they don't. Beyond a reasonable doubt and certainty are anything but the same. If you aren't just trying to be a contrarian and really don't understand this fact, then I am going to have to insult your intelligence by questioning it.


You're right. I stand corrected.





> You react to someone effectively questioning and criticizing your fondest wishes by thinking they are just trying to insult you?


I'm not "wishing" anything. And, not everybody is capable of seeing how they come across. Unfortuanate, but true.





> I hate to have to go over all this - one more time - but you seem incapable of understanding the difference between science and religion. That is sad, in a way, but if you are happy in your world, then I am happy for you.


I'm quite clear on the difference. The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't make me wrong - it just means we disagree. I personally don't think you have the faintest idea as to what religion is about beyond the most basic, stereotypical hearsay.




> For those of us who DO know the difference, we will continue to fight for keeping religion out of science. Sunday school is not the subjective logical equivalent of science class. Science is based on facts in evidence and the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible in understanding the facts. Religion is about emotional comfort. That is the primary reason for the "faith" in things unseen, unproved and non-provable, and outside of scientific examination


Who are you crusading against? I don't recall advocating doing anything to the science curriculum. Religion is far more profound than you can understand. I'm sorry you don't get it. Science is a good, useful thing - and it has much truth for the world. But it too is not without a certain degree of faith that is required of us to believe that it is true.

----------


## JGL57

> Science is a good, useful thing - and it has much truth for the world. But it too is not without a certain degree of faith that is required of us to believe that it is true.



You keep harping on this point. I don't know what your point supposedly is. All human beings are fallible. No human ever has all the data, but must work with a finite amount of the infinitely available data. Only lunatics claim god-like knowledge of anything. 

Thus - every concept will trace back to an assumption, or a conclusion based on a series of assumptions.

And on this fact you wish to equate religion with science? You wish to conflate the pragmatic naturalistic assumption of scientific reasoning with the "faith" of religion to just conclude, well, everything is just a matter of "faith"?

That's ridiculous and yet you keep pushing this like it some profound insight or something.

Scientists don't just believe stuff. Religionists just believe stuff. Scientists prove understandings to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how science progresses. Religion stays stuck in the mud at step one - and stays there until and unless it is dragged kicking and screaming into a new century, one century at a time, by scientific progress.

Religion gave us demon possession. Science gave us vaccines and antibiotics. Do I need to give you a couple hundred other examples to prove my point, or will that suffice?

----------


## Logos

Mod note to all: 

Posts have been deleted. I am not closing this topic, that happens to be one of the more successful long-standing ones in the Religious Texts area, just because people are (again) getting into the 

_'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours'._

Please stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.

----------


## Pendragon

A Creationist and an Evolutionist discovered the bones of an ancient humanoid in a cave. They began a long argument over how old the bones were, how far along the evolutionary chart this being might be, and how it came to be in the first place. The argument became rather heated as each man warmed to his topic. Suddenly, there was a macabre interruption. A skeletal hand fell upon the shoulder of each man. "Come on, guys!" The dead man said. "Give a man a proper burial, won't you? It's too noisy up here!"  :FRlol: 

Maybe this will ease the tension...  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

I sure do appreciate your posts, Pen. 

I see part of the problem this way: the discussion about creationism vs. evolution is really a discussion as to whether or not God exists. I'm quite OK with the fact that - when all is said and done - I might discover that I was terribly wrong in my choice to interpret Genesis literally and that the "day=age" theory was correct, or that God set evolution into motion. Neither of those really changes the core of my belief system. Whether the world was created in 6 days or 6 millenium isn't a "deal breaking" belief of mine. The fact that I defend the biblical narrative is based more on my belief as to who God is than whether or not we should interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally or figuratively.

I think evolution overall has lots of holes in it - BUT that science has (since Darwin's time) made some amazing discoveries that do clearly appear to put the biblical narrative into question. I get that. I can easily concede that point. What seems to get lost in the shuffle is the idea that Christians believe in God as the creator - and that if He is who He says He is, then it is perfectly possible that the Genesis narrative is literal. When atheists scoff at this idea, they are not really trying to understand; I can't seem to get across the idea that if the non-believer tried to _imagine_  - just for a minute - that such a being could exist, that it would follow that a belief in the biblical narrative is not as insane as it seems to appear. The numerous facts and evidence put forth to support evolution are certainly impressive, but they cannot shake my faith in God. They may shake my faith in a literal 6 day creation, but not God.

Think of it this way: I don't know your wife/husband - I have no relationship with them. Let's assume that you have a close, intimate relationship with him/her. How much of my questioning of your partner's integrity would you give credence to? Yes, I've got some hearsay and some circumstancial evidence, but no pictures, no eyewitnesses, no "smoking gun." Again: how quickly would you doubt that person? And what if that person was _unquestionably_ honest and faithful. How serious would you take my attempts to bring your belief into doubt? Because my example is a human relationship, I know it can be attacked, but the principle behind it is what I'm appealing to. Because the Christian sees the Bible as an authority, we take seriously the description of who God is - as such, we tend to give credence to things that non-believers may simply scoff at as blindness.

----------


## JGL57

In creation vs. evolution we have 

Creationism: the naked or unsubstantiated belief in an invisible and immaterial magical person who is infinitely complex, who was not created him or herself and has existed forever, and about 6,000 years ago started speaking complex entities into existence out of nothing, e.g., the earth, the moon, the sun, a human being, a frog, a whale, a kangaroo, etc., as in "Let there be light, let there be fish, let there be crawling things," etc. 

This magical person created day and night on the first day, and the sun on the fourth day (think about that for a while and see if your head explodes). The first man was created fully grown, with no previous history (did he have a navel?) out of dirt and hot air. The first woman was created fully adult too, with no previous history (did she have a navel?) out of a bone taken from the guy's side while he was in a coma. They, as were all animals (even ants and anteaters?) were immortal at first, but a talking snake gave them a bum steer, so death came into the world. 

Also, these Neanderthals or Australopithicuses or whatever they were suddenly realized that they were naked and the monkeys and whatnot could see their "areas" so they put on leaf dresses. Then they had two sons, then one killed the other, then there was a huge amount of incest, since there was no one to date except your sister, so then the world was populated. But the invisible person in the sky got crabby again and drowned them all except for eight people who escaped in a boatload of very stinky unhappy animals, then the world started over again from scratch - about 4,500 years ago. There followed a lot of first cousin sex - no one else to date again.

So then Ham looked at his naked father and laughed and the Negroes were cursed to be slaves, then the Jews started committing genocide on all their neighbors, etc., etc. (The really crazy stuff didn't start until god knocked up a human female and wound up sacrificing himself to himself, but that's another story - see the N.T.).

vs.

Evolution: a singularity of unimaginative small dimensions and incomprehensible density exploded - the so-called Big Bang. (Put aside the fact that space and time started at that point, there may be an infinite number of such Big Bangs, etc.) Skip ahead about 10 billion years. The solar system evolved, then singular-celled life evolved on earth around 3.8 billion years ago.

Skip ahead about 3 billion years after enough waste oxygen builds up, then other life evolves that breathes the oxygen (grossing out the anaerobic bacteria, but screw them - they're losers). Skip ahead to only a few hundred million years ago and some plant (a trifid?) crawled up on land, followed by an animal (a monkey-fish-squirrel?), then larger animals, finally some apes got kicked out of the trees for not sharing their bananas, walked out from the forest to the savanna, and eventually evolved into humans over 10 or so million years. 

Cave drawings dating back 100,00 years revealed humans had already invented religion by then (animism and shamanism, foreshadowing the far more sexy monotheism) because they had evolved egos and egos MUST be fed. Present day "evolution scientists" have found several hundred million fossils of various species of life forms, 99 per cent of which are extinct and have been extinct for a time many orders of magnitude longer than that of human existence ("creation scientists" believe Adam an Eve rode dinosaurs to church, and god planted the other fake fossils in the proper strata to make Richard Dawkins and his ilk look stupid, become unbelievers and eventually go to hell - because god is a Calvinist xxx.
----

Now, granted, these are rather truncated versions of our two choices and, also granted, I took a lot of poetic license in delineating some of the details, but I think everyone can see what each side has to offer, regarding objectivity, disinterested examination of the evidence, following many different lines of evidence to a logical conclusion, and so forth.

For further information, in order to understand the issues in more depth, I recommend 

1. reading the KJV bible for understanding the creationism theory (you'll have the basic idea down after reading the first book, Genesis, but do read at least the entire OT - after reading how often the Jews committed genocide on their neighbors, you may no longer wonder where Hitler got the idea.

and

2. reading the seven or so books explaining evolution written by Richard Dawkins - the best one in my opinion is "The Ancestor’s Tale". Also, for the overachiever, I think the 15 or so books on evolution by Stephen J. Gould are very good - my favorite of his is "Full House".

----------


## hyperborean

This is one long thread filled with strong ideas.

Well for starters, "adam and eve" is a false bible story. This has been admitted by the church. It's supposed to be a typical life lesson story dealing with how one should never disobey the divine. If you want to get technical, the apple in the story symbolically represents knowledge (a good course in theology or philosophy will clear that one up).

My question is, why deny science and place one's beliefs in a made up bible story? Do you honestly think God used his finger to zap Adam and Eve onto the earth? How would one explain fossils left by prehistoric creatures? 

This link I'm about to post is another reason behind the downfall of western culture: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp

----------


## Pendragon

> So then Ham looked at his naked father and laughed and the Negroes were cursed to be slaves


 Mon ami, there is _nothing_ in the Bible that states this. This was a doctrine brought about by highly prejudiced master race people who wished to make what they were doing Biblically correct, so they claimed that the "Mark of Cain" was that God made him a black man. Nothing in the Bible supports this at all, and slavery is a horrible thing, which is why there was a time when anyone could walk free or reclaim property freely. It was called the year of Jubilee. You had to chose it, not say, "Oh, I'm OK, here, The Master treats me fine." Because then you were a slave by choice.

----------


## JGL57

> ...there is _nothing_ in the Bible that states this. This was a doctrine brought about by highly prejudiced master race people who wished to make what they were doing Biblically correct, so they claimed that the "Mark of Cain" was that God made him a black man. Nothing in the Bible supports this at all, and slavery is a horrible thing...


No argument from me that slavery was (and is in present day Africa) a horrible thing that should be condemned outright by all who claim to have any moral sensitivity whatsoever.

That being said, does the bible condone slavery? That’s a question that I suppose could be debated forever. There are fundamentalist christians who believe the bible does indeed record the fact that god condemned blacks to servitude because of the "sin" of their common ancestor, Ham. Many other christians, I suppose the majority these days, argue that is not true, as you do. 

Obviously the whole idea of god cursing an entire race is an absurd idea. I can only report that many christians in the past, and many still today believe this to be true. You can argue with other christians regarding this issue. I don't have a dog in that fight. (As I said I took a bit of poetic license in describing both the religious creation notion and scientific theory of evolution.)

----------


## kilted exile

> Contradictory Calvinist


I think there's a bit of that in every Scotsman actually

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Evolution: a singularity of unimaginative small dimensions and incomprehensible density exploded - the so-called Big Bang. (Put aside the fact that space and time started at that point, there may be an infinite number of such Big Bangs, etc.) Skip ahead about 10 billion years. The solar system evolved, then singular-celled life evolved on earth around 3.8 billion years ago.
> 
> Skip ahead about 3 billion years after enough waste oxygen builds up, then other life evolves that breathes the oxygen (grossing out the anaerobic bacteria, but screw them - they're losers). Skip ahead to only a few hundred million years ago and some plant (a trifid?) crawled up on land, followed by an animal (a monkey-fish-squirrel?), then larger animals, finally some apes got kicked out of the trees for not sharing their bananas, walked out from the forest to the savanna, and eventually evolved into humans over 10 or so million years.


This story strikes me as just as fantastic as the highly simplified and biased rendition of Creation originally given above it. As far as I'm concerned, this rendition is just as fantastic as the one I believe in - except this one was fabricated by a human (so that makes it more credible, I guess).

Ultimately, none of what is printed above is provable. Just like Creation. Neither is provable.

----------


## hyperborean

Hey, but at least the fundamentals of creation theories are based off empirical evidence, and not on what some imaginary construct had to say.

----------


## Pendragon

Indulge my meddling again for a moment. This term keeps coming up: * empirical evidence* . This is evidence that can be proven by experiments. 

Now, I think it was my amigo, Robin, who pointed out, that given infinity, chance had to be the starting point behind creation. I will not argue with this point. The math would be something like this:

_If x = chance, and y = ∞, then xy = The Big Bang._

The problem would be gaining * empirical evidence* . There exists no way to run an infinite experiment to see if this is indeed, true. What we have is an _ accepted fact_ . Something that we know, but cant prove.

Now, the same goes for a person who believes, as I do, in God; in Intelligent Design. Given infinity as possibilities, God has to exist.

_If x = God, and y = ∞, then xy = God Exists._

Can I prove it to the skeptic? Not a chance. 

So with Science we take the best shot at it we can give, it comes down to This is what we believe happened, based on the fragmentary evidence that we have. Best guess. Most likely. Not * empirical evidence* .

With God we come down to a matter of Faith, what one believes.

Hebrews chapter 11. 1-3

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Faith believes it. It cannot provide * empirical evidence* .

So why do we argue so vehemently? Take the two, put them together, and you may have a clearer picture of what took place at the dawn of time. But it will still lack * empirical evidence* . We would still be taking our best shot at the target. God bless.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Well said my friend.




> Hey, but at least the fundamentals of creation theories are based off empirical evidence, and not on what some imaginary construct had to say.


Here's what I find interesting. In my posts, I never suggest that evolution is silly, imaginary, absurd or even untrue: I simply try to do some "equalizing" by suggesting that a certain amount of _faith_, _assumption_ and _speculation_ exists in the evolutionistic explanation as to how the universe and life on earth originated. I'm willing to accept that some parts of evolution theory may have some credence; what's fascinating is that some/many atheists will often not bother to at least allow that our view is _possible_ in the least. Pen's post nicely articulates that anything - given infinity - can be possible. The fact that life exists _at all_ (against odds calculated by scientists that are pretty astounding from what I recall) is just as miraculous as the idea that a Supreme Being was behind the beginning of Life.

My point? Hyperboren (like others who argue similarly) immediately tries to refute our position by invoking the "imaginary" nature of the basis of our argument (God) - but as far as I see, the astronomical numbers and coincedences required to believe in evolution are so unreal as to seem almost equally imaginary.

----------


## hyperborean

You guys make it seem as if this is a black and white issue. Unlike Creationism, Evolution is not some ballpark theory that requires "faith" for comprehension. 

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

"only a miniscule 0.15&#37; of the 480,000 biologists and geologists accept creationism".

I suggest looking over the website and maybe you'll realize why almost every scientist rejects creationism. I myself believe in a divine being, but that being didn't zap the earth into immediate existence. 

Of course you cannot argue about evolution vs. creationism in a "religious texts" forum. You were all brought up believing in what you were told was true. I however, value science over faith. 

I shall quote Nietzsche once more: "Faith: not wanting to know what is true"

----------


## ennison

Science? Modern witchcraft. One bunch will tell you today 'Eat X and live longer' A few months later another bunch of scientists say 'Don't eat X it's bad for you' Depends who is paying them and what they stand to gain. Moral principles? Don't fit in their test-tubes. Gerron believe scientists and you'll believe anything. They said it was ok to feed powdered cattle to cattle since we're all just molecules after all!! So now we've got bovine brain disease that can jump species. Aye gullible aint in the dictionary of the 'enlightened scientists'

----------


## hyperborean

"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution? 

"Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse."
-Arthur Koestler

I personally believe "dyrwen" put the words together the best. Some of you should read the beginning of this thread.




> The point is: Evolution has a lot of documented evidence for it, much more than the contrary evidence, and is therefore regarded as factual theory more so than just some humdrum explanation for the way things are. Show some evidence of creationism not directly quoted from the Bible and maybe you'll make more of a case for it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You guys make it seem as if this is a black and white issue. Unlike Creationism, Evolution is not some ballpark theory that requires "faith" for comprehension. 
> 
> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
> 
> "only a miniscule 0.15% of the 480,000 biologists and geologists accept creationism".


And that proves what, exactly? Because the majority endorses something it becomes true or authoritative? I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?




> I suggest looking over the website and maybe you'll realize why almost every scientist rejects creationism. I myself believe in a divine being, but that being didn't zap the earth into immediate existence.


"Almost every scientist" eh? 




> You were all brought up believing in what you were told was true. I however, value science over faith.


Absolutely absurd. You stereotype Christians - plenty came to the faith as adults, and many from agnostic or atheistic backgrounds. Try to be at least a bit more discerning in your sweeping generalizations.




> I shall quote Nietzsche once more: "Faith: not wanting to know what is true"


Quoting Nietzsche to Christians is the equivalent of Christians quoting the Bible to atheists. Not very convincing or authoritative.

----------


## hyperborean

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

You call me "discerning" when it comes to my view of Christians. Well that's what happens when ALL of your points come from a strong Christian perspective. It's like trying to argue with a wall. As I'm typing this I still can't believe I'm arguing with a Christian over creationism. Believing that Adam and Eve were zapped here is absurd...especially when Adam and Eve is openly admitted as a false bible story (along with Noah's Ark).

----------


## JGL57

> And that proves what, exactly? Because the majority endorses something it becomes true or authoritative? I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys...


I'll let hyperborean debate the other issues with you if he wants, but I would point out that the above is provably wrong. All the recent scientific polls always show a sizable plurality of Christians who do indeed believe humans evolved from previous "monkey-like" species (as opposed, of course, to any extant species of monkey). You will retract this "guess" as inaccurate - right?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.


Please. That statement is unprovable and quite silly to say the least.




> You call me "discerning" when it comes to my view of Christians.


No: I advised you to _try_ and be a bit more discerning. Sweeping generalizations like the one you presented (which are obviously wrong) decrease your credibility.




> It's like trying to argue with a wall.


I know the feeling  :Brickwall:  




> As I'm typing this I still can't believe I'm arguing with a Christian over creationism. Believing that Adam and Eve were zapped here is absurd...especially when Adam and Eve is openly admitted as a false bible story (along with Noah's Ark).


"Openly admitted" by certain factions or groups - but not Christianity as a whole. I find it interesting that you speak of such things as if they are established facts, but that's not so. Why don't you supply all these sources that say as you claim?




> I'll let hyperborean debate the other issues with you if he wants, but I would point out that the above is provably wrong. All the recent scientific polls always show a sizable plurality of Christians who do indeed believe humans evolved from previous "monkey-like" species (as opposed, of course, to any extant species of monkey). You will retract this "guess" as inaccurate - right?


Why don't _you_ supply me with a link to these "recent scientific polls" so I can see for myself? And no - no need to retract anything. A _guess_ does not claim to be correct - it claims an unsubstantiated belief. Supply proof and I'll consider retracting.

----------


## JGL57

> ...Why don't _you_ supply me with a link to these "recent scientific polls" so I can see for myself? And no - no need to retract anything. A _guess_ does not claim to be correct - it claims an unsubstantiated belief. Supply proof and I'll consider retracting.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

According to this poll back in 1991 about 46 per cent of theists in the U.S. (I assume the over-whelming majority of which are christian) do indeed believe humans evolved from monkey-like species over millions of years.

You can post your retraction of your uneducated "guess" now. 

And why not at least consider refraining from posting anymore such "guesses" in the future - ones based solely on wishes or fantasy - "guesses" that any person who reads a daily newspaper will recognize immediately as just plain wrong?

----------


## hyperborean

> Please. That statement is unprovable and quite silly to say the least.


Name one theologian that revolutionized philosophical ideas like he has.





> "Openly admitted" by certain factions or groups - but not Christianity as a whole. I find it interesting that you speak of such things as if they are established facts, but that's not so. Why don't you supply all these sources that say as you claim?


It's not like the Church went public and said "adam and eve is fake". It's one of those things an educated Christian understands. They even teach this in CCD and sunday school nowadays. 

Here's some links to show you what I'm talking about**:


http://www.animationinsider.net/foru...ad.php?t=18235
-make sure you read the comments made by "Ayria" and especially "_Vendetta_" on the *second* page

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri...damandeve.html (you might not like this one)

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...0&fpart=1&vc=1

You really have to stop taking Genesis so literally.

----------


## Stanislaw

I'm right, your wrong, I big, your little, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Lets try another tact.

science is wrong cause its silly, screwy, weirdy, imaginary, annoying, annoyance.

religion is right because we say it is.

or...

religion is wrong cause its silly, screwy, weirdy, imaginary, annoying, annoyance.

science is right because we say it is.

anyother ideas are stupid.

Post your "Im so sorry I was wrong and you are right, infact you must be some sort of geniouse and I a moron"...

I'm still waiting:

----------


## Stanislaw

Questions: 

1. How does science prove religion wrong?

2. How does religion prove science wrong?

3. Why is there such a lack of respect generated for the followers of science, and for the followers of religion?

----------


## Nightshade

> The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.


Sorry but honestly, how can you expect anyone o take yoyu seriopusly when you make an argumen like that?

Heck the bible is deemed even by non christians as the single most revloutionary world changing book far reaching in its effects philisophical and practicle to ever have appeared in the world. And I say this not only as a muslim who has my own book and rules but as someone who is studying to be librarian.

The secret to be taken seriously never ever make sweeping geralised assumptions. I belive Einstien was a christian, as was Da Vinci. Robert Winston is devout Jew. Who else.....
well you can see where IM going with this I hope. 



> Post your "Im so sorry I was wrong and you are right, infact you must be some sort of geniouse and I a moron"...
> 
> I'm still waiting:


And stan dont hold your breath on that one.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Hyperborean said: <"adam and eve" is a false bible story. This has been admitted by the church.>

Which church was that exactly. I know this is a forum for literature, but I do think we need to be a bit more specific and accurate when we are making statements and presenting them as facts. 

Redzeppelin said: <Ultimately, none of what is printed above is provable. Just like Creation. Neither is provable.>

Well, first we need to be a bit more certain about what we mean as provable. If we mean something 100&#37; beyond dispute, then there is very little that is provable. If we mean something that is highly probable, then there is plenty that is provable. If we mean something that is demonstrable then again there is plenty. It seems to me that science, unlike religion, is in the business of demonstrating probability. With regard to the explanations of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life, I don't think religion has ever provided an explanation designed upon probabilities. 

Pendragon said: 

<Given infinity as possibilities, God has to exist.>

That is not true. As I understand it, given infinity, anything that can happen, musy happen at some point. If something is possible in an infinite time, then it will occur. You need to show that God is possible before you can claim that infinity proves his existence. Regarding God's possibility, if you look at the attributes that have been traditionally been given for him, it is pretty obvious that they are not all compatible. A concept that contradicts itself or isincompatible requires a lot more than infinity to be true.

<The problem would be gaining empirical evidence . There exists no way to run an infinite experiment to see if this is indeed, true. What we have is an accepted fact . Something that we know, but can’t prove.>

You seem to equate provability with empirical evidence. This is incorrect. A mathematical equation can be true without reference to empirical evidence. When Hume claimed that miracles can be dismissed because it is more efficient, or more plausible to accept a physical explanation for any event than a miraculous one, he was referring to probability. 

<So why do we argue so vehemently? Take the two, put them together, and you may have a clearer picture of what took place at the dawn of time. But it will still lack empirical evidence . We would still be taking our best shot at the target.>

Taking a belief system from pre-scientific peoples and applying it to the whole system of scientific thought regarding the Universe's origins reduces the strength of the scientific explanation. Can't you see that? Why don't we take the beliefs expressed by the ancient Greeks add it to evolution theory and see what we get? It would be a contradictory mess. A religious belief of the world's beginning created by people a couple of thousand years ago is a ridiculous way of explaining the universe in the 21st century. What can they tell me about the solar system? about the temperature of the core of stars? of the rate at which the universe is expanding? They couldn't even get it right with objects near to the earth like the sun, could they? 


Nightshade said:

<Heck the bible is deemed even by non christians as the single most revloutionary world changing book far reaching in its effects philisophical>

Really? I am agraduate in philosophy. Pls enlighten me about the original contribution that the Bible has made to my subject.

<I belive Einstien was a christian, as was Da Vinci. Robert Winston is devout Jew.>

Firstly, I think you are wrong about Einstein. Secondly, all these three being both scientists and christians, they were/are qualified to scientifically evaluate religion. We constantly hear from christian apologists that science and religion are compatible. It strikes me as odd that Einstein didn't scientifically defend religion. It strikes me as odd that Robert Winston seems so impotent when pressed to scientifically justify his religious beliefs by Richard Dawkins. As Dawkins has said, there are some religious claims, that were they true, would leave indisputable evidence that science would be able to corroborate. Let us take the idea that God interferes with the Universe. This would be a scientifically measurable event. Yet no scientist has ever come close to measuring such an event. This leaves most religious scientists with the option of either retreating into desim or holding some mythos form of religious belief: Either God set the ball rolling and then became an armchair viewer, or religion is simply a nice story that helps the cohesion of social groups.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Really? I am agraduate in philosophy. Pls enlighten me about the original contribution that the Bible has made to my subject.


er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.

----------


## hyperborean

This thread is going nowhere. I think some of you forgot to click on any of the links I provided. You can't compare creationism to evolution. One is based entirely on "faith" and the other is based on what we as humans have researched (and have found evidence for). You guys make it seem like Darwin was an idiot. You guys also make it seem as if there is no evidence supporting evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=46
Any shred of evidence that supports evolution gives it more credibility than creationism, because evolution is not a theory based strictly on myth. 

You can't compare the imaginary to the practical. Like I said before, most Christians are aware of how adam and eve is a "parable". If you seriously take adam and eve literally then that must mean you take Noah's Ark (one of the more unpractical stories in the bible) seriously. As smart as some of you people are, I'm surprised to see that all you believe in creationism.

Here's a video stream that's interesting:
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/evol...eligion_225.rm

----------


## Stanislaw

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
> According to this poll back in 1991 about 46 per cent of theists in the U.S. (I assume the over-whelming majority of which are christian) do indeed believe humans evolved from monkey-like species over millions of years.


The only 1991 poll listed on this page concerns the _general public_ - not exclusively Christians. As well, the only 1991 poll on this page indicates that the Creationist view was held by 47% in the "Everybody" category. While my guess was wrong, your numbers do not add up either. As well, I indicated "monkeys" while you have conveniently added "monkey-like": there's a difference. The poll indicates nothing about developing from monkeys, which was the focus of my comment (I specifically avoided saying "evolution" because I'm aware that a portion of Christianity believes in some form of that).

In 1997, the poll indicates that a little less than half still believed in Creationism (44%) and only a tiny number (10%) believe in Naturalistic evolution (that which I am primarily arguing against).

As far as the poll from the Christianity section of About.com - those results are not clear in how they were tabulated; as well, the sample was very small (2904 votes) - highly unrepresentative of mainstream Christianity. Below this poll is the following disclaimer: "Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public."




> You can post your retraction of your uneducated "guess" now.


Why? Here's what I said: "I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?" Where on that page did you find anything that contradicted that idea? Here's an interesting note from the page:

Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I dont think we came from apes." [Author's note: _95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor_.

As far as I'm concerned, my numbers may be off (it was a guess, after all) but I don't think you've made a solid "hit" of any sort.





> And why not at least consider refraining from posting anymore such "guesses" in the future - ones based solely on wishes or fantasy - "guesses" that any person who reads a daily newspaper will recognize immediately as just plain wrong?


I am free to post whatever I wish that conforms to the forum rules. I could easily respond that your commentary about the Bible and Christianity (to any well-read Christian) is equally uninformed. 





> Name one theologian that revolutionized philosophical ideas like he has.


Irrelevant. That's an "apples vs oranges" comment. Your original comment dealt with "intelligence" rather than philosophic thought - now you've changed the comparison - faulty reasoning. CS Lewis revolutionized Christian apologetics and it was said that an atheist never bested him in a debate. 




> It's not like the Church went public and said "adam and eve is fake". It's one of those things an educated Christian understands. They even teach this in CCD and sunday school nowadays.


Oh - it's a _conspiracy_ thing. I get it. Only those "in the know" understand. Utterly ridiculous. Whenever I post such things about Christianity and how unbelievers cannot fully understand the message of the Bible I get criticized for saying such things. Now you do too.





> You really have to stop taking Genesis so literally.


Why? Because you said so? You're kidding, right? I don't recall asking either you or JGL for advice as to what I "have" to do. Perhaps you could _table_ your _unsolicited_ "advice" and concentrate on your argument?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.>

I think you'll find that Greek philosophy is primarily the basis for Christian thinking.

To claim that some texts from ancient Palestine are the basis for western thinking is unbelievably christocentric of you. For starters, lets ask where virtually all the languages of the West came from. Then I suggest you start looking at where the knowledge that inspired the Greek philosophies came from.

----------


## Pendragon

> The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.


You know, I respect Nietzsche as a philosopher, and many of his statements that at first glace seem to be attacks on Christianity are more "live up to what you claim." But this statement is inflammatory, questioning the intelligence of a great number of Christian scholars, and should not have been allowed. That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?>

What point are you trying to make? That people who die mentally unstable are unintelligent?!?

----------


## Pendragon

> That is not true. As I understand it, given infinity, anything that can happen, musy happen at some point. If something is possible in an infinite time, then it will occur. You need to show that God is possible before you can claim that infinity proves his existence. Regarding God's possibility, if you look at the attributes that have been traditionally been given for him, it is pretty obvious that they are not all compatible. A concept that contradicts itself or isincompatible requires a lot more than infinity to be true.


This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, *Anything* can, and even *must* happen. Your words. But then you say I must prove that God is possible. We are talking Infinity here, where *Anything* is possible, so God is possible. Compatibility is not a question, because Infinity makes it possible. Ergo, Infinity makes God's esistance as much a fact as anything else. Because the concept is beyond your own way of thinking doesn't put it beyond Infinity. That is like making A the proof of B, then turning around and making B the proof of A.






> You seem to equate provability with empirical evidence. This is incorrect. A mathematical equation can be true without reference to empirical evidence. When Hume claimed that miracles can be dismissed because it is more efficient, or more plausible to accept a physical explanation for any event than a miraculous one, he was referring to probability. 
> 
> Taking a belief system from pre-scientific peoples and applying it to the whole system of scientific thought regarding the Universe's origins reduces the strength of the scientific explanation. Can't you see that? Why don't we take the beliefs expressed by the ancient Greeks add it to evolution theory and see what we get? It would be a contradictory mess. A religious belief of the world's beginning created by people a couple of thousand years ago is a ridiculous way of explaining the universe in the 21st century. What can they tell me about the solar system? about the temperature of the core of stars? of the rate at which the universe is expanding? They couldn't even get it right with objects near to the earth like the sun, could they?


I only talked about empirical proof because that's what everyone seems hung up on. The dismisal of things without giving any reason besides "improbbable" is certainly the easy way out, for either side, that is for sure. 

And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? We devote time to the study of the tempetature at the core of stars when we don't yet understand the complexity of the Earth around us. 

Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?

----------


## hyperborean

> I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.


That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. 




> that said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?


Did he write his great works while he was mentally unstable? I didn't think so. At least he is one that created his own philosophy and questioned faulty metaphysics + religion. He didn't live his life according to some "book"...a book filled with myths that weren't meant to be translated literally.

----------


## Pendragon

> <That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?>
> 
> What point are you trying to make? That people who die mentally unstable are unintelligent?!?


No. Simply that it doesn't happen overnight.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, Anything can, and even must happen. >

I actually said anything THAT can happen, not anything can happen. If something is impossible, no matter whether the Universe be infinite or not, it cannot happen. How does limitless time make something contradictory possible? If something is impossible it is impossible now and every other now til infinity. Just by adding an infinite number of nows does alter the possibility of something impossible.

<Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?>

Big deal. Plato, in the Timaeus, writes of a fable about Atlantis. Again, what is your point? Furthermore, the reason why so little science has been put into a search for Atlantis, is because scientists don't tend to waste their time on fables and myths like Atlantis and the Creation story. Leave that to the people who do not care about evidence-based theories.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? >

The great thing about science, is that it is constantly open to revision and updating, if the evidence suggests this is necessary. Unlike most religion I might add. Furthermore, what would you suggest? That we abandon all knowledge that doesn't claim to be absolute? That we ditch any methodologies which are mutable, open to improvement? What kind of world do you live in?

----------


## hyperborean

> <And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? >
> 
> The great thing about science, is that it is constantly open to revision and updating, if the evidence suggests this is necessary. Unlike most religion I might add. Furthermore, what would you suggest? That we abandon all knowledge that doesn't claim to be absolute? That we ditch any methodologies which are mutable, open to improvement? What kind of world do you live in?


nicely put.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Stanislaw said: <I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it. >

Hyperborean said: <That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. >

Once you have accepted evolution, why do you need to find some design behind it? What are you actually adding to the theory by postulating that God designed evolution?

----------


## hyperborean

I believe in the divine. You can accept evolution and believe in the divine.

----------


## atiguhya padma

You can accept the divine and evolution if you so choose. It adds no value to either in my opinion. Furthermore, as evoltuionary processes reveal a cold, cruel world, the world of Tennyson's In Memoriam, belief in evolution does make some kind of negative statement about the divine. I find it difficult to accept the rosy-spectacled lover of benign nature, of the spiritual, divine in nature, when it is so obviously indifferent to suffering, pain and misfortune. 

Children born with genetic deformties, that mean their bodies are time bombs, programmed to kill them in a year, two three etc, are surely evidence of an indifferent blind natural process of evolution in the world, rather than a divine benevolent overseeing designer of evolution. Quite frankly, if there were a God who created evolution, then I can see very little benevolence in him/her. If a scientist created the evolutionary process in a garden of eden type world, I'm sure we would condemn that scientist as the most evil human that ever existed.

----------


## Stanislaw

> <er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.>
> 
> I think you'll find that Greek philosophy is primarily the basis for Christian thinking.
> 
> To claim that some texts from ancient Palestine are the basis for western thinking is unbelievably christocentric of you. For starters, lets ask where virtually all the languages of the West came from. Then I suggest you start looking at where the knowledge that inspired the Greek philosophies came from.


Firstly, Hi atiguhya, long time...

Secondly...Its crazy to deny the influence of the bible (both hebrew and new testamnet) on western cultural development. In literature, history, science, and even mathematics. Western culture has been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs, and writings. "In God we Trust".




> Stanislaw said: <I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it. >
> 
> Hyperborean said: <That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. >
> 
> Once you have accepted evolution, why do you need to find some design behind it? What are you actually adding to the theory by postulating that God designed evolution?


well... eventually, God comes into play, unless you believe that people create the universe in the future by travelling back in time and thus existance is just a gigantic cirlce...which started just cause...gotta be a beggining somewhere.




> I believe in the divine. You can accept evolution and believe in the divine.


indeed.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## atiguhya padma

Hi Stan,

I'm not sure that I understand your claim about the future. As for beginnings to space and time, well God can't possibly provide an answer: if you can't explain God's existence other than to say he/she is eternal, you may as well save time and just say the Universe is eternal.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Stan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not deny that the Bible had an influence on western cultural development. My criticism was based on the claim that the Bible was the basis for western cultural development. In all areas of western culture, you can find roots way before the biblical writings.

----------


## Nightshade

> er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.





> I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.


 :Thumbs Up:   :Biggrin:  



> You can accept the divine and evolution if you so choose. It adds no value to either in my opinion. Furthermore, as evoltuionary processes reveal a cold, cruel world, the world of Tennyson's In Memoriam, belief in evolution does make some kind of negative statement about the divine. I find it difficult to accept the rosy-spectacled lover of benign nature, of the spiritual, divine in nature, when it is so obviously indifferent to suffering, pain and misfortune. 
> 
> *Children born with genetic deformties, that mean their bodies are time bombs, programmed to kill them in a year, two three etc, are surely evidence of an indifferent blind natural process of evolution in the world, rather than a divine benevolent overseeing designer of evolution. Quite frankly, if there were a God who created evolution, then I can see very little benevolence in him/her. If a scientist created the evolutionary process in a garden of eden type world, I'm sure we would condemn that scientist as the most evil human that ever existed*.


Can I just point out somthing sure God is kind and benevoulent but hes also a pretty harsh task masters ( by human standerds ) and theres good reason for this. Also belivieng in God includes putting your faith to test Im mean look at Job ( wait it is Job in english who lost all 12 of his chikedren and had disatser after disaster occur to him in a year so he went from a rich succesful man to practically a begger with no family?). And then there is the belief that if they die as children they go straight to heaven no questions asked, some would call tha a mercy. 

But stan mathamtics? That wasnt the christians it was the antient muslims hence algebra being called algebra after Al-Gaber ibn Hayan. But yeah christianity is reponsible for the spread of alot of things but just at this moment other than the printing press fabioulous arctechture I cant really think right now but I do know christianity and even all the major abrahamic religiouns have all played big and even massive roles in getting us where we are today and I think thats somthing all the people who nessereily belive in them should rember that no matter what you actually think about them the ideas of the people before us our 'intellectual heritage' as it were is responsible for more than you might like to think.

----------


## JGL57

> The only 1991 poll listed on this page concerns the _general public_ - not exclusively Christians. As well, the only 1991 poll on this page indicates that the Creationist view was held by 47&#37; in the "Everybody" category. While my guess was wrong, your numbers do not add up either. As well, I indicated "monkeys" while you have conveniently added "monkey-like": there's a difference. The poll indicates nothing about developing from monkeys, which was the focus of my comment (I specifically avoided saying "evolution" because I'm aware that a portion of Christianity believes in some form of that).
> 
> In 1997, the poll indicates that a little less than half still believed in Creationism (44%) and only a tiny number (10%) believe in Naturalistic evolution (that which I am primarily arguing against).
> 
> As far as the poll from the Christianity section of About.com - those results are not clear in how they were tabulated; as well, the sample was very small (2904 votes) - highly unrepresentative of mainstream Christianity. Below this poll is the following disclaimer: "Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public."
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Here's what I said: "I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?" Where on that page did you find anything that contradicted that idea? Here's an interesting note from the page:
> ...


All this is the biggest load of sophistry I have ever seen on any internet forum.

The poll was scientific to within some small degree of accuracy. Most theists in the U.S. are christians. 47 + 40 divided by 40 = 47 per cent of theists, mostly christians, believe humans evolved. There is no one who claims that humans evolved from present day monkeys. Your claim was that less than one per cent of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey. Obviously, this means a common ancester.

Thus your "guess" is wrong. Polls show that a sizeable minority, not less than one per cent, of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey-like ancester (essentially a monkey).

Your "guess" has been proven wrong. Period. In black and white. The fact that you can't even admit this means that you have a problem that I, as a non-psychiatrist, cannot help you with.

I cannot deal with overt dishonesty like this. If all christians are as dishonest as you are then I've no doubt it is a false religion.

I will be ignoring your posts from now on.

----------


## hyperborean

this thread is going to become interesting once zeppelin returns.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> All this is the biggest load of sophistry I have ever seen on any internet forum.


You mean I have excelled at something? Is there an award for this category?




> The poll was scientific to within some small degree of accuracy. Most theists in the U.S. are christians. 47 + 40 divided by 40 = 47 per cent of theists, mostly christians, believe humans evolved. There is no one who claims that humans evolved from present day monkeys. Your claim was that less than one per cent of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey. Obviously, this means a common ancester.


Not necessarily.




> Thus your "guess" is wrong. Polls show that a sizeable minority, not less than one per cent, of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey-like ancester (essentially a monkey).


Oh OK, if it makes you feel better, here: my guess was silly and inaccurate.




> Your "guess" has been proven wrong. Period. In black and white. The fact that you can't even admit this means that you have a problem that I, as a non-psychiatrist, cannot help you with.


OK - I said something careless (which means you and I may be more alike than we may wish to admit  :Wink:  ) - it's not the first time nor will it be the last.

(I pretty much doubt you could help me even if you were a psychiatrist. My absurd belief in an invisible deity already qualifies me for the insane asylum.)




> I cannot deal with overt dishonesty like this.


On the contrary: I believe with unequivocal certainty that everything I say is true.




> If all christians are as dishonest as you are then I've no doubt it is a false religion.


You mean you hadn't figured this out before talking to me?




> I will be ignoring your posts from now on.


Two possible responses:
1. Promise?
2. Is this called a forfeit?





> this thread is going to become interesting once zeppelin returns.


Wow - is this another compliment? You two really need to stop. I actually thought the thread was quite interesting whether I was around or not.

----------


## Pendragon

> <This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, Anything can, and even must happen. >
> 
> I actually said anything THAT can happen, not anything can happen. If something is impossible, no matter whether the Universe be infinite or not, it cannot happen. How does limitless time make something contradictory possible? If something is impossible it is impossible now and every other now til infinity. Just by adding an infinite number of nows does alter the possibility of something impossible.


OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance. When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance. "Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree. But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand. 

<Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?>




> Big deal. Plato, in the Timaeus, writes of a fable about Atlantis. Again, what is your point? Furthermore, the reason why so little science has been put into a search for Atlantis, is because scientists don't tend to waste their time on fables and myths like Atlantis and the Creation story. Leave that to the people who do not care about evidence-based theories.


The point was not how _little_ Science has wasted on this, but how _much._ I see countless references to it by very serious scientists, they try to pinpoint the location, (including the lastest, South China Seas  :Rolleyes:  ), they rave over the Bimini Road, etc. Did anyone ever research and see if Plato ever traveled at all?

I have messed around enough. Good luck, folks!

----------


## Stanislaw

> Hi Stan,
> 
> I'm not sure that I understand your claim about the future. As for beginnings to space and time, well God can't possibly provide an answer: if you can't explain God's existence other than to say he/she is eternal, you may as well save time and just say the Universe is eternal.


Well...thats where the blind faith comes in...some say God, Some say Nirvana, some say nothing.




> Stan,
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not deny that the Bible had an influence on western cultural development. My criticism was based on the claim that the Bible was the basis for western cultural development. In all areas of western culture, you can find roots way before the biblical writings.


Well, I'll give that, it was poorly worded, I didn't exactly say what I meant, the Greek, and pre-greek influences are clear, even in Biblical interpretations.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance.>

If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.

<When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance.>

If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural. 

<"Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree.>

I don't really know what you are talking about here. 

<But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand. >

I'm confused about this too I'm afraid. What do you mean about infinite tries and chance taking place? Chance doesn't take place. Chance is a calculation based on things that take place. Infinite tries do not an impossibility make. Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

----------


## hyperborean

> Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.


Exactly. This should end the argument.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.


That depends upon a number of factors. Many experts once contended that manned flight was "impossible."




> If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.


Something that happens once, in violation of the known laws of nature cannot be defined as "natural." If we had precise records of the sun for the last 5000 years and only once was it recorded that it traversed the sky from west to east, we would call that "supernatural." What you're suggesting is based on ignorance of perhaps an unknown law, but when things occur in _opposition_ to known laws without any way to explain them, it seems perfectly logical to call them "beyond natural" events because they are aberrations.




> Infinite tries do not an impossibility make.


But infinity opens up the door for an _inconsistent result_ of an experiment. Inductive reasoning tells us that because 1000 rocks thrown at 1000 windows shatter said windows that it's a pretty safe bet to say that rocks thrown at windows shatter them. However, who is to say that on the 10,345th try that the same rock thrown does not break a window? Now you have an exception. That's the nature of inductive logic: you're working with probability. An infinite number of tries opens up the possibility for exception. 




> Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.


But since your example deals with logic as applied to the system of language, you have provided an example that is not comparable to the idea that infinity makes the existence of God possible.




> Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.


Science is reassuring to us because it speaks in a _limited_ language that we can understand. Because it is limited by the humans that create/implement it, of course it _seems_ more reasonable because - for the most part (at least until we start discussing some of the odds for evolutionary development) - it gives us facts and numbers we can comprehend. The idea that a Supreme Being created the universe actually gives the simplest answer - it is science's answer that requires astronomical numbers and coincedences. The term "improbable" is used to describe plenty of things we can't conceive of - but many people throughout history could not conceive of many of the most basic tools we have the advantage of today. Nonetheless, science possesses it's own catelog of facts that are less than verified, and require a certain amount of faith in that they present some rather improbable numbers and statistics to prove its points - many of which are based on the speculative nature of inductive reasoning. 

Science seems more believable simply because it has limits, like we do. Once we start dealing with a Being that has always existed and is all powerful, well, we wish to dismiss that because _we can't conceive of it so it must not be true._ How much of our modern technology could a medieval peasant conceive of?




> Exactly. This should end the argument.


Oh darn. Was I supposed to stop now?

----------


## davidvall

As if it is really that difficult to be honest in spite of our inclinations and predispositions. Who does not want to be the best? Who does not want to rely on their own understanding? I think it is so very presumptuous of any man or woman to think that they have the answer to the origination of the cosmos. Some believe in a transcendent God, while others believe in the miracle of life unintended. Either way they are both clearly walks of faith. Some shroud themselves in religion, while others do the same with the covering of science; both clearly human constructs create to provide answers to questions that cannot be answered. But still, the argument continues, and the clash magnifies the human condition of the purely imperfect. In truth, I comes down to the reality that mankind longs to clean on to some understanding, even if the pursuit divides. Do we not all need to stand strong against an opponent? Our existence is the mark of a momentary lifespan riddled with unsatiation.

----------


## hyperborean

Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.

----------


## ennison

"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution? 
Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests. Some post here. Some of us are not so gullible.

----------


## Wintermute

> Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests.


This is nonsense. Could you please provide one example of anyone that says science is god or that the folks that dedicate their lives to better understanding the universe are its priests? Please, what tripe! 

What was the last science course you had, and where did you take it? Here's what they teach at the University of Rochester, but its pretty much the same everywhere:

_I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory._

Now where does it say that scientific theories are to be treated as indisputable facts.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.


The fact that it _is_ an argument (and has been for a number of decades [at minimum]) should be enough to show that your simple reduction of the debate into "there's no evidence for God so there" is insufficient and does not take into account the inductive nature of science which can only prove so much and must rely upon a certain _degree_ of educated speculation to draw its conclusions. Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive.

Secondly, your quick dismissal of this argument is only valid if every aspect of life can be understood and explained by scientific processes and "evidence." Please don't expect me to believe that _every single aspect of the life you live, the attitudes you have, the beliefs you hold are due to "evidence."_ You yourself (if I recall correctly and correct me if I'm wrong) have indicated that you believe in a Divine Being - got proof (or a "shred of evidence") for that particular belief? By your own reasoning, that is an absurd belief because it cannot be proved.

----------


## hyperborean

I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not. 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm just read it

You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever. What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible. 

It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism. http://anthropology.net/user/kambiz_...e_in_evolution

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.


Then why bother to believe in one at all?





> You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever.


Since you apparently didn't read my post closely, here it is again with key words highlighted and Cliff's Notes-like interpolations placed for your convenience:

Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it [i.e. that science must base certain conclusions on clues and educated guesses based on available evidence]. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot [prove irrefutably, that is, because we weren't there to see it and the theory cannot be tested]. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive [in terms of being undeniably true based on presentable evidence]. 

In other words: I never said it was a "guess." I said that the best science can do in terms of evolution is 90%+ (that's pretty generous of me, don't you think?).

(If JGL is reading this: 90%+ is a _guess_, by the way  :Smile:  Let me know if my numbers are off).





> What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.


That and some other things - some of which that occur within the human heart. Dismiss away: there is more to life than facts and that which you can see. In fact, all the great literature of the world (along with most spiritual texts) emphasize again and again that there is much more to life than what can be seen, measured, observed. Such concrete reasoning that "only what I see exists" is often considered a characteristic of infantile thinking (which, by the way, I'm _not_ applying to present company).




> It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism.


Well, I'm sure you'll get used to it someday. I've managed to tolerate evolutionists'/atheists' "lowering" of me into the crowning evolutionary step of pond scum and primates pretty well (though I will admit that it's an _acquired_ taste  :Biggrin:  ).

----------


## hyperborean

There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument). 




> I don't know, guess I'm more stubborn than anything. Personally I don't see creationism as much of a choice when it comes to "versus" evolution, since it isn't even in the same league. One is about the creation of everything, the other is about the evolution of life after it existed. They've nothing to do with eachother, outside of the fact that creationists seem to enjoy proding at evolution because it is somehow a threat to their beliefs when it doesn't even involve the origin of life until one continues asking the "why" question throughout about science. 
> 
> Hopefully that made some sense.


It doesn't get clearer than that.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument). 
> 
> It doesn't get clearer than that.


"Clear" doesn't necessarily = convincing.

At the risk of making you think I'm just trying to be contrary: I didn't know that the only point of debating was to change someone's mind. I was under the impression that part of debate was simply laying out the arguments and evaluating them, learning what the arguments against your position are and evaluating your own position in light of the opposition. I certainly had no illusion that any of my arguments would convert anybody here. I engage in debate here to hear what others say and see if they'll _consider_ my position or my points. So yeah, if you're here to "win" well that is a waste of time.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.


I think the problem of this thread is... Chrisitian idea of God, vs some form of divine, vs science is god.

----------


## Pendragon

> Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous.


Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.>

Looks like I was rather slapdash in my choice of language. I was not in any way trying to suggest that evolution is on a par with religious arguments. Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.


I suppose I could "split a hair" and challenge the term _evidence_. What kind of "evidence" do you consider authoritative?

----------


## Pendragon

Whew. This is why the argument persists. If one endeavors to accept both science and God, the evolutionist says "Not good enough. You still have something in the mix that cannot be measured, quantified, etc., and until we can do that, we will not believe in it." And yet, the idea of infinity doesn't seem to bother you at all. Who can measure the limits of infinity? With a universe that is still expanding, who can quantify the borders? With technology making more and more of the once impossible possible, the lines between what can happen and what is pure fiction begin to blur. So, now, having made the statement that God is possible, you wish to crawfish on that statement. Why? You were right to begin with, you know... 

You know that the value of PI is approximately 3.14159265358... Have you ever tried to actually *prove* it? It is much harder to do so than it sounds, because you must prove every step you use as you go. But there isn't a doubt in your mind that this is correct. Nor in mine. Proof isn't always easy to gain. And not everything in science is proven, some is accepted without need of proof. I don't tell science they are wrong on everything, or even the vast majority of things. But I believe in God, and for me, I require no proof. And for me, chance will never prove evolution's beginnings. You can't prove chance. Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. 50-50. I still accept that things evolve and change. I am not the enemy, AP. Never was, never will be. Here's to you!  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## hyperborean

zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again. 

Good points, pendragon. Sometimes it's scary to think about how vast the universe really is. Actually most astronomers believe in God because of this. read this article: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=231

----------


## Redzeppelin

> zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.


Right: the fact that it probably will go on "forever" tells me that there is no simple answer (or even definitive answer in terms of "winning") that will end it. 

I think the dialogue is useful if (and only if) both sides are willing to listen to the other and consider the positions rather than rejecting them out-of-hand without even trying to see the reason behind the position. If that's going on (which happens more often than not) then, yes, the debate become two voices talking over each other.

I assume that people simply disappear from the thread when they tire of this perpetual debate.

----------


## AdoreroDio

Hi all! I believe in God the father and that he created the world in 7 days.
And...I really don't want to read the last 92 pages of argument or even the last 2 pages so could someone update me on where the argument is at it's current point (what is being currently discussed), where the argument is heading, any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun".

----------


## JGL57

> Hi all! I believe in God the father ...


What makes god a father - does he have a penis?




> ...and that he created the world in 7 days....


If god is omnipotent, then why so long? The omnipotent god down the street can create a universe in Planck time.





> ... any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun"...


No, it's the same old same old. Apparently god can do anything except evolve.

----------


## Wintermute

> What makes god a father - does he have a penis?


If it does, that makes my question of what was it doing for infinity before it decided to create the universe 13 billion years ago even more pertinant...imo. Another thing I wonder about**: Is God to be considered and extraterrestrial?

----------


## Stanislaw

> Hi all! I believe in God the father and that he created the world in 7 days.
> And...I really don't want to read the last 92 pages of argument or even the last 2 pages so could someone update me on where the argument is at it's current point (what is being currently discussed), where the argument is heading, any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun".


basically...science is right...no religion is right...no science is right....... :Crash:  




> If it does, that makes my question of what was it doing for infinity before it decided to create the universe 13 billion years ago even more pertinant...imo. Another thing I wonder about**: Is God to be considered and extraterrestrial?


Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.

Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.

----------


## Wintermute

> Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.
> 
> Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.


Hi Stanislaw,

As an agnostic:

If I have any animosity, it should be directed at any group that claims with certainty to know what is going on in the universe--that includes Chrisitians, Atheists, and Scientists (although I've met few that do). In my universe, certainty leads to zealotry which leads to violence and unnecessary meanness. 

Note: I reserve the right to retract this the instant I see a burning bush, hear God clearly speaking to me in the method of its choice, or witness absolute evidence that would proove that one group is right and all the rest have gone astray.

----------


## atiguhya padma

It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture. As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.

----------


## Stanislaw

I don't know...I'm just saying...be open minded enough to accept the possibilities...maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but, keep an open mind.

----------


## Pendragon

Good article, hyperborean. Thank you. I am glad that some scientists can keep their work heads and still believe in God. Thet don't let it cloud their work, but then hold to their belief. As it should be.  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What makes god a father - does he have a penis?


Ha ha. One may be a "father" and be missing his genitalia. The word "father" has a number of different meanings, only _one_ of which that means "male parent." I assume you understand such things. I also assume you "get" the idea that God must speak to us in the very limited medium we call the human language. As such, He is - to an extent - "straight-jacketed" by the limits of our language to express things/concepts/Beings that transcend our temporal humanity. Please don't make me think you don't get this most basic point. 





> If god is omnipotent, then why so long? The omnipotent god down the street can create a universe in Planck time.


This idea presents the rather absurd idea that "faster" is necessarily "better." As well, this belief totally bypasses the idea that God - as a Being concerned with order - may have had a specific reason to create in a certain number of days. If human beings are sensitive to the symbolism of ritual and ceremony, I would assume that God would consider such things - especially if there was to be record of His creative actions.





> No, it's the same old same old. Apparently god can do anything except evolve.


That which is _perfect_ need not "evolve" - only _inferior_ creations need to "improve" (like science).





> It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture.


Why don't you give this tired reasoning a rest? You merely _assume_ that holy writings are merely the scribblings of deluded human beings. You don't really know - you just _believe_ thusly. Your refusal to believe doesn't make you right - it just means _you don't believe._




> As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.


You are free to "worship" science all you wish. That science and religion seem to contradict each other (I say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lay around the corner that might move the two closer together) doesn't necessarily mean one is right and the other wrong. Your idolization of "evidence" and "proof" holds no real water because - as I have said before, asked you to respond to and you have ignored thus far - there are plenty of things that people (believers and non alike) believe to be true that they have no verifiable "evidence" to support that belief.

Second, science clarifies things - yes: but science also reveals new problems, new complications. It presents us with a mixed blessing. We have medications that do great things - but many of them have significant side-effects that can harm us even to the point of killing us. Cars are an important part of our lives - but they are polluting our atmosphere and are involved in one of the leading causes of death in the United States. You speak of science in glowing terms - but it has not brought about any Utopic existence here on earth. It solves problems, but creates new ones at the same time.

Again: your terming those "ignorant" who don't base their lives on "evidence" is silly - unless you wish to share how _every single belief you have_ is based upon _incontrovertible_ "proof." As far as Christians are concerned, those who base their idea of "truth" only on what they can *see* are seriously handicapped in their ability to understand reality.

----------


## atiguhya padma

I do not worship science. I would have thought it was pretty clear by now that I consider all worshippers tobe deluded. You seem to live in a world of worship, not me. I recognise science as the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is. 

You say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lie around the corner. What kind of argument is that? I assume you use "seem" all the time, for everything then? I say God seems to be a giraffe, after all, we don't know what we might discover just around the corner.

<Second, science clarifies things - yes: but science also reveals new problems, new complications. It presents us with a mixed blessing. We have medications that do great things - but many of them have significant side-effects that can harm us even to the point of killing us.>

Science does indeed reveal new complications, new problems. As I have send before, science unlike religion, is a living system of knowledge, a deepening understanding of our universe. If it did not reveal developments in our thought, it would not be worth spending our time on it. If you believe the only truths worth exploring or defending are absolutes, then you must be either a fool or a total sceptic, after all, everything "seems" true remember?

On the contrary, equating evidence with incontrovertible proof is naive.

So tell me, what do you base your idea of truth on? And are there any truths that do not just "seem" true?

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Can I just point out somthing sure God is kind and benevoulent but hes also a pretty harsh task masters ( by human standerds ) and theres good reason for this. Also belivieng in God includes putting your faith to test Im mean look at Job ( wait it is Job in english who lost all 12 of his chikedren and had disatser after disaster occur to him in a year so he went from a rich succesful man to practically a begger with no family?). And then there is the belief that if they die as children they go straight to heaven no questions asked, some would call tha a mercy.>

I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish. Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents. When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act). The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral. 

I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I do not worship science. I would have thought it was pretty clear by now that I consider all worshippers tobe deluded. You seem to live in a world of worship, not me. I recognise science as the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.


Did you not see the quotation marks around the word "worship"? Do you understand what that writing convention means (when you put quotation marks around a word)? I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that it was clear I did not mean the word literally. I recognize science as _one of the_ best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.




> You say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lie around the corner. What kind of argument is that? I assume you use "seem" all the time, for everything then? I say God seems to be a giraffe, after all, we don't know what we might discover just around the corner.


I say "seems" because science has had to reverse itself a number of times because new equipment/discoveries rendered the former scientific understanding obsolete or flat-out wrong. The argument is based on the history of scientific discovery; had science never been wrong or had to correct/contradict a former position, then my statement is absurd. As it is, it is perfectly logical.

Your idea that God "seems" like a giraffe is based on what? Because the only recorded account of what He's like is in the Bible - and nothing in it conforms to your rather absurd imagining. As well, because God is unchanging in His nature, we can assume the picture of Him (incomplete as it is) presented by the Bible is accurate and not subject to revision (except in how _we_ understand Him).




> Science does indeed reveal new complications, new problems. As I have send before, science unlike religion, is a living system of knowledge, a deepening understanding of our universe. If it did not reveal developments in our thought, it would not be worth spending our time on it. If you believe the only truths worth exploring or defending are absolutes, then you must be either a fool or a total sceptic, after all, everything "seems" true remember?


The Bible is a living record as well - it continues to speak to generation after generation. While its words don't change (though we do have different translations which do shed light on certain truths), their relevance continues to change with the times.

Where did I say anything about absolutes? As well, where did I indicate that "everything" seems true? I don't believe that at all. There are plenty of things that don't seem true to me and some that I don't believe to be true at all.

As far as the name-calling - depending upon who you ask in this forum, probably either term is applicable. I'm not worried about how you categorize me.




> On the contrary, equating evidence with incontrovertible proof is naive.


That's true - but to listen to many atheists/evolutionists, you'd think that they see the two terms as synonymous. I'm only arguing for the limitations of science. It's got them, and those limitations mean that its "certainty" is up for questioning and revision. That tiny degree of uncertainty means that to dismiss my position because it doesn't provide evidence is hypocritical. The argument that you pose that "Any argument for anything in the physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion" may not be arguing incontrovertibility, but it sure seems to look that direction - as if physical evidence establishes the truth of something. 




> So tell me, what do you base your idea of truth on? And are there any truths that do not just "seem" true?


I use probably the very same tools you use to assess the world and its truths. The difference is that I'm not chained to the idea that "if I can't see it, it's not real" (which your leaning on physical evidence implies). I accept that certain truths about life, love, and human nature cannot be apprehended through "scientific method." I believe that many of the greatest "truths" we accept about life (and especially human nature) are tentative at best - often reasonable, but not necessarily definitive.

Plenty of so-called "truths" do not "seem" true to me - and plenty of others do not merely "seem" but are untrue absolutely.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish.


Trust me, we feel the same way about some of the ideas/hypophesis/comments/arguments thrown our way from your side of the fence too. We just exchange the word "intelligent" for "religious."




> Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents.


But the record of God's character - the Bible - does not condone this behavior. That's why the Bible is so important - it establishes the parameters of Christian behavior. Your example is, therefore, invalid.




> When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act).


There are two errors in this logic. Number one, God is perfect in his goodness, His love, His justice and His mercy. Human beings are not. So, just on that differentiation, the two cannot be compared. We may question a human being's motives and actions - but how do you question those of a perfect Being? Number two: these kinds of comments proceed from the idea that God's justice is random, as opposed to _correct_ and _just_ and in response to _established law._ It has nothing to do with what God "likes" - the Bible clearly tells us that our greatest acts of service and holiness are mere "rags" compared to the holiness of God. Furthermore, this logic tends to imply that all behaviors (i.e. lifestyle _choices_) are equal and that God's justice is whim or caprice; what if His justice is based on the way things ARE? Perhaps God's justice is _mercy_. I think the end of Sodom was pretty harsh - but I'm not God, and I don't know all the things that went into His decision (but I do know that He would have been willing to spare the city if even 10 righteous people could be found). God's decisions are not based so much on what He "likes" or "prefers" but upon what He has established reality to be. I wonder how opposed to capital punishment you'd be for child-rapists or murderers who torture their victims? In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.

Real Christians do not rejoice in the suffering or death of any of God's children.





> The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral.


This sounds pretty black/white - absolute (wasn't I getting criticized for being "absolute" a few posts ago?). Morality isn't relative, but I believe that even God understands mitigating circumstances. As well, are you saying that _all_ killing is wrong, _always_? Really? I do not see my killing of the maniac intent on raping/torturing my wife as inappropriate in the least. 




> I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.


God would agree that such a life is not a blessing; but He would counter that eternity in heaven is fair compensation for the troubles we have had to endure. Don't think that means that God is cavalier or indifferent - it means that someday, all our sufferings here will vanish in the light of eternity by His side.

Again: as far as "confused" and "naive" is concerned, we Christians feel the same way about some of the thought processes we hear argued towards us from your side of the fence.

----------


## Pendragon

And so it goes The horse is dead, no amount of beating will make it get up and go. Bury the poor creature; the stench is stifling. When we get reduced to name-calling, we cease to be intelligent adults, regardless of our argument, and are behaving like kindergarteners. Time-out, please.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And so it goes The horse is dead, no amount of beating will make it get up and go. Bury the poor creature; the stench is stifling. When we get reduced to name-calling, we cease to be intelligent adults, regardless of our argument, and are behaving like kindergarteners. Time-out, please.



Oh, Pen, I so agree. But the debate will go on whether you or I engage or not. If all of the current posters vanished, a new slew would take our place. Carpe diem, buddy.

(PS - I don't like the name-calling either, but I can't custom pick my opponents, so I'll just continue to put up with it  :Biggrin:  )

----------


## kilted exile

> In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.


Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.

----------


## hyperborean

Speaking of sins...

Sin is an imaginary burden. Repenting to a priest (that believes he has some sort of special connection to God) is ridiculous. If in fact you want God's "forgiveness" then just pray...you don't have to speak with a man that thinks he's higher than you. 

Instead of calling these burdens "sins", rename them "flaws". Replicate what Dante did and correct your character. Only then will you reach the stars.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.


Lightly said - because if you _really_ believed that Hell existed, you might say differently. I find it fascinating that people will often make this statement - "I'd rather suffer in Hell than be with a God like this" as if _political correctness_ is worth sacrificing your soul for. 

Your comment is based on the idea that _our_ idea of the implications of a homosexual lifestyle are more enlightened/informed/realistic/whatever than that of a Supreme Being. We can trumpet "politically correct" ideas all we want - what I'm asking you to entertain is the idea that our evaluation of a specific thing may not be correct.

Try this: just _pretend_ for a minute that a Being exists that is PERFECT in its mind and heart - that it is the embodiment of _all_ that is *good* and *right* and *just* and *fair* and *merciful* and *compassionate* - but to a degree of perfection that humans can never, ever reach. Assuming such a being exists, shouldn't we have reason to consider what this Being defines as right and wrong? To speak as you have is - in my opinion - to treat God as if He is just another person who says "I don't like homosexuals" (which, by the way is not something He would ever say). God is not a magnified human being - He is a Supreme Being - one who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Once you accept that, then you have to consider that He may very well know better than we as to what is good and bad, right and wrong.

In fact, I think the idea that God sees all sin as equal is actually comforting - it means that none of us is better than anybody else; as well, it also means that there is no sin so terrible that places a person outside of the forgiveness of God. The bad part is that everybody now finds themselves in need of forgiveness, no matter how "virtuous" the life.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Speaking of sins...
> 
> Sin is an imaginary burden. Repenting to a priest (that believes he has some sort of special connection to God) is ridiculous. If in fact you want God's "forgiveness" then just pray...you don't have to speak with a man that thinks he's higher than you. 
> 
> Instead of calling these burdens "sins", rename them "flaws". Replicate what Dante did and correct your character. Only then will you reach the stars.



I don't believe in confessing to a priest (or other mediator) either.

But: I don't think sin is "imaginary." "Flaws"? Murder, rape, theft, manipulation - these are flaws? I doubt it. ""Flaw" implies some imperfection - "sin" implies a conscious choice. Let's not remove moral responsibility from people, please.

----------


## hyperborean

The fact that "God sees all sin as equal" is ridiculous. Living by that logical makes perfect sense [sarcasm added]...let me shoot a man and have it treated the same as another man who just masturbated. That's why I think the concept of "sin" is sign of individual weakness. I don't need God's opinion for the severity of my actions.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The fact that "God sees all sin as equal" is ridiculous. Living by that logical makes perfect sense [sarcasm added]...let me shot a man and have it treated the same as another man who just masturbated. That's why I think the concept of "sin" is sign of individual weakness. I don't need God's opinion for the severity of my actions.


Great. I didn't present the idea because I thought it would meet universal approval. As the NT says - whoever breaks the least of the laws has broken them all because _all_ sin is - at its core - rebellion against God. It's interesting that you focus on the "bad" part and skip the good part I added - which is that God equally forgives ALL. Unlike humans, He has no problem extending forgiveness to even the "worst" offenders.

Either way, the fact that God sees all sin the same does not mean He expects us to do so; what it means is that we are to be very careful about using the "severity" of sins to judge other people - it means that we Christians need to be aware that just because we (generally) don't commit "major" sins (murder, rape, theft, etc) that we are not in need of saving and of God's forgiveness; it means that our human tendency to judge those "worse" than us is mitigated by our realization that - in God's eyes - we're no better.

I don't understand the logic that a "concept" (sin) is an "individual weakness"? How can that be? And, what would you like to call moral transgressions (besides "flaws")?

----------


## Jay

Please try to stay on topic. Discussing all kinds of sins doesn't contribute to the topic. If you want to discuss this issue further, please feel free to create another thread.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Redzeppelin,

Who ever said science was certain? As I have made clear, it is because of its flexibility with regard to discovering the nature of the Universe, that makes science so useful. It doesn't deal with certainties. That's what religion likes to think it deals with. 

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science. It is accumulative. It is adaptive, open to revision. It doesn't hide in obscurities or dogmas. It is largely based upon probability, replication and testability. Maybe you need to distinguish between scientism and science.

<Plenty of so-called "truths" do not "seem" true to me - and plenty of others do not merely "seem" but are untrue absolutely.>

How do you decide what is untrue absolutely? I thought you had said earlier that we do not know what is around the corner, so how can we know what is and is not absolute? Something absolute is true now, in the past and for the duration of time isn't it?

<I use probably the very same tools you use to assess the world and its truths.>

So when you accept a statement made in a 2-3,000 year old book by someone whose history you only know from their alleged writings, that is supposed to somehow equate to me accepting a claim made today in a book of science that is open to peer review, and if you can be foolish enough to need to verify every statement made in the book, open to physical verification too. Are you really trying to convince me that these are really two similar methods? Furthermore, I would not trust any scientific statement made 2-3,000 years ago without referring to modern science. What kind of subject puts such old-fashioned views at the forefront of its world outlook? Not one I would care to endorse.

<The difference is that I'm not chained to the idea that "if I can't see it, it's not real" (which your leaning on physical evidence implies).>

It does not imply that at all. You know sound, touch, and all the other senses are physical too. In fact, as we live in a physical Universe, everything within it is physical.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Please try to stay on topic. Discussing all kinds of sins doesn't contribute to the topic. If you want to discuss this issue further, please feel free to create another thread.


My apologies. atiguhya padma broached the topic and I felt it necessary to correct his misunderstanding. It was not my intention to bring the topic up, but atiguhya and hyperborean made them an issue. I'll drop it.

----------


## hyperborean

Sin is an imaginary burden. def: commit a sin; violate a law of God. The only reason why I disagree because I don't let God govern my life. I govern myself which gives me individual freewill. This is when the slave-master morality comes into play. 

When one has committed a wrong doing that was against that individual's morals or society's morals, I wouldn't classify it as a sin, but instead an imperfection of character. Thus, that individual shall mend that imperfection in order to move forward towards the goal of overcoming oneself. Worrying about what that divine figure has to sa, or if that action will take away that precious ticket into heaven, is just silly.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Redzeppelin,
> 
> You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science. 
> 
> Maybe you need to distinguish between scientism and science.
> 
> 
> and if you can be foolish enough to need to verify every statement made in the book, open to physical verification too. 
> 
> What kind of subject puts such old-fashioned views at the forefront of its world outlook? Not one I would care to endorse.


As much as I enjoy debate, this ones turning tedious (and Im sure you feel the same) because we keep talking past each other. Rather than deal with your points (unless you have a burden for me to repeat myself), allow me try to succinctly put a cap on this argument:

The discussion about Creation vs. Evolution is really a discussion as to whether or not God exists  that and nothing else (this is my opinion  arguing with it wont change it). Heres why I say this: I believe in a Supreme Being whom I know as God  He is _all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present_; He is _good_, _merciful_, _kind_, _just_, _compassionate_, and most of all  _loving_. From that basis, all other things fall into place. For example, the Bible  rather than a book of myths put together by deluded human beings, becomes a living text  the transcendent word of God Himself  His thoughts (not humanitys) put down on paper by an inspired human hand. As such, any account the Bible gives (including the Creation) I must now see as having _Divine Authority_ behind it  which is what establishes its credibility to me  not the validation of various scholars and historians. 

Once you accept that God is who the Bible says He is  that His knowledge, intellect and understanding are _perfect_, as are His love, justice and mercy - it then follows that what He says now has _authority_ for the believer  an authority that ultimately trumps social/cultural trend, political correctness and  if necessary  even the _unproven_ claims of science. Science is a good thing  I believe in science. But I believe more in God  and thats the crux of this disagreement, because if you dont believe in God, then the Creationist position collapses like a house of cards. If God doesnt exist, then yes: the Christian position is silly and fully incredible. 

For the Christian, Gods _authority_ is the final arbiter of things. That doesnt mean Im always right  but it means that (as far as my imperfect mind is capable of understanding) I trust that God is who He says He is  and if He is who He says He is  then He obviously is _smarter_ than I, _wiser_ than I and is in a better position to tell me the nature of reality than anybody or anything else  even the sophisticated tools of science (which are products of imperfect human hands) for the simple reason that I believe _He created reality_ (and I believe thusly because the book which I believe carries Divine Authority says He created reality).

Honestly, Im impressed by the mountains of evidence evolutionists have, but Im not interested in scouring the web for counter-arguments from Christian Science websites because  ultimately  we will _both_ invalidate the others evidence because of the different _foundations_ they rest on and the corresponding authority we ascribe to each. Im tired of the argument  not because of you, but because of the circularity of our posts  a circularity Ive repeated with a number of atheists who generally say the same thing to me in return.

The bottom line is belief in God. No amount of scientific evidence will erase that. It may alter my idea about life here on earth, it may not. But God it cannot touch.

I thank you for your comments and counter-arguments. You are clearly a sharp thinker, but  as Pendragon has posted in this forum more than once  I feel like Im just beating the same dead horse over and over. Im not asking you to believe me: Im asking you to consider the _foundation_ of my position  that God is real and Supreme. If you wont even consider that that is a _possibility_, then we can learn nothing from each other because you will simply consider me a deluded madman instead of an intelligent and reasonable being  and why debate if were not interested in learning?

Final word: just because you dont _believe_ God exists doesnt mean He doesnt. Remember: _you could be wrong_ and you have no way to prove God doesnt exist  just like I dont have anyway to prove evolution didnt happen. 

(PS - I know myself well enough to know that I won't permanently absent myself from this debate, but right now it's just an endless circle and I feel stupid repeating myself again and again and again.  :Sick:  )

----------


## Wintermute

> Final word: just because you dont _believe_ God exists doesnt mean He doesnt. Remember: _you could be wrong_ and you have no way to prove God doesnt exist  just like I dont have anyway to prove evolution didnt happen.


Hi Red,

Sounds like you're becoming more agnostic! So, you are not 100% certain that God exists? If that's the case, then I'm with you. Its the absolute certainty that many proclaim that bothers me the most. Regardless, thanks for a lively discussion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Hi Red,
> 
> Sounds like you're becoming more agnostic! So, you are not 100% certain that God exists? If that's the case, then I'm with you. Its the absolute certainty that many proclaim that bothers me the most. Regardless, thanks for a lively discussion.


Well, actually, I _do_ believe w/ 100% certainty that God exists - what I do not believe is that anybody else should accept that 100% certainty. I can no more prove that God exists than the atheist can prove evolution happened - there is no way to prove 100% certainty of either. I can acknowledge that God is not provable - what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the level of certainty that many seem to claim). Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability.

Either way, I do appreciate your stance on uncertainty - because much of life we assume to be true is actually based on unquestioned assumptions. Less of life is "provable" than we're willing to acknowledge.

Thank you for your thoughtful proddings - they've kept me on my toes  :Smile:

----------


## kilted exile

> I can acknowledge that God is not provable - what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the level of certainty that many seem to claim). Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability.


I think this is the part where a lot of proponents of evolution (ok, me) get annoyed. I have no problem with people wanting to believe the world was created in 7 days, Methusala lived to whatever age etc.

Where I begin to get annoyed is when it is suggested that there is the same amount of evidence for either theory, there is not. For the theory of Creationism there is the Bible and faith.

For the theory of Evolution there is a large amount of scientific evidence (in the form of fossils, closeness in DNA, observances of speciation taking place in other organisms etc), however we are still in need of the "missing link" and that is why we call it a theory. As far as certainty goes, the theory as it stands may not be 100% - we may find something that fundamentally rejects the theory, however more likely we will find something which leads to either a slight alteration to the currently accepted process or in the case of the missing link proves the theory once and for all. (Just now I would say I am 90% certain the evolution theory as it is just now is correct - further findings will effect this percentage)

I wouldnt mind if proponents of Creationism just said until definitive proof of evolution is found I choose to believe the bible instead, but please dont suggest the amount of evidence is similar.

----------


## hyperborean

This topic is more of if you believe in God, but I would like to point out that a lot of people who believe in the evolution theory also believe in the divine. 

But yea, this topic is going in circles.

----------


## AdoreroDio

I disagree with your statement of Creationism having less evidence then evolutionism. And on the side of creationism we don't just have the Bible and faith because historical documents have been found that prove biblical people actually lived. There is historical evidence that Jesus walked this earth, and that so did Moses and other major Biblical figures. There is also proof of the "great flood". Please don't assume there is no evidence on the side of God existing and creating the world. Also, did you ever consider that "the missing link" hasn't been found because it doesn't exist?

----------


## Lily Adams

And where is this "evidence" that you speak of Miss AdoreroDio? Evidence that these Biblical people existed? Tell me, please. I want to know. Show me.

The answer to the "But they've found fish fossils in mounatins!"statement is here: It's down a little ways. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Just because fish fossils have been found in mountains doesn't mean that there was necessarily a "flood" caused by God there. There was just an ocean in that particular spot. What about places on land where they can't find fish fossils, hmm?

About the "missing link" debate, it's simple. There was no "missing link" in the first place. It was just dreamed up by someone who didn't believe in evolution and didn't want to admit they were wrong, etc.

Yahoo! Answers has the answer! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1154952AAdGuUM

"Please don't assume there is no evidence on the side of God existing and creating the world."? I don't think most of us are assuming now are we, that's why we're here. We're here giving evidence that Evolution is a fact.

----------


## ennison

'Now where does it say that scientific theories are to be treated as indisputable facts.'
The whole tenor of your 'argument' is that scientific proof is indisputable. One does not have to declare a god to have one, nor attend any University to be frequently unimpressed by their arrogant and gullible products

----------


## kilted exile

> I disagree with your statement of Creationism having less evidence then evolutionism. And on the side of creationism we don't just have the Bible and faith because historical documents have been found that prove biblical people actually lived. There is historical evidence that Jesus walked this earth, and that so did Moses and other major Biblical figures. There is also proof of the "great flood". Please don't assume there is no evidence on the side of God existing and creating the world. Also, did you ever consider that "the missing link" hasn't been found because it doesn't exist?


This is not about whether biblical figures lived, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus, I am not willing to believe however that he was a son of God. He may have been a thinker, religious leader, social activist, concerned citizen - This is not in debate, what evidence other than the bible/faith (which I have no problem of) for the theory of Creationism is the main point.

----------


## hyperborean

It's about time we have some members like lily adams sticking up for evolution. 

Evolution (physical evidence proving it) vs Creationism (no physical evidence proving it, just faith). What gets me aggravated are the people that are Christian who strictly believe in creationism. I'm going to repost this link in case some of you didn't see it: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

You can still believe in God, but you can't deny evolution at this point.

----------


## ennison

'Evolution (physical evidence proving it)' The evidence is being interpreted as an act of faith in evolution whereas most is only evidence of change - a common sense idea that almost everyone agrees with. This thread is somewhat tiresome as it seems to produce little result and I feel mighty sympathetic to Rezep frequently ploughing his lonely furrow. I probably agree with nine tenths of what he says. I have resolved this issue to my own satisfaction years ago - and no I do not believe the universe was created in 144 hours though I believe it could have been and as far as human existence is concerned we could obliterate our relationship totally and permanently with this universe in a lot less than 144 hours. Thanks to wonderful wonderful science and its never-get-it-wrong acolytes

----------


## hyperborean

> Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.
> 
> Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself.


It doesn't get clearer than that. This thread is filled with comments from Christians that "beat around the bush". You cannot discredit evolution if your own theory is based on _absolute_ faith.

----------


## Lily Adams

> This is not about whether biblical figures lived, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus, I am not willing to believe however that he was a son of God. He may have been a thinker, religious leader, social activist, concerned citizen - This is not in debate, what evidence other than the bible/faith (which I have no problem of) for the theory of Creationism is the main point.


Precisely.

My thoughts exactly for the above post as well.

----------


## quartzer

I voted for evolution as the ongoing random process initiated 14 billion years ago in the "big bang", as a result of which began not only all matter and energy in this universe, but also its physical characteristics which must be precisely as they are for us to be here asking this question.

Here's a random thought: space and time being relative, God's "day" might be two billion earth years long to us, but only 24 earth hours long to It...

----------


## Pendragon

> The answer to the "But they've found fish fossils in mounatins!"statement is here: It's down a little ways. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
> Just because fish fossils have been found in mountains doesn't mean that there was necessarily a "flood" caused by God there. There was just an ocean in that particular spot. What about places on land where they can't find fish fossils, hmm?


I wondered when someone would think about this. I know a good place in my mountains here to get fossil seashells and things. I have some of my nicer finds as paperweights. I will not argue the point, as anything I say will be dismissed, but IMO the rock strata seems to argue against the ocean floor, as the fossil bed is narrow, but I love the ocean, and know scallop shells when I see them!




> About the "missing link" debate, it's simple. There was no "missing link" in the first place. It was just dreamed up by someone who didn't believe in evolution and didn't want to admit they were wrong, etc.


No. It wasn't dreamed up by anyone who didn't believe in evolution. It was because there is no direct link from apes to humans that science could discover. The steps progressed in a fairly logical chain until the leap from ape to man. They speak of a "common ancestor". They never found it. So there is a missing link.

----------


## manyreddevils

hmm. 
seems like everyone has some expert or other who's willing to confirm what they believe. well, i don't believe in experts. so there. nor am i terribly fond of words that end in "-ism". Only lead to trouble, in my experience. 
i don't know a whole lot about the scientific details, or the scriptural support, or whatever. perhaps it is possible that God created a suspiciously phallic spaghetti monster and gave it dominion over a world teeming with apes and walking fish. maybe it's possible that God doesn't exist at all, and the dreams of millions of sweaty-palmed, poorly respirated young men will one day come true and X-men will walk the earth in all their spandex and glory. 
my only point, if there is one, is that atheism 

a) seems really lame if it's true. (and those who claim it are consistent in their beliefs, or lack thereof) it's kind of tough to argue for free will, and the subsequent dignity of mankind, unless you acknowledge something from outside the physical series of action-reaction. it also kind of reduces any semblance of worth or beauty in human experience to biological processes, facts that can be or mean no more than what they are. 

b) provides within itself nothing to suggest i should believe it, even if it's true. why shouldn't i believe something completely "irrational", just because it is? materialism can state facts, but doesn't seem to give you a lot to do with them. (i.e. why should i believe facts? survival value? why should humans, merely one more organism, and a destructive one at that, out of millions survive?) 

c) gives me a headache when i talk with people who are arguing about it. 

My philosophy is that no one has it completely right. You're only wrong if you think that you do. Searching for truth and beauty and happiness isn't something you get out of your system by the time you graduate college. I guarantee you that no one alive has found it completely. So keep looking, and for God(or whomever)'s sake, don't try to impose whatever you think you know on other people. If it's as great as all that, you won't have to. 

(if i've digressed here, i apologize. the last thing i want to be is "that guy." He's pretty lame.)

----------


## Jetxa

> My philosophy is that no one has it completely right. You're only wrong if you think that you do.


I have finally made peace with being able to say, "I don't know." 

_"I've got a great adventure ahead of me; the search for what God is, what I am, the meaning of my life. That should take a whole lifetime and the searching will be enough." ~ Unknown_

----------


## Pendragon

> I have finally made peace with being able to say, "I don't know."


The single most sensible statement I have heard in a long time. There is no shame in saying, I do not know. Nor is there shame in saying I cannot explain this. An honest answer is better than a flurry of righteous indignation, or scientific facts tossed about that in the end are still best guess. 

Let science do its job, we cannot do without it. Science uncovers many valuable things that make life easier for us, a man is curious, so Science endeavors to satisfy that hunger.

Man has always looked for a higher power, a God. Let Religion have its place. Faith is the focal point that keeps many from a life of letting their baser side take over and rule them.

The world and all that is in it exists. Maybe instead of fighting over how it came to be, we should _carpe diem,_ and enjoy what is here. Life is too short to spend it fighting.

God bless.  :Nod:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Where I begin to get annoyed is when it is suggested that there is the same amount of evidence for either theory, there is not. For the theory of Creationism there is the Bible and faith.


Hi there. I suggested no such thing. Here's what I said: "what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the *level of certainty* that many seem to claim)." Nothing in that statement implies that the evidence is "equal." Both theories are ultimately _unprovable_ - that's all I was saying. 




> For the theory of Evolution there is a large amount of scientific evidence (in the form of fossils, closeness in DNA, observances of speciation taking place in other organisms etc), however we are still in need of the "missing link" and that is why we call it a theory.


Hence my second statement: "Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability."




> As far as certainty goes, the theory as it stands may not be 100% -


That's the only point I was trying to make.





> I wouldnt mind if proponents of Creationism just said until definitive proof of evolution is found I choose to believe the bible instead, but please dont suggest the amount of evidence is similar.


I didn't.

----------


## kilted exile

Zep, I realise you clarified your statement (hence why I left it in the part where I quoted you) my main issue is that as a rule believers dont.

I realise I worded things poorly, but what do you expect - I failed English.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Zep, I realise you clarified your statement (hence why I left it in the part where I quoted you) my main issue is that as a rule believers dont.
> 
> I realise I worded things poorly, but what do you expect - I failed English.


No harm, no foul, buddy. Of the many non-believers whom I converse with, you are one of the more courteous. Thanks  :Smile: 

(PS - your English is fine)

----------


## hyperborean

> "what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable"


I know this has been said over and over again, but the fact remains that evolution does have physical evidence supporting it. There is nothing to debunk here. One theory has evidence and the other doesn't. That's it...believe in what you want to believe and carry forward. I don't know how this thread is still thriving with rebuttals.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> I know this has been said over and over again, but the fact remains that evolution does have physical evidence supporting it. There is nothing to debunk here. One theory has evidence and the other doesn't. That's it...believe in what you want to believe and carry forward. I don't know how this thread is still thriving with rebuttals.


yes! evolution has been proved as well as any theory may be. and you can gain the same results yourself where as in creationism all you have is one book which you can never prove to someone without god actually coming and saying its true.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Do you think you all could pause the victory party just long enough to post for us poor under-evolved Christians (who apparently have finally lost this futile battle [if the three posts above me are to be believed]) as to where we can read this definitive "proof" that evolution is a _fact_ as opposed to a _theory_ (because Christians are well aware that the _theory_ has evidence to support it)? If you could do so, then things would quiet down here because then we deluded believers could escape this endless debate to go hang our heads in utter defeat. The source, please?

----------


## ennison

the irony being that those types are actually the least evolved, intellectually

OH The irony escapes me but I'm delighted to be intellectually unevolved as well as no kin to monkeys.

Your standard of proof is not as good as you believe it to be. 

I promised myself not to bother posting here again but there you go fish haven't evolved enough yet either. They too still rise to the bait!!

----------


## hyperborean

> Do you think you all could pause the victory party just long enough to post for us poor under-evolved Christians (who apparently have finally lost this futile battle [if the three posts above me are to be believed]) as to where we can read this definitive "proof" that evolution is a _fact_ as opposed to a _theory_ (because Christians are well aware that the _theory_ has evidence to support it)? If you could do so, then things would quiet down here because then we deluded believers could escape this endless debate to go hang our heads in utter defeat. The source, please?


Someone forgot to click on the various links posted in this thread proving evidence. 

There have been studies after studies done on evolution!

----------


## Logos

> Mod note to all: 
> 
> Posts have been deleted. I am not closing this topic, that happens to be one of the more successful long-standing ones in the Religious Texts area, just because people are (again) getting into the 
> 
> _'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours'._
> 
> Please stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.


ditto to above and to add:

I've cleaned up this topic so now opening the floodgates again  :Goof:  

Please do not use inflammatory words like *"pig"* in reference or allusion to specific members here or people of a certain faith in general or your post will be deleted. 

Please do not quote such posts or it will be deleted. 

Please read the general forum rules (link in my sigline) and the specific Religious Texts forum rules . 

If you have a problem with a mod decision, send them a private message regarding it, as it says in the rules

**Keep it off the boards.**

-

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Someone forgot to click on the various links posted in this thread proving evidence. 
> 
> There have been studies after studies done on evolution!


"Evidence" does not always speak for itself: it often requires an interpreter. Interpretations may vary.

Evidence does not always prove certainty - it suggests a _degree of probability._

----------


## Wintermute

> degree of probability.[/I]


Agreed, _The Matrix_ and Mr. Heissenburg really highlighted this for me.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Nice - I forgot about the Uncertainty Principle.

----------


## ShoutGrace

Am I missing something here? 




> In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system. In its simplest form, it applies to the position and momentum of a single particle, and implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured, there will come a point at which the other must be measured with less accuracy.


It concerns a specific area of high level physics - "physical subatomic phenomena."

 :Confused:

----------


## hyperborean

I will no longer battle straw man tactics in this thread.

----------


## JGL57

> I will no longer battle straw man tactics in this thread.


I also - there are those who just prefer dust and hot air to monkeys - and that is pretty much that.  :Biggrin:  

BTW, have you read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins? I think it would be a great book to recommend to any friends you may have that are scientifically and intellectually inclined but perhaps weak in their knowledge of evolutionary theory. Or for those who prefer video-based education:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlQcM...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Ssx...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjfW4...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMfc3...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmUJa...elated&search=


- One can only imagine a similar five-part in-depth lecture by a creationist "scientist" explaining the "goddidit, Ibelieveit, thatsettlesit" theory. :Biggrin:

----------


## hyperborean

That's a really good lecture. I'm about half way through the first part.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> One can only imagine a similar five-part in-depth lecture by a creationist "scientist" explaining the "goddidit, Ibelieveit, thatsettlesit" theory.


That series will be appearing right after the "_Things exploded - the earth cooled - by astronomical odds life (somehow) emerged - crawled up onto land - here we are_" theory (also known colloquially as the "_Nobody knows what did it - scientists say so - I believe it - That settles it"_ theory).  :Biggrin:

----------


## ennison

So true Red zep.

----------


## JGL57

> That's a really good lecture. I'm about half way through the first part.



I have watched the first three of the lectures. It is interesting to see Dawkins make that "from ages 8 to 80" cliche come alive, i.e., he explains evoltion in simple enough terms that a bright child can understand but it is still interesting for the adults who are interesting in learning.

----------


## Lily Adams

I'll have to take a look at those, thanks, JGL57.

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but what about dinosaurs? We have yet to find any kind of human remains that trace back to before 64 million years ago because we aren't that old. And the Bible said nothing about dinosaurs roaming around with Adam and Eve nor was their extinction mentioned, which I think would be a big enough event to be worthy enough to be put in the ultimate book. And neanderthals?

My apologies about the lack of contribution to this thread. I have been busy, and I am usually just an observer when it comes to forums.

----------


## ennison

Neanderthals are just humans stigmatised by evolutionists 
Dinosaurs weren't roaming around with Adam.
I don't know how long a day is to God agus tha mi coma.
Must leave to work. I know how long my day is - very short!

----------


## Adudaewen

I don't pretend to know everything about the Bible, however I do seem to remember several referances to Leviathans in the Bible which some scholars have said may refer to dinosaurs. The fact that they are not longer here today may have something to do with the change in climate after the flood. Or simply because humans hunted them to extinction. How many species of animals have we never seen because of that very reason. And there are dinosaurs still among us. Crocodillians, iguanas, komodo dragons. Who's to say these are actually dinosaurs, just for some reason we cannot fathom, the only species of dinosaurs to survive. I am a firm believer in Creation, for the simple reason, that when I look at the splendor of the world, I don't see a random event, I see cohesiveness, order, a plan. 
Also, we are living on a dying planet. If evolution were true, we would be getting better, elevating to perfection, because in essence that is what evolution's function is. To shed weakness, to adapt, to perfect until no weakness exists. That's the theory behind survival of the fittest, isn't it?

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

actually science can explain the order of the universe more ligically and reasonably than god. 

as for evolution, do you understand any science at all? humans have become the dominant species. we live on a dying planet becuase humans have ruined it. when and if humans die off, new species will take over. the dinosaurs are a good example. they took over, but they had a weakness, so they died, evolution tryed again and got people. now we will see if we have a weakness. if we do, it will go again. if we die off, we simply werent the fittest.

----------


## Lily Adams

Neanderthals were in fact humans, but they were of different species. That's a fact. We don't even know if they could talk. Not to mention their skulls were quite different looking from ours. 

So ennison, are you saying that dinosaurs are in fact younger than us? 

Leviathans are actually, according to the Bible, water creatures. So what about Mr. T-Rex and his land friends? Like I said, we haven't found (and will never find) human remians as old as dinosaur remains. It's pretty obvious there is a relation between dinosaurs and iguanas, etc. becuase they are all reptiles, but then that connects with evolution, doesn't it? Dinosaurs also evolved into birds. There are clear similarities between them. Not to mention that leviathans are also called "whales".

In response to your "we should be getting better" comment, evolution takes place over millions of years. So it's a bit of a slow process. If we don't blow ourselves up in the near future, maybe we'll see some changes in a few million years. Evolution is driven by natural selection, and you can't naturally select if some bone head if going to decide to blow us up or if the Earth "collapses" so to speak because of our constant waste and abuse, so we all pay for it. So there's a response to what you're already probably thinking.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

besides, humans have somewhat short circuited evolution. we keep the failures alive with medicine, surgery, wheelchairs and such. other examples are glasses, which i have, and hearing aids. im not saying this is wrong necessarily, but it does damage evolution somewhat. its hard to evolve when the failures return to the genepool instead of dying off without reproducing.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> actually science can explain the order of the universe more ligically and reasonably than god.


Not without the use of numbers and coincedences so astronomical in nature as to become almost as incomprehensible as God.




> as for evolution, do you understand any science at all? humans have become the dominant species. we live on a dying planet becuase humans have ruined it. when and if humans die off, new species will take over. the dinosaurs are a good example. they took over, but they had a weakness, so they died, evolution tryed again and got people. now we will see if we have a weakness. if we do, it will go again. if we die off, we simply werent the fittest.


Another tired argument. We disagree with the validity of some of science's conclusions and suddenly we don't "understand" it. Nice. I'd be willing to counter with "Do you understand the Bible or God at all?" I'm pretty certain that the Christians posting here are fairly familiar with the science behind evolution; just because we question the validity of some of its assumptions and conclusions doesn't mean we don't get it. We may just not completely "buy" it. But how much of our position do _you_ get?

----------


## Reccura

so you believe in Creation then?

----------


## Stanislaw

> besides, humans have somewhat short circuited evolution. we keep the failures alive with medicine, surgery, wheelchairs and such. other examples are glasses, which i have, and hearing aids. im not saying this is wrong necessarily, but it does damage evolution somewhat. its hard to evolve when the failures return to the genepool instead of dying off without reproducing.


well, there is an idea that humanshave evolved intellectually to utilize tools to sustain themselves, imo, evolution is not limited to the physical, but to the intellectual as well, smarter species will survive.

(before you go ranting, I am a bio major, not a fanatic, I have chrisitian beliefs, but I have thouroghly studied the evolutionary theory.) In the terms of physical, and even mental, humans are starting/have been stagnating. and it seems that projected, we are not going much further, unless there is some major catastrophe. And as for dying planet...you are correct, our planet has never been healthier, harmfull mutations have never been less, and I for one am damn proud of the fact that we humans have managed to cleanup the toxic environment created by thosed damned suv driving dinosaurs.




> Also, we are living on a dying planet. If evolution were true, we would be getting better, elevating to perfection, because in essence that is what evolution's function is. To shed weakness, to adapt, to perfect until no weakness exists. That's the theory behind survival of the fittest, isn't it?

----------


## Scheherazade

Some of the recent posts have been edited/deleted due to their inflammatory nature or they quoted such posts.

*Matrim>* Next time you personally insult others in your posts or use unacceptable language in your arguments, you will be banned from the Religious Text discussions temporarily or permanently.

Please re-read the Forum Rules: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410

----------


## atiguhya padma

Like Matrim says, a dying planet is extremely unlikely. Life is very hard to eradicate. In the past 96&#37; of life has been eradicated in one catastrophic era (in the Permian-Triassic extinction around 251 million years ago), yet today life still flourishes. 

<Not without the use of numbers and coincedences so astronomical in nature as to become almost as incomprehensible as God.>

Redzeppelin saying god is incomprehensible?? Will wonders ever cease? The astronomical figures you talk about are nowhere near the astronomical chance of there being a god. As I have said before, given an infinite number of Universes, or an infinite time, whatever is possible will happen. As this Universe has happened, then everything within it, no matter how improbable, can be explained by the postulation of an astronomical amount of Universe-forming in the past. It is a much better argument than god creating the Universe, because, as we are only trying to explain what already exists, we have all the evidence before us, and just require a more reasonable hypothesis than the existence of god.

Sometimes, the level of ignorance on this thread regarding evolution can be very frustrating. Someone said that survival of the fittest was all about reaching perfection. That is a prime example. The phrase survival of the fittest was not coined by Darwin, but by Spencer, who used it to promote his dubious social philosophy. Darwin was very much against it. 

The most perfect species do not always survive. Survival is more about generalisation (jack of all trades) than specialisation (experts). When you become a specialist, you narrow down your survival parameters. A generalist like man, is more likely to survive because his conditions for survival are much more flexible and adaptive. We can live on any continent, in any land mass on earth. That can be said of few species. 

<Another tired argument. We disagree with the validity of some of science's conclusions and suddenly we don't "understand" it. Nice. I'd be willing to counter with "Do you understand the Bible or God at all?" I'm pretty certain that the Christians posting here are fairly familiar with the science behind evolution; just because we question the validity of some of its assumptions and conclusions doesn't mean we don't get it. We may just not completely "buy" it. But how much of our position do you get?>

It would help if you put forward a coherent argument for why you disagree with the validity of some of science's findings. It would also help if you could give good reasons for disagreeing with scientific findings that do not impinge on your religious beliefs, as this would counteract any claim of bias. Equating a poor understanding of god (which you have already called incomprehensible) and the bible with a poor understanding of science is just typical of religious people who try to use the success of science to bolster their own ridiculous beliefs. The Bible and the whole of science are not equivalent I'm afraid - dream on!

AP

----------


## Stanislaw

> Like Matrim says, a dying planet is extremely unlikely. Life is very hard to eradicate. In the past 96% of life has been eradicated in one catastrophic era (in the Permian-Triassic extinction around 251 million years ago), yet today life still flourishes.


Well, I'm operating on a selfish definition of life...If I cease to exist, life ceases to exist for me...so it is dead to me...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Redzeppelin saying god is incomprehensible?? Will wonders ever cease?


"Incomprehensible" ultimately because His existence is defined in terms that humans cannot comprehend (i.e all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present and always existing). Temporal as we are, such terms are beyond our ability to comprehend. Hence "incomprehensible." However, that does not mean God is completely _unknowable_: the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit gives us certain revelations as to the nature of God. That we can know, to a limited extent.




> The astronomical figures you talk about are nowhere near the astronomical chance of there being a god.


And what exactly are the odds that God does/not exist? Anybody calculated that? I kind of see the issue as 50/50. That's probably simplistic, but I'm not a numbers guy.




> As I have said before, given an infinite number of Universes, or an infinite time, whatever is possible will happen. As this Universe has happened, then everything within it, no matter how improbable, can be explained by the postulation of an astronomical amount of Universe-forming in the past.


Based on the ASSUMPTION that there are an infinite number of universes and/or an infinite amount of time has passed - neither of which is empirically provable; such ideas are based along the same lines of faith that Christians use to point to the existence of God.




> It is a much better argument than god creating the Universe, because, as we are only trying to explain what already exists, we have all the evidence before us, and just require a more reasonable hypothesis than the existence of god.


If you had "all the evidence" then there would be no argument in this thread. Evolution has yet to bridge certain gaps in its theory. You position strikes _you_ as "reasonable" because it seems so _to you_; to me, the astronomical numbers, coincedences and random occurences that needed to align to make human life possible is just as _absurd_ in the leaps of faith I'm required to make to accept such ideas.




> It would help if you put forward a coherent argument for why you disagree with the validity of some of science's findings. It would also help if you could give good reasons for disagreeing with scientific findings that do not impinge on your religious beliefs, as this would counteract any claim of bias. Equating a poor understanding of god (which you have already called incomprehensible) and the bible with a poor understanding of science is just typical of religious people who try to use the success of science to bolster their own ridiculous beliefs. The Bible and the whole of science are not equivalent I'm afraid - dream on!


The problem is that I really cannot put forth an argument to counter science - for a number of reasons. I'm appealing to the idea that evolutionists tend to identify creationists as "ignorant" of science simply because we choose - by faith - to believe what God tells us - God who - if He is who He says He is - must know more than we do (even with all our cool scientific toys). Science has made definitive claims as to the nature of reality in the past, and many of those ideas have been proven wrong. Every generation of scientists uses the best technology available, but new technology often reveals "layers" of reality that render prior judgments invalid.

I do not disagree with science in total: I question its conclusions as to the origins of the universe and life on earth. Both of those ideas require a certain faith because neither is observable or provable: evolution attempts to do a CSI-style autopsy - here's the body - how'd it get here? But the universe is much more complicated, and the clues lying around for us to see _do not have to point to the conclusions that science has arrived at._  "Evidence" quite often requires _interpretation_. And, once interpretation enters the picture, we now have to deal with subjective tools and attitudes. Welcome to uncertainty.

----------


## hyperborean

> However, that does not mean God is completely _unknowable_: the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit gives us certain revelations as to the nature of God.


The bible is about FAITH. You can't compare faith with science. I can't wait to hear the straw man comeback for this one.

My own theology professor once said "heaven and god are imaginary. FAITH makes it real". There shouldn't be an argument here...the topic should be renamed "Do you believe in Evolution?". Not "Evolution vs Creationism [faith]". But then again, that wouldn't classify this topic as one to be in the "religion texts forum". I clearly remembering reading the rules about respecting other people's beliefs. Well, how can we do that if evolution contradicts Christian creationism? 





> coincidences and random occurences that needed to align to make human life possible is just as _absurd_ in the leaps of faith I'm required to make to accept such ideas.


I wouldn't call dinosaur bones and mutations..."coincidences". 




> evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time
> 
> Pretty simple, isn't it? It's hard to believe all the fuss that's been caused over such a simple concept. Of course the controversy isn't over the fact that some genes become more common in organisms over time (and others become less common), it is due to the inferred long range consequences of these changes. The real controversy is over the concept of common ancestry (that all life on earth is descended from a single species).


Let's stop letting our personal faith influence evolution's validity. If you people insist on trying to debunk evolution, then lets have a secular debate.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The bible is about FAITH. You can't compare faith with science. I can't wait to hear the straw man comeback for this one..


You're right - they're both tools for navigating reality. That's why evolutionists who attack the Bible for not providing "hard science" have everything backwards. The Bible wasn't meant to be a science book on existence. Imagine evolution told in a narrative form instead of a scientific theory.




> My own theology professor once said "heaven and god are imaginary. FAITH makes it real". There shouldn't be an argument here...the topic should be renamed "Do you believe in Evolution?". Not "Evolution vs Creationism [faith]". But then again, that wouldn't classify this topic as one to be in the "religion texts forum". I clearly remembering reading the rules about respecting other people's beliefs. Well, how can we do that if evolution contradicts Christian creationism?


"Theology professor?" Theology of what?

Contradicting our beliefs isn't disrespectful because we're here contradicting yours. Its the _manner_ that things are said in that become the issue.




> I wouldn't call dinosaur bones and mutations..."coincidences".


Neither would I; those were not the specific aspects of evolution to which I was referring.





> Let's stop letting our personal faith influence evolution's validity. If you people insist on trying to debunk evolution, then lets have a secular debate.


What?

----------


## hyperborean

I haven't seen one fair argument proving evolution wrong in this topic yet besides the comments where you say "bible is right...god inspired the writers...parables are fact...and so on". Let's hear a good argument debunking evolution. Come on, I want to hear it. Enough straw man; let's see some real debating that doesn't use "faith" as ammunition.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I haven't seen one fair argument proving evolution wrong in this topic yet besides the comments where you say "bible is right...god inspired the writers...parables are fact...and so on". Let's hear a good argument debunking evolution. Come on, I want to hear it. Enough straw man; let's see some real debating that doesn't use "faith" as ammunition.



Have you not been paying attention to my posts? I've never set out to "debunk" evolution because, frankly, _I can't_. That doesn't hurt me to say, because the other side of the coin is you can't "debunk" my belief either: both are equally _unprovable_. I have simply asked the evolutionists to acknowledge the role that faith, uncertainty, and interpretation play out in evolution as well as creationism (which few evolutionists seem willing to do). You keep claiming "straw man" but you have not explained how I'm using such a tactic. Where am I setting up a weaker argument instead of dealing with the one at hand? Identify what it is you keep claiming to be victimized by.

----------


## Wintermute

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;343133] That doesn't hurt me to say, because the other side of the coin is you can't "debunk" my belief either: both are equally _unprovable_. [QUOTE]

Hi Red,

I agree, that debunking someone's faith is not possible. By definition, as we've discussed elsewhere, faith implies 100% certainty. How is it possible to debunk 100% certainty?

But, I do think that evolution is more provable than an omnipotent creator, and that anthropologists are well on their way to doing so. I'm personally convinced. But not certain.  :Smile:  

Just curious. Would certainty about human evolution diminsh your faith in any way? I hope not. To me, assuming a creator, evolution would be one of its most astounding creations.

Cheers.

Btw, I like your old avatar better, this one looks a lil'...staunch.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

evolution has been proved as much as most other scientific theories...

----------


## Adudaewen

> The bible is about FAITH. You can't compare faith with science. .


That is a good point. However, one can certainly counter that belief in evolution is based on faith as well. You put your faith in science, I put my faith in God. 
To me, I think the idea that all life started from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago would take a bit of faith on the part of the person who believes it. Humans have made leaps and bounds by acts of faith. Do you not believe that Copernicus or Einstein or any other of the thousands of founding fathers of science had only simple facts to lean on? Did they not have to depend on faith, to believe they were right when all of the scientific world believed they were madmen? 
Now I think it is very important to clarify here that what I am talking about is macro evolution, evolution from one species to a new one. We see micro evolution every day, from the variety of breeds of dogs/cats to viruses that evolve as antivirals are introduced. There is a difference. I am not debating micro evolution, I am debating macro evolution. Perhaps I am "ignorant" when it comes to the science (faith) of evolution, yet I have seen enough evidence to tell me that evolutionists don't have an answer for everything. A lot of the missing link theories just don't make logical sense to me. A lizard turning into a bird is a leap of faith. One would think that the evolution process would never succeed for the simple reason that the links in between would be very vulnerable to attack from predators. And why can we not find a sufficient number of missing link fossils. If as many creature have totally evolved as what scientists are saying there would be millions of missing links. How many stages do you think it would take to turn a fish into a lizard or a lizard into a bird, or an ape into a human? Is that not a belief based on faith because we have never seen it with waking eyes? 
Also I would bring up Nebraska Man. In 1922, geologists made an amazing discovery on the plains of Nebraska when they found several teeth they classified as being from an ape/human missing link they named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. These scientists made several drawings of "Nebraska Man" and made depictions of a society of early human beings from this, declaring it to be "the" missing link. Only later would they find out that the tooth actually belonged to an extinct species of pig called peccary. That was enough to show me that believing in evolution is as much a leap of faith as believing in creation. 
I am certainly not saying that by reading this post, someone is going to "see the light" and change their mind about evolution, just as I am not going to be easily swayed by arguments from an evolutionary standpoint. I am simply stating that though I do believe in creation, I am not an ignorant hick. I have studied and delved and learned and researched, and to me Creation makes a heck of a lot more sense than evolution. Just take that into consideration before you discount us as ignorant or pity us as fools.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

in response to your examples about einstein and such, why would they need faith? they put the ideas out there, and if they were wrong, big deal. the said what the math and expirement stold them and if they got it wrong, well, science doesnt claim to know everything.

----------


## Wintermute

> I am simply stating that though I do believe in creation, I am not an ignorant hick. I have studied and delved and learned and researched, and to me Creation makes a heck of a lot more sense than evolution. Just take that into consideration before you discount us as ignorant or pity us as fools.


Hi there Adu,

If you were an ignorant hick you wouldn't be here. All of your postings that I have read have been well written and loaded with compassion for everyone's points of view.

Do you consider evolutionary and creationist theories to be counter arguments to each other? I'm not sure that I do. It seems like evolution (on earth and elsewhere) could be an absolutely amazing idea of a universal, omnipotent creator. Now if we limit ourselves the a Christian creator, where earth-bound humans are the center of its (his) creation, then I can see how there may be room for disagreement.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Hi Red,
> 
> I agree, that debunking someone's faith is not possible. By definition, as we've discussed elsewhere, faith implies 100&#37; certainty. How is it possible to debunk 100% certainty?


This may be a whole different thread, but I wonder how much we actually can be 100% certain of. Much of philosophy (especially after Descartes) deals with the issue of _perception_ and _reality_ - and I think that much of what we believe to be _certain_ (especially that which we view through our eyes [the easiest of our 5 senses to fool]) is subject to the limits/distortions that perception (and bias) are prone to, as well as the necessary process of _interpretation_ - which itself is prone to _subjectivity_ (which Adudaewen's post nicely pointed out w/ the example of the Nebraska Man - well done Adudaewen!  :Smile:  ).




> But, I do think that evolution is more provable than an omnipotent creator, and that anthropologists are well on their way to doing so. I'm personally convinced. But not certain.


It has more observable "evidence" - but even that evidence is prone to the subjectivity/bias of interpretation (Nebraska Man!)




> Just curious. Would certainty about human evolution diminsh your faith in any way? I hope not. To me, assuming a creator, evolution would be one of its most astounding creations.


No. It is possible that evolution was a tool God used. If the Bible is wrong in its rendition, or it spoke figuratively instead of literally, my faith is not shaken, because few (if any) people come to God because doing so makes logical, reasonable sense. CS Lewis himself - a staunch atheist prior to his conversion - called himself "the most reluctant convert," one who was dragged "kicking and screaming" into the faith. Christian thought is full of paradox - I'm not worried one bit.





> Btw, I like your old avatar better, this one looks a lil'...staunch.


Thanks - in honor of all the Crusades "slamming" in the atheist thread, I've adopted the seal of the Knights Templar. "God wills it!"  :Biggrin: 





> evolution has been proved as much as most other scientific theories...


Sure - no argument there - it has been as proven as much as a _theory_ probably can be proven. But a 90% proven theory is still a theory. (Please don't quibble on my percentage - I pulled it out of the air. If you wish to tell me that evolution is 99% proven [an incredible statement] I'll still respond that 1% of uncertainty is enough for me).

----------


## hyperborean

> in honor of all the Crusades "slamming" in the atheist thread, I've adopted the seal of the Knights Templar. "God wills it!"


I'm sure an imaginary construct wants you to defend him  :FRlol:  

Crusades...people living and dying for God. Their philosophy went against everything the golden age of man promoted: living for their nation. Your avatar represents the downfall of man...nice.

----------


## manolia

> However, one can certainly counter that belief in evolution is based on faith as well. You put your faith in science, I put my faith in God. .


No. Science has nothing to do with faith i'm afraid. Science has to do with indications. A scientist has a powerfull instrument in his hands which is called "experiment" with which one can ascertain if the indication one has are leading to a certain conclusion.
And talking about faith, one can't worship science. I really can't imagine myself worshipping concrete and steel :FRlol:  (being a civil engineer).




> To me, I think the idea that all life started from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago would take a bit of faith on the part of the person who believes it..


Really then do tell me is it easier for one to believe instead that the universe which is immense -i think we agree on that- could have been actually created in a few days by a benevolent force and simply kept on going from day zero till today unchanged? I am not forming a particular opinion since i am clueless to the particulars concerning the origin of the universe and everything, but i believe that human, being small and insignificant, can't possibly know (find out) the answer to these questions. And i can't help but wonder at the assurance of God-believers that they know the answer to all those difficult questions (maybe this is the easy way ,to attribute all the things you can't understand to a Higher Power.) 




> Do you not believe that Copernicus or Einstein or any other of the thousands of founding fathers of science had only simple facts to lean on? Did they not have to depend on faith, to believe they were right when all of the scientific world believed they were madmen? ..


The fact that the contemporaries of Einstein could not comprehend his genius doen't prove anything. This often happens to superior people. They are often understood and aknowledged after death. And again i believe that it wasn't faith that kept Einstein going but merely observation of the natural enviroment, inspiration and at last experiments. Some will say that inspiration is divine..well i agree metaphorically speaking.





> Now I think it is very important to clarify here that what I am talking about is macro evolution, evolution from one species to a new one. We see micro evolution every day, ..


I can't understand how can one partly accept the evolution proccess. Either you accept it either you don't. Either it is there either not. I have read your post several times in order to understand what you mean. If i have misunderstood please do enlighten me.




> And why can we not find a sufficient number of missing link fossils. If as many creature have totally evolved as what scientists are saying there would be millions of missing links. ..


What about environmental and climatological changes? We all know about Ice Age, glaciers, volcanoe eruptions, basaltic flows, earthquakes and in sort we know that our beloved planet has undergone many changes since the beginning. I believe nobody disputes that. I think that pretty much explains that many species that (potentialy) walked (crawled whatever) the earth are irretrievably lost and not a single piece of them is ever to be found. In fact i believe that Palaiontologist are lucky to have found these they already have. Now imagine how many for example skeletons or remains of each known dinosaur we have. Just a few, when i believe there was a big number of each species once. 

I live in a country full of ancient ruins. Many ancient cities are yet to be found. Archaiologists based on ancient texts (Homer ,Herodotos) are still trying to locate many of them a task which is very hard due to the afore mentioned changes. Now, these cities are relative young compared to the fossils we are talking!

I have been a silent viewer for a long time in this thread. Your post being decent, civil and well written tempted me to post my opinion in juxtaposition to yours. I hope you don't mind my doing that. As you can see i don't reject God. I just have my doubts in many things- not only concerning God of course. I hope you are in no way offended by what i write. If you are, i feel sorry in advance.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm sure an imaginary construct wants you to defend him


Ha - "imaginary" _for now_. We'll see.




> Crusades...people living and dying for God. Their philosophy went against everything the golden age of man promoted: living for their nation. Your avatar represents the downfall of man...nice.


Oh stop. The politics behind the Crusades was suspect, but the philosophy and the performance of the Knights Templar in battle was unquestioned; even Saladin had great respect for these men. Find something else to do besides analyze my avatar. I know all the symbolism behind yours too, but consider such speculation a waste of time and not germane to the topic at hand. Argument, anyone?

----------


## hyperborean

Ok, going back to topic.

Well you say that believing in evolution is "faith" as well. Here's the problem. Any shred of physical evidence backing up evolution makes it more credible than creationism. Yes, there is some faith, but there is also physical evidence. Creationism is _pure faith_.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok, going back to topic.
> 
> Well you say that believing in evolution is "faith" as well. Here's the problem. Any shred of physical evidence backing up evolution makes it more credible than creationism. Yes, there is some faith, but there is also physical evidence. Creationism is _pure faith_.


Not at all. Christians think they have plenty of evidence for what they believe - but it is generally not evidence that evolutionist's take as credible. Your assertion that "any shred of physical evidence" makes a theory more credible is certainly true if one accepts that physical evidence is the ultimate proof of the "reality" of something. I contend that it is not _always_ so. And, your "shred" of evidence may prove _our_ point as well. That's what we call interpretation: you have yours and we have ours, and it's difficult to disprove interpretations based upon differing foundations/philosophies/mind-sets/biases. Because I don't have a picture of God creating the world, or His email address or a fossil of some sort, my position is deemed weaker than yours - because you have some observable clues that you've interpreted to mean what you'd like them to mean (I again refer to Nebraska Man - a perfect example of seeing what we wish to see in our _evidence_). We creationists believe that the incredible complexity of the human body is plenty of evidence that a creator is behind the real world. That our body "just happened" to develop the way it has is absurd. Complexity does not come out of simplicity or chaos. Our universe tends towards a decay, a simplification of material reality into its most basic forms. If I leave a car out in the desert, it will eventually turn to rust, dust and whatever base components it was made of: it will not proceed to develop into a more complex mode of transportation.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

omg... you just stated so many (incorrect) opinions as fact. by its nature the universe tends towards complexity. you cant use cars as an example. if you leave life in a desert it adapts to live there more efficiently. i hate when christians use ridculous arguements like that. cars are not designed to do that. when you leave a plant in a desert, or a tree in the forest it grows. from a tiny seed.

----------


## Stanislaw

> evolution has been proved as much as most other scientific theories...


um, thats more of an opinion...gravity has much more proof than evolution...so thats not true.




> Hi there Adu,
> 
> If you were an ignorant hick you wouldn't be here. All of your postings that I have read have been well written and loaded with compassion for everyone's points of view.
> 
> Do you consider evolutionary and creationist theories to be counter arguments to each other? I'm not sure that I do. It seems like evolution (on earth and elsewhere) could be an absolutely amazing idea of a universal, omnipotent creator. Now if we limit ourselves the a Christian creator, where earth-bound humans are the center of its (his) creation, then I can see how there may be room for disagreement.


exactly! evolution doesn't prove that there is no god, something started it all...




> I'm sure an imaginary construct wants you to defend him  
> 
> Crusades...people living and dying for God. Their philosophy went against everything the golden age of man promoted: living for their nation. Your avatar represents the downfall of man...nice.


actually, I beleive the crusades were pre reneissance. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

And the idea of the Templar was to fight for their belief, what they held as truth (well atleast in the idealistic idea, but the crusades were also a means of controlling the unruly gemranic knights, to focus their aggressions and to unite against a common enemy) but, the ideal is not far off from a secularistic ideal of the right to bare arms...




> Ok, going back to topic.
> 
> Well you say that believing in evolution is "faith" as well. Here's the problem. Any shred of physical evidence backing up evolution makes it more credible than creationism. Yes, there is some faith, but there is also physical evidence. Creationism is _pure faith_.


well...evolution has a book as proof, creationism has a book as proof...

again, that is incorrect, you are avoiding any presented proofs for creationism...

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

its not a proof. anyone can recreate the data for evolution. no one can find out for themselves if the bible is true.

----------


## Wintermute

> well...evolution has a book as proof, creationism has a book as proof...


Hehe, this nonsense almost makes me believe in God. The theory of evolution is based in part on the principal of survival of the fittest, and this statement certainly contradicts this predicate.

There is a ton more proof for evolution than 'a book', lol. Check it out. I dare you!

----------


## Stanislaw

> Hehe, this nonsense almost makes me believe in God. The theory of evolution is based in part on the principal of survival of the fittest, and this statement certainly contradicts this predicate.
> 
> There is a ton more proof for evolution than 'a book', lol. Check it out. I dare you!


*double sigh* dare me to discover something I already know?

the point I was making is that, there is a physical proof for creation as there is for evolution...there is a book, and infact many books, that indicate a divine creator...but these are not counted...I was just saying, that to state that there is no proof is bunk. So there is human proof of a divine creator, its just not counted... If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Consider the definition of proof.

----------


## Stanislaw

> its not a proof. anyone can recreate the data for evolution. no one can find out for themselves if the bible is true.


they could die.  :Biggrin:  

There is also a universal idea o creationism, something included in each society, seperate from eachother, maybe the proof for a creationistic ideal lies in anthropology.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> omg... you just stated so many (incorrect) opinions as fact. by its nature the universe tends towards complexity. you cant use cars as an example. if you leave life in a desert it adapts to live there more efficiently. i hate when christians use ridculous arguements like that. cars are not designed to do that. when you leave a plant in a desert, or a tree in the forest it grows. from a tiny seed.


Fair enough - I knew the car analogy would get slammed - but it was only used as an example of the _degrading force_ of nature - things left alone collapse into a simpler state. Your plant/tree example is clever, but flawed in two ways: 1) the seed came from the tree - that's how it got encoded with the proper information; as such, the "simple" seed came from the complex tree - so simplicity (relatively speaking - I don't think a seed is less complex than a tree except in _appearance_) came from complexity; 2)The tree, left on its own, will eventually die and decay into basic elements; that it has "offspring" to perpetuate itself doesn't change the fact that the brief progression from simple to complex is eventually reversed.




> they could die.  .


Oh that is _so_ good.

----------


## Wintermute

> *double sigh* dare me to discover something I already know?
> 
> the point I was making is that, there is a physical proof for creation as there is for evolution...there is a book, and infact many books, that indicate a divine creator...but these are not counted...I was just saying, that to state that there is no proof is bunk. So there is human proof of a divine creator, its just not counted... If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.
> 
> Consider the definition of proof.



the point I was making is that books are proof of nothing! Goodness! I could write a book this afternoon saying that I could turn water into wine. That don't make it so! Books, including the bible, are only proof that someone knew how to write.

Now, as for your last sentence: If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Do the tales of Zeus, Ra, Quisquadle, Thor, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Paul Bunyan and Babe, etc. constitute proof of their existance!! Please!

----------


## hyperborean

> the point I was making is that books are proof of nothing! Goodness! I could write a book this afternoon saying that I could turn water into wine. That don't make it so! Books, including the bible, are only proof that someone knew how to write.
> 
> Now, as for your last sentence: If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.
> 
> Do the tales of Zeus, Ra, Quisquadle, Thor, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Paul Bunyan and Babe, etc. constitute proof of their existence!! Please!


Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these conservative Christians actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical fact. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.

----------


## Stanislaw

> the point I was making is that books are proof of nothing! Goodness! I could write a book this afternoon saying that I could turn water into wine. That don't make it so! Books, including the bible, are only proof that someone knew how to write.
> 
> Now, as for your last sentence: If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.
> 
> Do the tales of Zeus, Ra, Quisquadle, Thor, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Paul Bunyan and Babe, etc. constitute proof of their existance!! Please!


These tales are not universal...where as every culture has a creation myth, with similar ideals.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these conservative Christians actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical fact. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.


Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these liberal scientists actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical falsehood. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.


hmm

I think the difference between sicentists and christians (don't include muslims, or any other group...their myths are probably more true than christian ones) is that one group lends a possiblity to everything, and the other still wants revenge...you can decide which you are.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these conservative Christians actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical fact. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.


Prove the story of the Garden of Eden is a hoax, please. You'll have about as much luck as proving that I evolved from pond scum.

"Downfall" - that's funny. Evidence, please?

----------


## hyperborean

Well hmmmm...god is imaginary...there is no proof of his existence...you follow a bible that was edited and filtered by the government. You have ZERO evidence proving that adam and eve is a real story. 

Read this: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zi...damandeve.html
...and then we'll continue the conversation. Debunk the archaeological evidence presented in that article.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well hmmmm...god is imaginary...there is no proof of his existence...you follow a bible that was edited and filtered by the government. You have ZERO evidence proving that adam and eve is a real story.


You're right: I never _claimed_ I had evidence. I asked you for yours. Claiming that something you have no perception of as "imaginary" is not an argument - it is a refusal to recognize something. Any ancient manuscript is in the same position as the Bible - how many of those are you willing to dismiss? Evolution is as imaginary to me - despite your mounds of evidence. Fill in all the gaps and I might be interested. 

As well, I've already covered the fact that the Bible won't speak to those who's only desire is to slice it up. It's truths will remain hidden. Sorry.

----------


## hyperborean

So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.


Uh, things died, their bones got buried, turned to stone and got dug up by someone who examined them and _interpreted_ these fossils to say something that they may/may not actually say? What would you like me to say about them?

----------


## Lily Adams

I think we want some elaboration. You didn't answer the question. I'd love to hear the Creationist view on this; I did mention this before and I didn't get a response from anyone.

Can we quit making this so personal? Both sides. It's bugging me. I'd just like to hear the Creationist side and the Evolutionist side. That's it. No insults, no spitting in each other's faces, just the argument itself.

----------


## hyperborean

See, lily, they can't answer the question because it goes against their "beliefs". They dismiss and avoid posts presenting evidence. All in all, it's beating around the bush.

----------


## Adudaewen

> So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.


In all seriousness, what if these particular individuals are simply unattractive people? I have an uncle that when he dies, I want to have sole access to his skull so I can boil it and I bet he'd probably look a little bit like a neanderthal. I also have an old high school teacher that we used to jokingly call "The Missing Link" because she has a very ape like face, reminiscent of a gorilla. What if these fossils they are finding are just unfortuante looking humans? I'm not saying this merely to be glib, but it is a possibility. As a person who believes in Creation, I believe in fossils. These creatures did exist, but for whatever reason, be it changes in the atmosphere, hunting or something else I cannot devine, they are now extinct. I don't really know how else to answer such a broad question. Is there something specific about fossils? Just to say "what about fossils" is a really broad question that I'm not sure I can answer simply for the reason that I'm not sure what you are looking for. 



> in response to your examples about einstein and such, why would they need faith? they put the ideas out there, and if they were wrong, big deal. the said what the math and expirement stold them and if they got it wrong, well, science doesnt claim to know everything.


I'm not talking about faith simply from a religious standpoint. Faith can mean faith in God, or faith in an idea. Do you really think that early scientists didn't need faith to get their ideas off the ground? A person has to have faith in an idea to spend as much time and effort to prove it as these men did. You say that if "they were wrong, big deal". What if the evolutionists were one day proven wrong? Would that not shake the very foundation you base your ideas on? Wouldn't that shake every idea to its very core? If someone would with out a doubt prove that Creation was false, that would change everything for me. If science doesn't claim to know everything, why then is it so impossible for scientists to entertain the idea of Creation? It does take faith, either way. But don't think of faith simply as a Christian attribute. All people have faith, just in different things. 



> Hi there Adu,
> If you were an ignorant hick you wouldn't be here. All of your postings that I have read have been well written and loaded with compassion for everyone's points of view.


Thanks, I appreciate that. 



> Do you consider evolutionary and creationist theories to be counter arguments to each other? I'm not sure that I do. It seems like evolution (on earth and elsewhere) could be an absolutely amazing idea of a universal, omnipotent creator. Now if we limit ourselves the a Christian creator, where earth-bound humans are the center of its (his) creation, then I can see how there may be room for disagreement.


I do consider them to be counter arguments. Creation is based on Devine Inspiration and Intellignet Design while evolution is based on an amazing set of coincidences that jumpstarted the origins of the earth. One has God, one doesn't. So yes, I do consider them to be mutually exclusive. 



> (which Adudaewen's post nicely pointed out w/ the example of the Nebraska Man - well done Adudaewen!  ).


Thanx Red! 



> No. Science has nothing to do with faith i'm afraid. Science has to do with indications. A scientist has a powerfull instrument in his hands which is called "experiment" with which one can ascertain if the indication one has are leading to a certain conclusion.
> And talking about faith, one can't worship science. I really can't imagine myself worshipping concrete and steel (being a civil engineer).


Worship: noun
1.	reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred. 
2.	formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning. 
3.	adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success. 
4.	the object of adoring reverence or regard. 
The problem is too many people misunderstand the words faith and worship. All people have faith and do worship. I know many people who regard science with the same reverance and faith as I do God. So yes, one could potentially worship steel and concrete.  :Smile:  Just perhaps not yourself. I should have been more clear on my word usage, I see. 



> I can't understand how can one partly accept the evolution proccess. Either you accept it either you don't. Either it is there either not. I have read your post several times in order to understand what you mean. If i have misunderstood please do enlighten me.


I see them as seperate because one is a change(evolution) from one species to another, and one is an adaptation within the same species. I hope that clarifies my answer a little. I have seen micro evolution. It is tangible and concrete. Macro evolution, on the other hand is something that no person has ever seen evidence of in the living world.(outside of the fossil record that is)



> I have been a silent viewer for a long time in this thread. Your post being decent, civil and well written tempted me to post my opinion in juxtaposition to yours. I hope you don't mind my doing that. As you can see i don't reject God. I just have my doubts in many things- not only concerning God of course. I hope you are in no way offended by what i write. If you are, i feel sorry in advance.


I am certainly not offended and I appreciate your respect and tact in your post. I believe that one thing that makes human beings so strong is our ability to disagree. It forces us to take a good look at our beliefs and defend them. If you can't defend it, you can't truly believe in it. So I thank you for your candor and I hope I was able to answer some of your questions.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I think we want some elaboration. You didn't answer the question. I'd love to hear the Creationist view on this; I did mention this before and I didn't get a response from anyone.


You're right. I didn't answer the question. I don't have an answer. I teach English for a living and I'm not a biblical scholar. Yes, I could go search the web for a Christian response as to the existence of fossils (and I do recall an explanation) and then post it here, but then what? The evolutionists would scoff at the explanation, dismiss it and then we're right back where we started. This argument cannot and will not be "won" and certainly not by "evidence." Both belief systems involve _uncertainties_ and _faith_ - but because the evolutionist believes he has more "evidence" (as if what you can _see_ is the measure of reality) that his position is the stronger one and ours is plain silly.

----------


## Stanislaw

> Well hmmmm...god is imaginary...there is no proof of his existence...you follow a bible that was edited and filtered by the government. You have ZERO evidence proving that adam and eve is a real story. 
> 
> Read this: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zi...damandeve.html
> ...and then we'll continue the conversation. Debunk the archaeological evidence presented in that article.


and nothing presented in a newspaper, journal or book is edited... 
and just because you say there is zero, does not make it so... I can say you have zero evidence, but it wont change the facts.




> See, lily, they can't answer the question because it goes against their "beliefs". They dismiss and avoid posts presenting evidence. All in all, it's beating around the bush.


no I guess your right...let me domonstrate:
www.hatetheatheist.com - guess the athiests are wrong!

how do you counteract hard earned internet proof!!!
you have zero evidence
teh monkeys own you

how can a debate go on, if one side refuses to acknowledge the othersides proofs, and instead plays ostritch and calls ZERO?

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

youve finally figured it out stanislaw. you can never have a real debate about this. i cant aknowledge the chrisitans "proof" becuase i dont consider it proof.
debates are logical entities. like in a courtroom. religion is not a logical function. you cannot prove that god does not exist because thats not how the religion works. you can show loads of logical examples, but religious people have faith. 

we cant really effectively debate this anyway, becuase we are not phyicists or bible scholars. an amateur debate about religion will never have a satisfactory conclusion, even if there is one to be had.

----------


## Stanislaw

> youve finally figured it out stanislaw. you can never have a real debate about this. i cant aknowledge the chrisitans "proof" becuase i dont consider it proof.
> debates are logical entities. like in a courtroom. religion is not a logical function. you cannot prove that god does not exist because thats not how the religion works. you can show loads of logical examples, but religious people have faith. 
> 
> we cant really effectively debate this anyway, becuase we are not phyicists or bible scholars. an amateur debate about religion will never have a satisfactory conclusion, even if there is one to be had.


well, we could drink beer and call it a conversation.

and science is rooted in logic aswell, governed by different method theoretical and physical. but the debate lies in the philisophical, philosophy offers an effective bridge between the two, between humanities and sciences.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

you cant debate religion, its fun, but you will never have a satisfactory answer. 
you cant argue away faith. someone has to have doubts on their own. they have to have a chink in their religious armor. the whole point is that we cant understand God. you cant use science or even fact to debate that. in the end people want it to be real and they can simply say that God is above science. 
faith is not rational.

----------


## Adudaewen

> faith is not rational.


Faith is not rational to you, you mean. To a person who has faith, it is rational/logical. 

ra·tion·al
adj. 
1.Having or exercising the ability to reason. 
2.Of sound mind; sane. 
3.Consistent with or based on reason; logical: 

There's a difference between (reasoned) faith, and blind faith.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

no, i mean faith is not rational. i know the definition of the word perfectly well.
to an insane person their actions are raitonal and logical. this means nothing, proves nothing. maybe the "insane" person has it right. but wait there is only one, they must be crazy. many christians call cults crazy for some of the things they do. the only difference betweena cult and a religion is that one has more people.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> no, i mean faith is not rational. i know the definition of the word perfectly well.
> to an insane person their actions are raitonal and logical. this means nothing, proves nothing. maybe the "insane" person has it right. but wait there is only one, they must be crazy. many christians call cults crazy for some of the things they do. the only difference betweena cult and a religion is that one has more people.


"Rationality" is a term that deals with what you're using as a basis for "normal" or "reality." To the Christian, God is ultimate reality and this world a deceptive "illusion" of sorts. So, from where we're standing, a rejection of God is a rejection of ultimate reality - and is, therefore, irrational behavior. You won't agree, because you base your idea of "normal" or "reality" on what you can see - the observable world; as such, our focus on the unseen world appears "irrational" to you. Don't you get it? There is no total escape from the limits of subjectivity. As far as Christians are concerned, you are the one who is being fooled - but you're being fooled by what you _can_ see.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

i know what you think. i bring forth the example of an insane person. the points of veiw are so out of phase you cant really argue whether god is real.

i just like to pick apart arguements or have others pick apart mine.

----------


## hyperborean

> i know what you think. i bring forth the example of an insane person. the points of veiw are so out of phase you cant really argue whether god is real.
> 
> i just like to pick apart arguements or have others pick apart mine.


No matter what you say, Christians will find a way to loop things around and pick apart at your argument. When people believe in something so strongly, they will do anything to defend it; it's as if they are crusades. 

I agree that there are angry atheists out there that do the same, but it doesn't compare to how Christians straw man the theory of evolution, as if it was made up by some crazy scientist. And, I don't want to hear the "well you guys keep trying to ridicule our faith, so we are going to defend ourselves and try to say that evolution is based on faith too". 

Why not be a Christian who believes in evolution? If God created the beginning then why couldn't have created the big bang? If we have archaeological evidence proving that we evolved from a prehistorical primate species then why continue to believe in the parable we call "adam and eve"? Yes, the parable man made up before science could explain things.

Ok, so let's just call the guys with PhDs studying this everyday, "madmen". Let's call the history and discovery channel crazy for putting them on television. Can you people put the bible down for one second and open your eyes? God gave you "freewill" didn't he? Well, use it and discover the truths about the universe for yourself, instead of worshiping a book written by hundreds of powerful, corrupt men.

----------


## ennison

If there were awards for grace and persistence under pressure I'd nominate you Red.

----------


## Adudaewen

> If there were awards for grace and persistence under pressure I'd nominate you Red.


I second that. You and I seem cut from the same cloth, though you are infinitly more eloquent.  :Wink:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I second that. You and I seem cut from the same cloth, though you are infinitly more eloquent.



ennison and Adudaewen - you are too kind. Thank you for the encouragement. (I need it!)




> No matter what you say, Christians will find a way to loop things around and pick apart at your argument. When people believe in something so strongly, they will do anything to defend it; it's as if they are crusades. .


A criticism equally valid for the evolutionist. Both sides of the debate function on predisposed ideas about reality. The evolutionist just fancies that he's more "objective" but that is not so. Facts, "evidence" and the like do not always speak for themselves, and scientists of both sides (evolution and ID) proceed from their separate foundations to argue different conclusions from the same evidence. Evolutionists are equally dogmatic in their opinions.




> I agree that there are angry atheists out there that do the same, but it doesn't compare to how Christians straw man the theory of evolution, as if it was made up by some crazy scientist. And, I don't want to hear the "well you guys keep trying to ridicule our faith, so we are going to defend ourselves and try to say that evolution is based on faith too".


It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing - which is what evolution (sans God) must finally assert. Matter cannot come from nothing. Pursued to its logical conclusion, evolution must explain the existence of matter. To say that it has "always existed" is to give an answer that really answers nothing because it asserts a reality that cannot be explained, nor can it be proven (kind of like God - :Smile:  ).




> Why not be a Christian who believes in evolution? If God created the beginning then why couldn't have created the big bang? If we have archaeological evidence proving that we evolved from a prehistorical primate species then why continue to believe in the parable we call "adam and eve"? Yes, the parable man made up before science could explain things.


A Christian can believe in the two if he wishes (Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project does) - but to do so requires a rejection of what the Bible says - and that position does risk undermining the authority of the scriptures because I believe that the Bible is a unified whole; once you dismiss part of is, the integrity of the rest is now in question. As I said above - some "evidence" is subject to _interpretation_ - which is a _subjective tool_ applied _within the context of a particular bias_. Example: as a literary critic and a Christian, I am not predisposed to accept Queer Theory interpretations of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets; I've read the arguments, and they're well-articulated - but I do not buy them because the Queer Threory critics applied a critical tool of analysis which involves a foundation which I find to be invalid - a foundation based on the critic's bais towards homosexuality. Ditto for interpreting fossils and such.





> Ok, so let's just call the guys with PhDs studying this everyday, "madmen". Let's call the history and discovery channel crazy for putting them on television. Can you people put the bible down for one second and open your eyes? God gave you "freewill" didn't he? Well, use it and discover the truths about the universe for yourself, instead of worshiping a book written by hundreds of powerful, corrupt men.


I wouldn't call them "madmen" but I would call them _human_ - in that they have their _prejudices_ as do I. Please don't cite TV as an authority on anything. Finally, please stop the worn-out and exceedingly tired cliche that Christians are "blind" and that those of you who reject Christianity are somehow more blessed with enlightenment, or "open eyes" or a more "rational, critical" view of the world. Why is it that our position is due to blindness of some sort and yours isn't? We have freewill; that's why we freely have chosen to believe as we do. Do not commit the immature stereotype that the Christian is a blind drone who only believes what s/he's been taught. Our minds work fine - they just disagree with your conclusions - but what a clever argumentative fallacy to identify us as being inferior thinkers because we don't accept your position. Very clever, but not good debate technique.

We don't "worship" the Bible - we worship its Writer. You have no proof of your assertions about that book, and scholarship has asserted that its reliability is higher than many other texts from the same time period of which the authority of which is unquestioned. Better do some research instead of tossing out generalizations that really don't hold water. The accuracy of the Biblical texts has been analyzed and verified by scholars.

----------


## hyperborean

> We don't "worship" the Bible - we worship its Writer.


I hope you are referring to men. It's editor...well the government. There's nothing to refute here. God gave man freewill, so what makes you think man can't use his freewill to distort the bible as he pleases?




> The accuracy of the Biblical texts has been analyzed and verified by scholars.


Yes, scholars who have a biased opinion on the subject. Asking a "god believing" scholar to verify the bible is like asking a government to verify its war. 

I've read so much about scholars who are finding out that the books in the bible were actually written by many men and not the original writers. Yet, every time I mention this you guys comeback with the same comment..."god inspired the men to do it". If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.

----------


## linz

I believe in both evolution and creation, as it it dumb to believe God couldn't know what things would and could have evolved into when he is Omnipotent.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I hope you are referring to men. It's editor...well the government. There's nothing to refute here. God gave man freewill, so what makes you think man can't use his freewill to distort the bible as he pleases?


God is the "author" - everything in there was inspired by Him. Because God is all-powerful, there's a slight chance that He has the ability to inspire good men to guard the integrity of His revelation of His identity. Easy for a Guy who created the world in six days, don't you think?





> Yes, scholars who have a biased opinion on the subject. Asking a "god believing" scholar to verify the bible is like asking a government to verify its war.


1) This argument also works against any conclusions you draw from scientists who assert the truth of evolution - they're biased too.
2) Biblical scholars use tools that are acknowledged in the secular community as well. Here:

Homer's _Illiad_ is considered to have the greatest manuscript authority next to the New Testament; Homer wrote the _Illiad_ around 900 BC and the oldest copy is from 400 BC - a 500 year span. The total number of manuscripts is 643 and the readings agree 95% of the time.

In contrast, there are approximately 5300 original language manuscripts of New Testament writings spanning 50 years - AD 70 to AD 120. These documents agree with each other 99.5% of the time in terms of language and content. It requires no bias to come to this kind of linguistic conclusion - you simply compare what all the manuscripts say. 




> I've read so much about scholars who are finding out that the books in the bible were actually written by many men and not the original writers. Yet, every time I mention this you guys comeback with the same comment..."god inspired the men to do it". If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.


God didn't "make" people write the Bible - He inspired willing believers to put down what He wanted put down. "Influence" is not "coerce." These writers wanted to be servants - "tools" if you will - of God; allowing Him to pass His thoughts through us is an _honor_ - not a violation of our freedom. Your understanding of freewill in this situation is incorrect.

----------


## Adudaewen

> If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.



Does a secretary lose her/his free will when (s)he dictates a letter for her/his boss? Inspiration and slavery aren't the same thing.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

> It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing - which is what evolution (sans God) must finally assert. Matter cannot come from nothing. Pursued to its logical conclusion, evolution must explain the existence of matter. To say that it has "always existed" is to give an answer that really answers nothing because it asserts a reality that cannot be explained, nor can it be proven (kind of like God - ).


actually physics does not assert this. science does not know where it matter came from. but there are some theories you can check out. some of the stuff is really bizarre.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing>

And yet, it doesn't seem crazy to assert that something, a causeless something, was always there?

From what I remember of reading books on the big bang, I always thought that the claim was that time began with the big bang, and that the question of what happened before is therefore a meaningless question. To say that it is claimed that nothing preceded the big bang is incorrect, afaik, as it is said that a field of potential preceded the big bang.

----------


## hyperborean

> Does a secretary lose her/his free will when (s)he dictates a letter for her/his boss? Inspiration and slavery aren't the same thing.


But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.


Yes they did: to _willingly_ _chose_ to follow another's request is a *voluntary* placing of one's own will under the authority of another - as such, it is *FREELY chosen*; for every man/woman who chose to serve God, I suggest that many others declined the invitation. God generally doesn't ask for unwilling servants. (The story of Johah is a bit troubling, but I think there's a reason for that too.)




> actually physics does not assert this. science does not know where it matter came from. but there are some theories you can check out. some of the stuff is really bizarre.


But science must assert this in order for its God-less view of evolution to work. Matter exists, and it cannot be conveniently explained away (at least by rational people).

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

it doesnt have to. science does not claim to have all the answers. it might decide on a theory or it might not. evolution isnt bothered with matter anyway. it describes how life evolves and grows.

----------


## hyperborean

> Yes they did: to _willingly_ _chose_ to follow another's request is a *voluntary* placing of one's own will under the authority of another - as such, it is *FREELY chosen*;


No, I'm talking about the people that filtered, edited, and changed the bible according to their liking; the politicians in ancient times (like Constantine) who changed the bible into what it is today. You claimed earlier that God _inspired_ those men. I don't remember guys like Constantine having actual conversations with God about writing the bible. You did say they were "inspired to write and edit", and all this talk of alterations is "silly" because mr. ruler of the universe has everything planned out. Well if most of the guys that wrote the bible never had conversations with God (like moses did) then it's not freewill to abide by God's wishes (because God never actually said anything to them).

The impression you gave off was that even if the writers weren't told to write the bible by God, they were spiritually inspired to do so without knowing they were spiritually inspired. That wouldn't be freewill, now would it?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, I'm talking about the people that filtered, edited, and changed the bible according to their liking; the politicians in ancient times (like Constantine) who changed the bible into what it is today. You claimed earlier that God _inspired_ those men. I don't remember guys like Constantine having actual conversations with God about writing the bible. You did say they were "inspired to write and edit", and all this talk of alterations is "silly" because mr. ruler of the universe has everything planned out. Well if most of the guys that wrote the bible never had conversations with God (like moses did) then it's not freewill to abide by God's wishes (because God never actually said anything to them).
> 
> The impression you gave off was that even if the writers weren't told to write the bible by God, they were spiritually inspired to do so without knowing so. That wouldn't be freewill.


God has always had loyal servants - and He has entrusted them to guard His Word. Any being capable of creating the universe could assure that His Holy Word made it through various translators and editors intact. In general, people who translated/copied the scriptures did so out of a sense of service to the Lord: people hostile to the scriptures were not interested in working with them. You ignored my posting with the percentages of reliabilty attributed to the New Testament (I can provide similar figures for the Old Testament). Based on the tools used to assess the reliabilty of ancient writings, the New Testament has the highest reliability in terms of the texts agreeing with each other. 





> it doesnt have to. science does not claim to have all the answers. it might decide on a theory or it might not. evolution isnt bothered with matter anyway. it describes how life evolves and grows.


It has to bother with matter because the elimination of God from the explanation of the universe necessitates an explanation as to where matter came from. And science will probably have to resort to an explanation as silly and inconceivable to the Christian as the idea of a Supreme Being must be to them.

----------


## hyperborean

> You ignored my posting with the percentages of reliabilty attributed to the New Testament (I can provide similar figures for the Old Testament). Based on the tools used to assess the reliabilty of ancient writings, the New Testament has the highest reliability in terms of the texts agreeing with each other.


You laugh when evolutionists bring up statistics, yet you post statistics on the validity of the bible. I've read and seen too much to believe that the bible is as valid as you claim.

At this point of the argument it's pretty pointless to continue. No matter what direction you go in, a Christian will use his faith to tackle a debate. It goes like this:

evolutionist: scientific fact
creationist: science can't be trusted

evolutionist: yes it can
creationist: straw man

evolutionist: attack on christianity
creationist: faith, God is almighty, I win. 

 :Tongue:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You laugh when evolutionists bring up statistics, yet you post statistics on the validity of the bible. I've read and seen too much to believe that the bible is as valid as you claim.
> 
> At this point of the argument it's pretty pointless to continue. No matter what direction you go in, a Christian will use his faith to tackle a debate. It goes like this:
> 
> evolutionist: scientific fact
> creationist: science can't be trusted
> 
> evolutionist: yes it can
> creationist: straw man
> ...



Nobody has quoted scientific statistics for me that I can recall. Why don't you hunt down all the times someone (you maybe?) has tried to offer statistics and I've "laughed" at them, OK?

Second - you ignored my information. You and the other evolutionists manage to scoff away at "faith" saying that we have no empirical evidence, and then when I offer you something you won't deal with it. Nice. Deal with my postings. Those numbers aren't my claims - they are from studies done on textual reliability.

Third: how many times are you going to claim that the argument is pointless to continue in and then keep right on posting away? If you're done, fine: be done and let someone else take your place who will do more than argue in a circle without dealing with the argument at hand.

----------


## The Atheist

Interesting poll.

I'm guessing by the almost 50% seeing creation that most posters are from USA? Amazing how many people have trouble separating fact (evolution) from fantasy (creation).

As an atheist, I have no problem with religion - live and let live is my motto - but creationism flies in the face of too many facts to be treated seriously.

----------


## Adudaewen

> But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.



I'll remember never to ask you to write anything down for me since you consider that such a violation of your free will. 
To me, it is just silly to say that inspiration is the same as a loss of free will. Now, if God held a gun to their heads, then I might agree with you. But as far as I know God doesn't have a gun license.  :Wink:  (doesn't really need one)

----------


## Wintermute

> I'll remember never to ask you to write anything down for me since you consider that such a violation of your free will. 
> To me, it is just silly to say that inspiration is the same as a loss of free will. Now, if God held a gun to their heads, then I might agree with you. But as far as I know God doesn't have a gun license.  (doesn't really need one)


Howdy Adu,

Your last sentence, particularly the part in parentheses, proves hyper's point in my opinion. Why use a gun when you're omnipotent, omnicient, and eternal? Didn't the Christian god know it was going to eventually have to send its human form to earth to get nailed to the cross--even before it created the world?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Interesting poll.
> 
> I'm guessing by the almost 50% seeing creation that most posters are from USA? Amazing how many people have trouble separating fact (evolution) from fantasy (creation).
> 
> As an atheist, I have no problem with religion - live and let live is my motto - but creationism flies in the face of too many facts to be treated seriously.


Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an _opinion_ and _nothing else but_ - an opinion you cannot substantiate. Feel free to give examples of what "facts" creation "flies in the face of" so I can seriously consider them; then I'll throw out at you some of the sheer absurdities that science requires me to accept to explain reality without the causal agent of God. The only "fantasy" being entertained here IMO is the idea that we're the products of random, faceless chance - the odds of which occurring are so astronomical as to approach zero probability.

----------


## hyperborean

> Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an _opinion_ and _nothing else but_


Creation is not physical, and we live in a physical realm. Creation is fantasy...it's imagined.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Creation is not physical, and we live in a physical realm. Creation is fantasy...it's imagined.


Why do you force me to repeat to you what I just told another poster? Re-read my post above and pretend its addressed to you, because you basically said the same thing The Atheist said. How about adding something new?

----------


## Adudaewen

> Howdy Adu,
> 
> Your last sentence, particularly the part in parentheses, proves hyper's point in my opinion. Why use a gun when you're omnipotent, omnicient, and eternal? Didn't the Christian god know it was going to eventually have to send its human form to earth to get nailed to the cross--even before it created the world?


I'm sure you got my sarcasm, but just to clarify that my sentence was meant very glibly.  :Wink: 

How I understand God is that He gave us free will, so yes, I do believe He did know what _could_ eventually happen. It was up to the decisions of Adam and Eve and all other offspring how it would all play out. He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take. That is my understanding of it.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

the odds are not astronimical. you are looking at it the wrong way. tell me all the odds that you think add up to an astronomical chance.

----------


## Wintermute

> I'm sure you got my sarcasm, but just to clarify that my sentence was meant very glibly. 
> 
> How I understand God is that He gave us free will, so yes, I do believe He did know what _could_ eventually happen. It was up to the decisions of Adam and Eve and all other offspring how it would all play out. He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take. That is my understanding of it.


Good Morning Adudaewen,

So, It (He) didn't know that Eve would take a bite of the apple? He (It) didn't know that it would be necessary to flood the entire world, killing an uncountable number of presumably innocent babies? He doesn't know whether I will eventually wind up in heaven or hell? I thought that was the definition of omicient. It's precisely these kinds of questions that keep me up here on the fence. In my 50 years on this planet, I've discussed this idea of 'free will' combined with an omncient creator on countless occasions with (mainly) Christians. I've yet to understand the reasoning. Perhaps I'm just doomed to a life of uncertainty  :Smile:

----------


## hyperborean

> Why do you force me to repeat to you what I just told another poster? Re-read my post above and pretend its addressed to you, because you basically said the same thing The Atheist said. How about adding something new?


I repeat what is right. You can squirm around the truth as much as you want. Heaven and God are imaginary...they are imagined by man. We don't really know if it exists; faith tells us that it's there.

----------


## B-Mental

Hmm, there are some people here that haven't figured out...you aren't changing either of your opinions, and keep going around in circles. Rationality and debate don't exist on this thread. Hyp and RZ, should just agree to disagree. You both seem to have a love/hate relationship. Its almost as if this thread stays alive because you bicker...just my opinion.

----------


## Adudaewen

> Good Morning Adudaewen,
> 
> So, It (He) didn't know that Eve would take a bite of the apple? He (It) didn't know that it would be necessary to flood the entire world, killing an uncountable number of presumably innocent babies? He doesn't know whether I will eventually wind up in heaven or hell? I thought that was the definition of omicient. It's precisely these kinds of questions that keep me up here on the fence. In my 50 years on this planet, I've discussed this idea of 'free will' combined with an omncient creator on countless occasions with (mainly) Christians. I've yet to understand the reasoning. Perhaps I'm just doomed to a life of uncertainty



Actually that is not my meaning at all. I posted "He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take." That's where free will comes into play. He knows all the paths we can take through our lives, He knows the outcomes of each. So, yes He did know all of those things, and does. Re-read my post, and I hope you'll better understand my meaning.

----------


## Wintermute

> Actually that is not my meaning at all. I posted "He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take." That's where free will comes into play. He knows all the paths we can take through our lives, He knows the outcomes of each. So, yes He did know all of those things, and does. Re-read my post, and I hope you'll better understand my meaning.


Hey Adu,

No, I understand your meaning, and appreciate it. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why slaughter all those innocent babies when you already know you're gonna need to do it? Why not just start the universe from that point? Why force folks to go through all the pain and agony if you already know what the end result will be? I'd like to believe that if a universal creator exists, that it is nicer than the one we've been talking about--I sure hope so anyway.

----------


## Adudaewen

I certainly understand your point of view. I don't pretend to understand everything that has happened, nor do I have a crystal clear understanding of why God has done some of the things that He has done. 
However, if you really break it down, the suffering and agony of humanity has been caused directly by humanity. Blaming God is a pretty understandable human reaction to the horrors and tragedy of the world. However, hate and fear, pain and suffering, all of these things are direct byproducts of sin. 
I don't think that it is unreasonable for God to ask us to follow Him. All of the commandments He has given us keep us safe, allow us to live a good, full, productive life filled with love from Him and others. People in general have a habit of wanting do to whatever they want whenever they want it, and then complain about the consequences. If we just realize that everything we do is intimately connected with every other living being on this earth, we may start to rethink our desires. Sure, in theory, it would be great to just go out and drink and drug and have sex whenever the desire strikes us, and eat ourselves stupid, kill whoever annoys us and take whatever we want whether it belongs to someone else or not, but that doesn't really sound like a world I want to live in. I would rather live in a world guided by God than by man. As a species, we really don't make the best choices. 
Along with free will comes responsibility. If we deny that responsibility, or abuse it, it leads to pain, loss and suffering.
The idea of a God that expects us to show responsibility, empathy, and love doesn't sound so bad to me.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> the odds are not astronimical. you are looking at it the wrong way. tell me all the odds that you think add up to an astronomical chance.


In _The Creator and the Cosmos_, astrophysicist Hugh
Ross lists 25 parameters that must each fall within a very narrow range in order to make life possible (I have not time to list them all here); as well, Ross has a list of 32 other specific parameters that deal with out sun-moon-planet system. All of these parameters cannot exceed certain narrow limits if life is to be possible. Please tell me what you think the odds are that all these parameters happen to coincide and be just within the proper limits?

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

the universe has hundreds of billions of chances. there are theoretically at least

4x10^22 stars in the universe. (i think i got the notation right anyhow.)

----------


## Lustandwine

The unfortunate thing about probabilety is that, they cant be used to deny things. if there is a chance, it could have happened, if it could have happend in an Einstinian infinite universe it probably has happend somewere and hear could be that somewhere. 

where as creation has no basis in epirical fact only in the bible and the harts of beleavers.

Christinas should not use maths to defend there stance, it is untenable. use Love, it is the one and only savign grace of the faith. logic falls apart when built on faith becuse it requies epirical evidence to be truly safe, somthing Creation can't provide. 
a book writen by 100s of authors translated though aramaic to greek to latin to engish and german then to hundreds of other languages over centurys canot be used by a logical person as a fair representation of the facts, and as such should be used as a fable to explain the world. 

Love x

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The unfortunate thing about probabilety is that, they cant be used to deny things. if there is a chance, it could have happened, if it could have happend in an Einstinian infinite universe it probably has happend somewere and hear could be that somewhere.


So then why don't you tell me what the odds are that God exists/doesn't exist, so I can quote your statement above right back to you - since the same argument that allows the astronomical odds of big-bang/evolution should be comparable to the odds that a Divine Being exists.




> where as creation has no basis in epirical fact only in the bible and the harts of beleavers.


Yes, let's talk "empirical facts," shall we? Evolution cannot be tested; it lacks real "evidence" and relies on circumstancial evidence that can be interpreted to mean a number of things; it must ultimately account for the existence of matter; both evolution and creationism require a "miracle" of sorts. In contrast, the complexity of life and "fine-tuning" of the solar system indicate the presence of a "designer" - a conclusion that is much more logical than the idea that blind force and random chance created such complexity and finely balanced conditions.




> Christinas should not use maths to defend there stance, it is untenable. use Love, it is the one and only savign grace of the faith. logic falls apart when built on faith becuse it requies epirical evidence to be truly safe, somthing Creation can't provide.


The "safety" of empirical evidence is an illusion at worst, and only a reasonably stable foundation at best. Empiricism cannot encompass the entirely of reality.




> a book writen by 100s of authors translated though aramaic to greek to latin to engish and german then to hundreds of other languages over centurys canot be used by a logical person as a fair representation of the facts, and as such should be used as a fable to explain the world.


Have you done your research, or is this hearsay? Your comment suggests you are passing along rumors. The integrity of the Bible is only questioned by those with clear agendas of anti-scriptural bias. Many reputable scholars have examined the texts and verified their impressive levels of textual integrity and reliability. The only fable being seriously absorbed these days is the entertaining tale that we came from pond scum that mutated eventually into a monkey, and SOMEHOW humans eventually developed. That's good science fiction, you betcha.

----------


## Wintermute

Good Day Adu,




> Blaming God is a pretty understandable human reaction to the horrors and tragedy of the world..


I don't even know if a god exists, so it would be pretty silly of me to blame her/him/it.




> However, hate and fear, pain and suffering, all of these things are direct byproducts of sin. ..


Sin, only exists if you believe in it. And, to believe in it you need to believe that a universal creator exists who defines it. I'm uncertain. I still would like to believe though, that if I do someday find my God, that it would have enough class not to create satan/sin, etc, just to have a reason to judge its creation--all the while causing untold pain and destruction. It just seems silly to me. But again, I'm just a 50 year old goober that doesn't have a clue most of the time...so who knows?




> Sure, in theory, it would be great to just go out and drink and drug and have sex whenever the desire strikes us, and eat ourselves stupid, kill whoever annoys us and take whatever we want whether it belongs to someone else or not, but that doesn't really sound like a world I want to live in. .


I have a problem with this Adu. You imply that folks that don't believe, or are uncertain, are somehow less moral and more apt to do things like abuse drugs and are having sex all over the sidewalks. I think you are wrong. From my subjective observations, anti-social behaviour is pretty much spread evenly throught all beliefs, cultures, races, etc. Just because I'm uncertain about what's going on in the universe does NOT mean that I'm less moral than those who are.

----------


## Adudaewen

> I have a problem with this Adu. You imply that folks that don't believe, or are uncertain, are somehow less moral and more apt to do things like abuse drugs and are having sex all over the sidewalks. I think you are wrong. From my subjective observations, anti-social behaviour is pretty much spread evenly throught all beliefs, cultures, races, etc. Just because I'm uncertain about what's going on in the universe does NOT mean that I'm less moral than those who are.



That certainly wasn't my meaning, I have know a lot of non-believers who are the absolute salt of the Earth. I have also known a lot of people who profess to be Christian, and commit the most horrible acts. It was merely an example, a "for instance", if you will to demonstrate my point.

----------


## Wintermute

> That certainly wasn't my meaning, I have know a lot of non-believers who are the absolute salt of the Earth. I have also known a lot of people who profess to be Christian, and commit the most horrible acts. It was merely an example, a "for instance", if you will to demonstrate my point.


Hi Adu,

I figured it was. Like I've said you are extremely fair and open minded in your posts. 

I do think, however, that many folks feel this way--that if you don't accept that Christ died for your sins then you are almost certainly an immoral, drug using sexual deviant that will surely burn in hell for eternity. And that bothers me... Sometimes I get a little touchy about it, sorry.  :Smile:

----------


## smartblonde2010

> perhaps evolution was a tool, and the Bibal does not really contradict the evolutionist theory...[/SIZE]



the bible DOES contradict evolution, because man came from DUST and not some ape. plain and simple.

----------


## hyperborean

> the bible DOES contradict evolution, because man came from DUST and not some ape. plain and simple.


Not really. Star dust is only the beginning...we didn't magically transform from dust into a human.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Not really. Star dust is only the beginning...we didn't magically transform from dust into a human.


Right: according to evolution, we "magically" transformed from single cells through numerous random alterations/transmutations into humans. Thank goodness all the random factors that needed to be in place were in place! What were the odds of that?

----------


## aydin

This is such an interesting thread, but so long! Of course it's really just going to go round and round...

Anyway, I recently had a debate of sorts with a Christian, and according to him, it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad, those who don't accept that Jesus suffered for our (as in mankind) sake and therefore all our sins are forgiven, go to hell. Of course, if I were to believe in a God (and I think the guy thinks he has a chance of converting me - funny that, as the more he talked, the more irritating/amusing I found him) it certainly wouldn't be his one, but I was wondering if this is what the bible really says somewhere?

I also did a 'random act of kindness' (which wasn't really that, but that's what he called it) and seemed to be amazed that someone who didn't have his knowledge of the bible could do something like that... He said he wouldn't have thought of doing it, but if he had, it might have been as part of a plan or something (not his words specifically)... Just to clarify, I don't do good things (when I do them) in the hope of some afterlife reward, but (from the conversation I had with him) I was wondering what people thought on whether to do a good deed out of fear, or some sort of feeling of duty, or that with a manipulative idea behind it, is better than not doing the deed?

I am undecided as to whether a God actually exists but am open to the idea (seeing as there is no proof either way) although I still think that even if I knew everything there was to know about all the religions, faith is more a feeling you have inside, and not an intellectual subject that you can logically prove.

As for evolution - I know that a theory is only correct as long as there is no substantial evidence/ thoery to contradict it, but I think the evidence we have is pretty solid.

----------


## Wintermute

> Right: according to evolution, we "magically" transformed from single cells through numerous random alterations/transmutations into humans. Thank goodness all the random factors that needed to be in place were in place! What were the odds of that?


Hi Red,

Well, if they hadn't fallen into place, we wouldn't be discussing it would we?

I wonder how many worlds in this amazingly huge universe have not beaten the odds and have not evolved intelligent beings?

Just curious--if we do eventually discover intelligent life extraterrestrially, how will this effect your beliefs? And I know, I'm just asking for speculation on your part. Do you think they'd have the same spiritual component we humans do?

----------


## Wintermute

> This is such an interesting thread, but so long! Of course it's really just going to go round and round...
> 
> Anyway, I recently had a debate of sorts with a Christian, and according to him, it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad, those who don't accept that Jesus suffered for our (as in mankind) sake and therefore all our sins are forgiven, go to hell. Of course, if I were to believe in a God (and I think the guy thinks he has a chance of converting me - funny that, as the more he talked, the more irritating/amusing I found him) it certainly wouldn't be his one, but I was wondering if this is what the bible really says somewhere?
> 
> I also did a 'random act of kindness' (which wasn't really that, but that's what he called it) and seemed to be amazed that someone who didn't have his knowledge of the bible could do something like that... He said he wouldn't have thought of doing it, but if he had, it might have been as part of a plan or something (not his words specifically)... Just to clarify, I don't do good things (when I do them) in the hope of some afterlife reward, but (from the conversation I had with him) I was wondering what people thought on whether to do a good deed out of fear, or some sort of feeling of duty, or that with a manipulative idea behind it, is better than not doing the deed?
> 
> I am undecided as to whether a God actually exists but am open to the idea (seeing as there is no proof either way) although I still think that even if I knew everything there was to know about all the religions, faith is more a feeling you have inside, and not an intellectual subject that you can logically prove.
> 
> As for evolution - I know that a theory is only correct as long as there is no substantial evidence/ thoery to contradict it, but I think the evidence we have is pretty solid.


Hiya Aydin,

Well said! There is enough evidence to convince me that evolution is the path we're on. I still say, however, that a really classy god would have created evolution. And instead of thinking of it as an affront to their faith, folks should the thanking thier creator for such a wonderful gift. If you're out there, thank you.

As for the deal about accepting that Christ died for my sins--I don't even know what that means. It never has made a lick of sense to me. If you know you're gonna need to send your son down to get nailed to a cross in order to...fix things...why not just avoid that and do it right in the first place. It just doesn't seem real smart to me, and I think if a universally omnipotnet, omnicient creator exists, it would be MUCH smarter than we want to give it credit for. As always however, being agnostic, I could be wrong.

Thanks again for your post.

----------


## aydin

Hi Wintermute,

Haha! Liked your analysis! Or perhaps should just say, made me laugh, before I go offending people.  Agree with what you say about any possible creator being much smarter, which is why what this guy was saying to me seemed so totally stupid. If, knowing we are somewhat logical beings with the capability to think and reason, then, surely he could hardly penalise us for not believing in him?

Also this idea that humans are superior and everything in the universe was made for our purpose seems a little far-fetched to me. So all plants, animals, and I suppose planets as well, are here merely as some sort of function for us? Not that I'm saying we are inferior, but what makes us so superior? I have heard that intellect and the possession of a soul is what gives us an advantage. But amongst us humans don't we generally consider those that 'think' they are superior to be a bit idiotic, and doesn't this only make us superior if we place intelligence above all else?

As for the soul bit, if we have a soul because we breathe and feel, then I don't see why animals shouldn't. And although I do believe we have souls, is there any proof? Is it not that we have become so accustomed to accept that we have one, but that it originated from literature and art and philosophy and so forth? I'm probably wrong, so would welcome any feedback here.

The other thing I have heard is that we must have a soul because we have a conscience. We have a conscience because we are able to think, but I don't think this must mean that we have a soul? Sorry, I think I'm babbling on mindlessly. Will stop.

----------


## Adudaewen

> Hi Adu,
> 
> I figured it was. Like I've said you are extremely fair and open minded in your posts. 
> 
> I do think, however, that many folks feel this way--that if you don't accept that Christ died for your sins then you are almost certainly an immoral, drug using sexual deviant that will surely burn in hell for eternity. And that bothers me... Sometimes I get a little touchy about it, sorry.



Thanx Wintermute, I hope that I can always be fair. Courtesy and open mindedness are two things I really strive for  :Wink: 

I totally agree with you, and you should get touchy about it. There are few things in this world that get me hot under the collar like "christians" who think they are better than everyone else. Drives me nuts! Especially when everything in our belief structure preaches against that! So I'm totally with you there.  :Wink:

----------


## kilted exile

> Thank goodness all the random factors that needed to be in place were in place! What were the odds of that?


Quick point.The odds of the random factors being in place is unimportant as to the mutation originally taking place. There is still the same chance of the mutation taking place, these mutations were carried through and passed on to future generations because they were useful adaptations for the environmental conditions. There were also likely mutations which were not useful, these organisms died off and those mutations were not passed on.

An example:

Sickle cell anaemia is a genetic condition, which in the western world is not a useful adaptation and is as a result less prevalent in the western world. However, there have been studies which have shown people who suffer from sickle cell anaemia are less susceptible to malaria - interestingly it is quite prevalent in Northern Africa

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Hi Red,
> 
> Well, if they hadn't fallen into place, we wouldn't be discussing it would we?


Well, the other option is that God created us - and that's why we're here discussing it.  :Smile:  




> I wonder how many worlds in this amazingly huge universe have not beaten the odds and have not evolved intelligent beings?


The odds are _so_ against life spontaneously occurring _out of nothing_ that even our presence here points to a _miracle_ - whether you call it God or not - and science doesn't like "miracles."




> Just curious--if we do eventually discover intelligent life extraterrestrially, how will this effect your beliefs? And I know, I'm just asking for speculation on your part. Do you think they'd have the same spiritual component we humans do?


I think it absurd to believe that God - a Being of creative ability and a love of relationship - only created us and that's it. We're different because we were created "in God's image" but I think there's life out there (caveat: they don't come _here_ though). We're just the only world that "fell." My beliefs wouldn't be shaken a bit. To believe that we're "it" in the vastness of the universe is too egocentric for me.

----------


## Wintermute

> The odds are _so_ against life spontaneously occurring _out of nothing_ that even our presence here points to a _miracle_ - whether you call it God or not - and science doesn't like "miracles."


There's another one of those observations that swings both ways: The odds are so against God spontaneously occuring out of nothing. . .or existing for infinity...

Have you had to opportunity to read or watch the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. Granted, protiens are a long way from Beethoven's 9th symphony, but over billions of years...I dunno. I remain uncertain, lol.

----------


## hyperborean

> I think it absurd to believe that God - a Being of creative ability and a love of relationship - only created us and that's it. We're different because we were created "in God's image"


I hate when Christians say "god is love". Love is a human emotion; not what God is or what he represents. I know this sounds stoic, but emotions only weaken the individual. Why associate something we made up (love) with the divine being......the other thing we made up :FRlol:  

Pico writes that "man is an afterthought" and that we were created so God would have a creature that would admire his work. I have nothing against true Christians who "climb the ladder up to the stars".

----------


## Whifflingpin

Wintermute: "... the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. "

There may be building blocks, but that does not mean that they would ever self-generate into something more complex.

A field might be full of rocks, but you'd have to wait several eternities for then to form themselves into a house.

----------


## billyjack

there was never a point of creation, "its" always been. the fact that the title "evolution vs. creation" hits home for so many people tells me that both are probably wrong. cause i buy into the whole "7 out of 10" people are most likely invalids. and if this many invalids have a say on this matter, it must not be what really matters.

----------


## Wintermute

> A field might be full of rocks, but you'd have to wait several eternities for then to form themselves into a house.


Hi Whiff,

Well now, that depends on whether you consider a cave to be a house. Neanderthal certainly did.  :Smile: 

How long would you need to wait for an empty vacuum to produce a God? Am I alone in this inability to grasp a universal creator that has existed for infinity and just a few billion years ago decided to create a massive, amazing universe with humanity in the center of it all? I just don't get it. I'm doomed to a life of uncertainty, hehe.

----------


## Wintermute

> there was never a point of creation, "its" always been. the fact that the title "evolution vs. creation" hits home for so many people tells me that both are probably wrong. cause i buy into the whole "7 out of 10" people are most likely invalids. and if this many invalids have a say on this matter, it must not be what really matters.


Hi Billy, thanks for your input. 

Just so I understand, you are saying that 7 out of 10 (70%) of folks are invalids? Do you have some data on this? It's not consistant with my observations. Are you talking about folks that are physically disabled? Or are you pluralizing the adjective 'valid'--arguing that 7 out of 10 arguments on this thread are invalid? If that's the case I would disagree completely. Every argument on this thread is valid to the person that wrote it. Most everyone is sincere in their desire to explore the possibilities and conundrums this universe presents us with.

Now about there never being a point of creation--you have some evidence of this? Or is it just your opinion? I suspect the latter, but it is presented as fact so I was just curious.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There's another one of those observations that swings both ways: The odds are so against God spontaneously occuring out of nothing. . .or existing for infinity...


I don't know how you calculate the "odds" for the existence of a Being who claims eternal existence. Calculating any such "odds" would be based on our idea as to the probability of something - how do you calculate the probability of a Divine Being?




> Have you had to opportunity to read or watch the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. Granted, protiens are a long way from Beethoven's 9th symphony, but over billions of years...I dunno. I remain uncertain, lol.


What I'd like Carl (or any other similar scientist) to do is tell me where the inorganic material came from and what was the catalyst that resulted in the "switchover" from inorganic to "life." "Could" implies potential, but not actual.




> I hate when Christians say "god is love". Love is a human emotion; not what God is or what he represents. I know this sounds stoic, but emotions only weaken the individual. Why associate something we made up (love) with the divine being......the other thing we made up


Thus spake the Nietzschean "superman." God is identified in the Bible as _love_ - He is the living definition of what love is - He and nothing else. That you are capable of love is proof that He lives within your heart (whether or not you acknowledge/like it). Furthermore, _love_ is not an emotion - it is a _choice_. We did not "make up" love (though we certainly have distorted its meaning pretty severely).




> Pico writes that "man is an afterthought" and that we were created so God would have a creature that would admire his work. I have nothing against true Christians who "climb the ladder up to the stars".


I'm glad Pico's self-esteem issue isn't mine. To make God into an egomaniac is a sure sign of someone trying to understand a being that is quite beyond his grasp.

----------


## Scheherazade

*This has been one of the oldest and most popular discussion threads in this section of the Forum. It is unfortunate that it will now be closed temporarily due to some members' inability to comply with Forum Rules and carry on civilized exchanges without resorting personal attacks on others and/or their beliefs.

I hope everyone will take this time-out perioud to read and familiarize themselves with these.*

----------


## Scheherazade

This thread is now open for discussions again, in the hope that future posts will comply with the Forum Rules. 

I would like to thank those members who refrain from inflammatory remarks or current politics and would also like to remind that those who persistently resort to such comments might be banned temporarily/permanently from the Forum:


> The general Forum Rules apply here, as well as the following:
> 
> 1. Discussion of religious or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to *respect the beliefs of others.*
> 
> 2. These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.
> 
> 3. Please do not copy and paste huge tracts of text, you shouldn't need more than a few sentences or a paragraph to make your point in reference to the topic/discussion. Having said that, if you are going to refer to or use content from other sites, you must include a link for it. You cannot copy and paste entire articles from other sites because that is copyright infringement, and contributes nothing to discussion. From Copyright.gov ; _ "Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."_
> 
> 4. Admin and the Moderators reserve the right to edit, delete, close, and/or remove topics or posts, not always with warning. It is up to you to understand the forum rules.
> ...


.
.

----------


## The Atheist

Sorry, Red, I hadn't checked back, but I'll answer a couple of your comments here:




> Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an _opinion_ and _nothing else but_ - an opinion you cannot substantiate.


That's actually incorrect. I can satisfactorily explain every step of evolution barring abiogenesis, for which there are several interesting hypotheses and theories, but as yet, no proof.

If your creationism is "God created Earth and enabled abiogenesis", then I can't really argue against that from facts, so I don't. The thought that anything beyond the first, single-celled life forms was "created" by anything other than evolution is simply flying in the face of all scientific results and facts to date. If you think the biblical creation is literal, I can't help you, but if you'd like hard facts, I can surely provide plenty.





> Feel free to give examples of what "facts" creation "flies in the face of" so I can seriously consider them;


The amount of evidence as to evolution of life forms since the first single-celled ones is so enormous that it would require far more space than is currently used by this entire forum, so I need some specifics as to what bothers you. 




> then I'll throw out at you some of the sheer absurdities that science requires me to accept to explain reality without the causal agent of God.


 That would be an excellent place to start! You give me a few examples of "scientific absurdity" and we'll go from that.




> The only "fantasy" being entertained here IMO is the idea that we're the products of random, faceless chance - the odds of which occurring are so astronomical as to approach zero probability.


I'm not sure whether you're a mathematician, or at all up to date with current mathematical work in the evolution of animals, but if we're talking evolution from single-celled organisms, the actual algorithm for evolution shows an infinitesimally small chance that it isn't factual. And I do mean small, as in billions to one _against_ evolution.

I look forward to discussing this some more - I see the thread's been closed once, but if we stick to facts and data, there should be no problem.

----------


## watkinsguy

i have a question...everything comes from something yes? So where exactly did the proverbial "cosmic gunk from which we all evolved from" come from? I mean at one point and time there had to be nothing in this universe, so how did it all get here? A more specific example I guess is when you see a building, you know there had to be a builder. When you see a painting, you know there had to be a painter. So when you see the complexities that is the universe, how can you not wonder "How did all this get here?". I'll give you a hint:it wasn't trillions of atoms being tightly compressed together until they exploded.....

----------


## billyjack

> When you see a painting, you know there had to be a painter. So when you see the complexities that is the universe, how can you not wonder "How did all this get here?". I'll give you a hint:it wasn't trillions of atoms being tightly compressed together until they exploded.....


matter of fact statement are most likely not facts.

i think you're hinting at some all powerful creator being behind the "way" of things: creating them, having some sort of plan. . .

i don't think that's neccessary though. people use the human eye as an example for why evolution is crap, saying its far too complex for natural selection and evolution to account for its intricacies. but scientist have shown how the eye would've evolved through some pretty simple but brilliant demonstrations involving lenses and light--and its powerful evidence to show that even the most complicated things don't need a creator. look at an acorn, within it and its surrounding lies the blueprint of an oak. no creator is need for this. its just the way of things. omnipotence is doing spontaneously, without having to think about it. the universe didnt need to be consiously devised by God. it didnt need to be devised or planned at all. it just is.

----------


## Lily Adams

> What I'd like Carl (or any other similar scientist) to do is tell me where the inorganic material came from and what was the catalyst that resulted in the "switchover" from inorganic to "life." "Could" implies potential, but not actual.


Oh, but he does! I own the series, and in other episodes, (not just that one about evolution) he talks about how the stars of the universe created (and still create) different elements (including carbon, the necessary element for *life*) through fusion pf hydrogen and helium. But the second episode, "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue", is the one that talks about the evolution of life.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's actually incorrect. I can satisfactorily explain every step of evolution barring abiogenesis, for which there are several interesting hypotheses and theories, but as yet, no proof.


You can offer me science's _interpretation_  (an inherently subjective tool of knowledge) of observable evidence that a creationist might have en equally compelling interpretation of - the big difference is that the creationist scientist doen't have the problem explaining where matter came from.




> If your creationism is "God created Earth and enabled abiogenesis", then I can't really argue against that from facts, so I don't. The thought that anything beyond the first, single-celled life forms was "created" by anything other than evolution is simply flying in the face of all scientific results and facts to date. If you think the biblical creation is literal, I can't help you, but if you'd like hard facts, I can surely provide plenty.


The "hard facts" argument creates a problem because it requires you to live a life based on only what you can verify via the "hard facts." That creates some difficulties because it's a pretty sure bet that there are many things you believe to be true that you have no "hard facts" to corroborate. As well, if you are arguing for a totally Naturalistic world-view, then we now have to deal with the difficulty of the meaning of your words, as well as the issue of freewill: because, in a Naturalistic world, humans essentially have no freewill because they are subject to the forces of this world (biological, chemical, neurological, social, psychological) that are beyond their control; as well, since your brain is merely a machine full of chemical and electric interactions, how can you claim that your words are a) your own, and b) that they're "true"?




> The amount of evidence as to evolution of life forms since the first single-celled ones is so enormous that it would require far more space than is currently used by this entire forum, so I need some specifics as to what bothers you.


That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of _biogenesis_); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the _irreducible complexity_ of things like the eye.




> That would be an excellent place to start! You give me a few examples of "scientific absurdity" and we'll go from that.


Some evolutionists have conceded that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 250th power. Borel's single law of chance tells us that when chance exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power that absolutely _no chance_ remains for an event to occur. Other evolutionary scientists have estimated the chance that life could evolve at 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Most of us wouldn't bet our life savings on odds of 1 in a 100.





> I'm not sure whether you're a mathematician, or at all up to date with current mathematical work in the evolution of animals, but if we're talking evolution from single-celled organisms, the actual algorithm for evolution shows an infinitesimally small chance that it isn't factual. And I do mean small, as in billions to one _against_ evolution.


Even if you could prove such, one-cell into the complexity of the human body is something I cannot accept. Nature tends towards entropy and chaos - not _increasing_ order.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I'll just take this one:


> That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of biogenesis); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the irreducible complexity of things like the eye.


Eyes are not irreducibly compex. Michael Behe, inventor of the concept, defines irreducible complexity as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". You could remove any of several parts of the eye and it would still function, just not as well. (The same is true of the bacterial flagellum, if you were thinking of bringing tht one up.) Even the ID people have stopped harping on the eye, because it is now known perfectly well how the eye evolved.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'll just take this one:Eyes are not irreducibly compex. Michael Behe, inventor of the concept, defines irreducible complexity as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". You could remove any of several parts of the eye and it would still function, just not as well. (The same is true of the bacterial flagellum, if you were thinking of bringing tht one up.) Even the ID people have stopped harping on the eye, because it is now known perfectly well how the eye evolved.


Define "just not as well" - and then we could perhaps have some sort of Platonic dialogue on whether or not a thing that functions "not as well as it should" is actually "functioning" in any way that is germane to the thing's proper mode of operation.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

If I were to remove your cataracts and not put in an artificial lens, for example, you would be unable to drive a car, but you would be able to keep from being run over by one (an important function of the eye). If I were to remove your iris as well, you would be unable to adjust to how close or far away an object is to you, but you wouldn't be totally blind. If I were to remove all the structures in your eye except for the retina, you would not have functional vision, but you would be able to tell the difference between light and dark, which would be useful if you happened to be a small, cave-dwelling arthropod who eats plants that grow in the light.

On the other hand, if I could, by some very complicated operation, remove only the colour-sensitive cells in your retina, you would still have perfectly functional vision, it's just that the glories of technicolor film would be lost on you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If I were to remove your cataracts and not put in an artificial lens, for example, you would be unable to drive a car, but you would be able to keep from being run over by one (an important function of the eye). If I were to remove your iris as well, you would be unable to adjust to how close or far away an object is to you, but you wouldn't be totally blind. If I were to remove all the structures in your eye except for the retina, you would not have functional vision, but you would be able to tell the difference between light and dark, which would be useful if you happened to be a small, cave-dwelling arthropod who eats plants that grow in the light.
> 
> On the other hand, if I could, by some very complicated operation, remove only the colour-sensitive cells in your retina, you would still have perfectly functional vision, it's just that the glories of technicolor film would be lost on you.


OK - then let's hypothesize for a moment: since removing any of the parts you mentioned (which, by the way you did not mention all of the parts available for removal and one must wonder if there are other parts of the eyes' structure that are affected by the disabling of a less-than-necessary part) significantly limits the creature's ability to function, then how does that jive with natural selection? A creature that doesn't see well cannot be expected to survive long.

And, even if that supposition is weak (I think it is) I still contend that the untold thousands of _random_ positive mutations that had to occur for the eye to develop requires me to believe in odds that I find unacceptable. Are the odds for the existence of God greater or lesser than the incredible odds that have to exist for evolution to be correct?

----------


## billyjack

> OK - then let's hypothesize for a moment: since removing any of the parts you mentioned (which, by the way you did not mention all of the parts available for removal and one must wonder if there are other parts of the eyes' structure that are affected by the disabling of a less-than-necessary part) significantly limits the creature's ability to function, then how does that jive with natural selection? A creature that doesn't see well cannot be expected to survive long.
> 
> And, even if that supposition is weak (I think it is) I still contend that the untold thousands of _random_ positive mutations that had to occur for the eye to develop requires me to believe in odds that I find unacceptable. Are the odds for the existence of God greater or lesser than the incredible odds that have to exist for evolution to be correct?


1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.

2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.


My lack of sophistication makes this point of yours difficult for me to see. If you'd explain it in more detail I'd be very appreciative.




> 2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."


Only if _all_ of reality can only be comprehended via the "natural." I'm not sure how I'm _not_ supposed to see the incredible_ leap of faith_ required to believe that _blind f_orce and _random chance_ resulted in the complexity of human beings - that to me appears no more reasonable than the idea of a supernatural being. I suggest that you (and other evolutionists) like evolution because "we" came up with the explanation - and I will admit there's a certain comfort in feeling like you've explained everything _all by yourself_. Nonetheless, the explanation offered by humanity is just as _incredible_  as creation - but because we can "see" a good chunk of it, we take comfort from that (despite the massive obstacles that must be overcome to accept it as true) rather than the (perhaps) larger leap of faith that the believer must make.

Why don't you tell me what the odds of God existing are as compared to the odds of all these random mutations? I'm still waiting on those numbers.

----------


## watkinsguy

> 1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.
> 
> 2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."


really.....mutations 95&#37; of the time are harmful to the organism it affects, and usually are lethal. Also something i would like to ask is this: why do we have gay people today? If natural selection and evolution were true, nature would have "weeded" out so to speak the ones that could not reproduce (homosexuals).

----------


## The Atheist

> i have a question...everything comes from something yes? So where exactly did the proverbial "cosmic gunk from which we all evolved from" come from? I mean at one point and time there had to be nothing in this universe, so how did it all get here? A more specific example I guess is when you see a building, you know there had to be a builder. When you see a painting, you know there had to be a painter. So when you see the complexities that is the universe, how can you not wonder "How did all this get here?". I'll give you a hint:it wasn't trillions of atoms being tightly compressed together until they exploded.....


Ah, _Summa Theologica_. The old faithful infinite regression, or in your words, the god of the first cause....

Everything must have a cause, so what caused the first cause?

It is a tricky ontological question, because we don't actually know the answer to the question. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we don't even really understand the question.

The way I look at it is that if at the dawn of creation of the entire universe, some entity lit the fuse and the universe has proceeded on its own ever since then, he's not much of a god for anyone to worry about, so I don't.

When you see a painting, you know there was a painter, but do you need to know that he had a father, who that father was, who his father was, who _his_ grandfather was, back to _homo erectus_ and beyond? do you need to know that the tempura paint was created from an egg, which was laid by a chicken and how that chicken came into being?

Infinite regress is infinitely dumb.

----------


## watkinsguy

what on earth are you talking about? its very simple logic that I would like to be answered. Don't try and put it down, all you did was prove that the arguement I put forth is valid because no where in that post did you ever present a valid counter-arguement.

----------


## billyjack

> really.....mutations 95% of the time are harmful to the organism it affects, and usually are lethal. Also something i would like to ask is this: why do we have gay people today? If natural selection and evolution were true, nature would have "weeded" out so to speak the ones that could not reproduce (homosexuals).


i doubt mutations are harmful 95% of the time. even so, they exist. 

gay people ey? well, i think it is a contemporary phenomenon that gays have decided to be exclusively homosexual. back in the day and in the animal world today we see not gays, but bisexuals. bonobo monkees have sex with everybody. they're also just as smart as chimps but 99% less aggressive. sex makes them calm, cool, collective. point is, exclusive homoesexuality hasnt been going on long eneogh to have any evolutionary significance on population numbers. keep in mind, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. homo sapien sapien only's been around, what...? couple hundred thousand years. 




> My lack of sophistication makes this point of yours difficult for me to see. If you'd explain it in more detail I'd be very appreciative
> 
> Why don't you tell me what the odds of God existing are as compared to the odds of all these random mutations? I'm still waiting on those numbers.


1) you lobbed me in there with the evolutionist just becaus i questioned creation. i actually responed to this poll that i wasnt sure. see how religion is forced to deal in absolutes like siths. its neccessary in order to have some cause for your tribe to rally around. kind of like how in 1984 the oceanics need war to stay focused and together. my apologies for using a made up story to help make my point. 

2) the straw-man was created thusly: you took one part of the "eye argument" brought up by cup of joe and twisted it into something that it wasnt. that is fallicious. 

3) odds? what odds? odds of mutation making man: who knows, but some percentage exist, no matter how low, but lets say .001 % for argument sake. odds of an all powerful god consciously deciding it was time to make man : 0%...because this all-powerful god is an idea that hasnt been proven in reality. mutations have been proven. my money's on reality over ideality.

----------


## watkinsguy

> i doubt mutations are harmful 95% of the time. even so, they exist. 
> 
> gay people ey? well, i think it is a contemporary phenomenon that gays have decided to be exclusively homosexual. back in the day and in the animal world today we see not gays, but bisexuals. bonobo monkees have sex with everybody. they're also just as smart as chimps but 99% less aggressive. sex makes them calm, cool, collective. point is, exclusive homoesexuality hasnt been going on long eneogh to have any evolutionary significance on population numbers. keep in mind, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. homo sapien sapien only's been around, what...? couple hundred thousand years.


ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subject

----------


## billyjack

> ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subject


spin on the subject? thanks for asking for my opinion, but its not really an opinion, its more of an accepted truth based on the evidence (note: there is evidence for these claims being tossed about). . . there are still primates even though humans are around because we split in the evolutionary tree far before monkees were monkees and people people. we shared a common ancestor that was neither monkey or human. so we share the same branch, but we are on different stems.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 2) the straw-man was created thusly: you took one part of the "eye argument" brought up by cup of joe and twisted it into something that it wasnt. that is fallicious.


His argument was that you can "remove" certain components of the eye and have it still "function" as a sort of refutation to irreducible complexity; I simply noted that 1) there are other components he did not address and I wondered if they were affected (since many of the eye's structures are inter-relative) and 2) that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not. How is that Straw man?




> 3) odds? what odds? odds of mutation making man: who knows, but some percentage exist, no matter how low, but lets say .001 % for argument sake. odds of an all powerful god consciously deciding it was time to make man : 0%...because this all-powerful god is an idea that hasnt been proven in reality. mutations have been proven. my money's on reality over ideality.


Oh no, my friend - .001% is far too high. As I have quoted elsewhere, evolutionists (not creationists, mind you) have calculated the odds of evolution creating life at between 1 in 10 to the 250th power to 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. I think that's a wee bit smaller than .001% - don't you? Second, your odds for God are skewed by your humanist presupposition - your bias won't allow for the existence of a Divine Being, so you decide the odds are 0. As well, since you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the entire galaxy and its contents, you cannot suggest 0% odds because to claim God doesn't exist is to claim that you know of all that _does_ exist. Do you? As far as the "hasn't been proven in reality" bit - well, neither has the untestable, unprovable and unverifiable hypothesis that life evolved billions of years ago throught the action of random, blind force. Your argument eats itself.

Your money is on a "reality" that is limited in scope and limited in its full understanding; the observable world is the tip of a very large iceberg that many people like to pretend doesn't exist. It does.

----------


## watkinsguy

> spin on the subject? thanks for asking for my opinion, but its not really an opinion, its more of an accepted truth based on the evidence (note: there is evidence for these claims being tossed about). . . there are still primates even though humans are around because we split in the evolutionary tree far before monkees were monkees and people people. we shared a common ancestor that was neither monkey or human. so we share the same branch, but we are on different stems.



if we share common ancestors like you suggest, why havent we found hundreds if not thousands of missing links? i mean even if you do believe in Cro Magnon man and all that, that really doesnt seem to account for the "thousands of years" between apes and humans now does it? one would expect to find at least a whole race of missing links not just a couple.

----------


## billyjack

> that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not. How is that Straw man?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, my friend - .001% is far too high. As I have quoted elsewhere, evolutionists (not creationists, mind you) have calculated the odds of evolution creating life at between 1 in 10 to the 250th power to 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. I think that's a wee bit smaller than .001% - don't you? Second, your odds for God are skewed by your humanist presupposition - your bias won't allow for the existence of a Divine Being, so you decide the odds are 0. As well, since you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the entire galaxy and its contents, you cannot suggest 0% odds because to claim God doesn't exist is to claim that you know of all that _does_ exist. Do you? As far as the "hasn't been proven in reality" bit - well, neither has the untestable, unprovable and unverifiable hypothesis that life evolved billions of years ago throught the action of random, blind force. Your argument eats itself.
> 
> Your money is on a "reality" that is limited in scope and limited in its full understanding; the observable world is the tip of a very large iceberg that many people like to pretend doesn't exist. It does.


1) it wouldnt be seen as imperfect vision. perfect vision is a human idea. back when the eye was coming about it would have been seen as a major improvement on what there was before. of course these animals with the eyes wouldn't be thinking this, but this is what we would think if we took a gander back in time. 

2)ok, so .01 10 to the hundredth, whatever. still better odds than zero. why would i need consious knowledge of the entire universe to know that a divine being doesnt exist. human beings are microcosms of the universe. i look at people, i don't see some supernatural god, i see natural gods. from this, i risk overgeneralizing and say that all that is exist natural, is of the universe... nothing exist outside the universe. no being or all powerful somebody. i know this because we do fine without one, so why would we need one. it would be redundant to make a creator when "it" creates on its own, and the universe isnt redundant. 

yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence. 

3) so where is the proof of the rest of this iceberg? at least with a real iceburg we know that more exist underwater from experience. where is the experience to prove this divine you speak of. why does there need to be a divine. what's so wrong with natural. why this disdain for experience? i call it lacking the will to life. you say no to life and yes to that which is not life. god is life you said. you say this, but then you seem to hold the natural world--the observed world--life-- in disdain. and instead you hold in regard that which is unnatural, unobservable...your argument seems to eat itself too.

----------


## watkinsguy

> 1) it wouldnt be seen as imperfect vision. perfect vision is a human idea. back when the eye was coming about it would have been seen as a major improvement on what there was before. of course these animals with the eyes wouldn't be thinking this, but this is what we would think if we took a gander back in time. 
> 
> 2)ok, so .01 10 to the hundredth, whatever. still better odds than zero. why would i need consious knowledge of the entire universe to know that a divine being doesnt exist. human beings are microcosms of the universe. i look at people, i don't see some supernatural god, i see natural gods. from this, i risk overgeneralizing and say that all that is exist natural, is of the universe... nothing exist outside the universe. no being or all powerful somebody. i know this because we do fine without one, so why would we need one. it would be redundant to make a creator when "it" creates on its own, and the universe isnt redundant. 
> 
> *yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence.* 
> 
> 3) so where is the proof of the rest of this iceberg? at least with a real iceburg we know that more exist underwater from experience. where is the experience to prove this divine you speak of. why does there need to be a divine. what's so wrong with natural. why this disdain for experience? i call it lacking the will to life. you say no to life and yes to that which is not life. god is life you said. you say this, but then you seem to hold the natural world--the observed world--life-- in disdain. and instead you hold in regard that which is unnatural, unobservable...your argument seems to eat itself too.



lol try a spell check sometime  :Smile:  care to elaborate on this "unquestionable evidence"?

----------


## The Atheist

> You can offer me science's _interpretation_  (an inherently subjective tool of knowledge) of observable evidence that a creationist might have en equally compelling interpretation of - the big difference is that the creationist scientist doen't have the problem explaining where matter came from.


The difference is that creationists don't have a compelling anything - no evidence, no nothing, just one fairytale. If they could at least come up with a single piece of evidence to support their assertion they might be worth listening to, but they don't. Mostly because they don't have any.

At least science can point to evidence. Incomplete, obviously, as is the fossil record, but actual, hard evidence.




> The "hard facts" argument creates a problem because it requires you to live a life based on only what you can verify via the "hard facts." That creates some difficulties because it's a pretty sure bet that there are many things you believe to be true that you have no "hard facts" to corroborate.


Again, that's an easy assertion to make, but I'd like you to try to find one thing for which there are no hard facts and where I must make only assumptions.

Just one, thanks.




> As well, if you are arguing for a totally Naturalistic world-view, then we now have to deal with the difficulty of the meaning of your words, as well as the issue of freewill: because, in a Naturalistic world, humans essentially have no freewill because they are subject to the forces of this world (biological, chemical, neurological, social, psychological) that are beyond their control; as well, since your brain is merely a machine full of chemical and electric interactions, how can you claim that your words are a) your own, and b) that they're "true"?


Sorry, my friend, but this is child's play you're in here. There have been many books and articles written about compatibilist free will which are very easy to find and I suggest you start with Daniel Dennett.

In the meantime, I'll just tell you that you're confusing determinism and fatalism/predestination. It's a common mistake, but the simple fact is that humans are faced with so many outcomes that the illusion of free will persists as the choices appear infinite - to our limited ability to understand infinity.




> That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of _biogenesis_); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the _irreducible complexity_ of things like the eye.


I see that your eye fallacy has been explained. The other comment is just way off track. there are no "rules" and nobody's about to suggest that matter came from "nothing". Simple high-school physics & biology is all you appear to be missing at this stage




> Some evolutionists have conceded that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 250th power.


Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.




> Borel's single law of chance tells us that when chance exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power that absolutely _no chance_ remains for an event to occur.


Well, I hope he wasn't a mathematician, because those chance things do actually happen. The good news is that I don't have to bother explaining it because it's not relevant to evolution - as noted.




> Other evolutionary scientists have estimated the chance that life could evolve at 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Most of us wouldn't bet our life savings on odds of 1 in a 100.


Again, this is outrageously false. You assert that "evolutionary scientists" make those claims. I refute that utterly. They may be people claiming to be evolutionary scientists, but they clearly aren't. Or, if they are, they are so out of touch with 99.999999999% of actual evolutionary scientists that they are certifiably insane. Thomas Aquinas' first redux is, "Truth cannot contradict truth", so even some religions need to accept some of the truths we already have about evolution. Statements like your above claim isn't part of a debate, it's silly rhetoric. The fact that it's demonstrably wrong is a very good reason why you shouldn't parrot it.




> Even if you could prove such, one-cell into the complexity of the human body is something I cannot accept.


Seriously, if that's the way you feel, why do you debate these things? You are exercising Doublethink if you are denying facts. You're saying that you will deny proof. I'm not saying that evolutionary science has all of the answers, but positing ideas which go against the facts we do have already makes it mighty hard to defend. If you wish to ignore actual, physical evidence, you really shouldn't debate them. You are essentially arguing that black is white.




> Nature tends towards entropy and chaos - not _increasing_ order.


Again, that's a very silly factual error. Actual studies using real DNA and animals has long since exploded that notion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 1) it wouldnt be seen as imperfect vision. perfect vision is a human idea. back when the eye was coming about it would have been seen as a major improvement on what there was before. of course these animals with the eyes wouldn't be thinking this, but this is what we would think if we took a gander back in time.


Interesting argument - but the odds are still too high, and contrary to cuppajoe's assertion, I'd need to see a source to buy that the irreducable complexity of the eye has completely disappeared. The idea that an eye could even develop, along with the necessary brain alterations, that the two (brain and eye) have a common language of communication -- all that seems too precise to have simply developed. Why an eye at all?




> 2)ok, so .01 10 to the hundredth, whatever. still better odds than zero. why would i need consious knowledge of the entire universe to know that a divine being doesnt exist. human beings are microcosms of the universe. i look at people, i don't see some supernatural god, i see natural gods. from this, i risk overgeneralizing and say that all that is exist natural, is of the universe... nothing exist outside the universe. no being or all powerful somebody. i know this because we do fine without one, so why would we need one. it would be redundant to make a creator when "it" creates on its own, and the universe isnt redundant.


No - odds of the magnitude I posted above are pretty much zero. The idea that we are microcosms of the universe is again a humanist idea - it places humanity as the defining standard by which reality is measured and that is flat out wrong - your contention about "natural gods" is meaningless - human beings cannot be "gods" except to themselves - and people who do this generally become unholy terrors. Second, to say that nothing exists outside of the universe is to suggest that the universe generated itself. Impossible. Something outside of it had to begin it at some point in time. Matter comes from matter - matter does not generate _ex nihilo_. Your contention that you're existing fine without God is tremendously ironic to me - because all that lives comes from God - and God is the source of all life in the universe (including yours). There is no existence apart from God; you don't have to acknowledge Him for Him to sustain you: He does so out of love.




> yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence.


I like the "unquestionable" adjective. Much evidence requires _interpretation_ - and interpretation is subject to _bias_. 




> 3) so where is the proof of the rest of this iceberg? at least with a real iceburg we know that more exist underwater from experience. where is the experience to prove this divine you speak of. why does there need to be a divine. what's so wrong with natural. why this disdain for experience? i call it lacking the will to life. you say no to life and yes to that which is not life. god is life you said. you say this, but then you seem to hold the natural world--the observed world--life-- in disdain. and instead you hold in regard that which is unnatural, unobservable...your argument seems to eat itself too.



I do not hold the natural world in disdain - it too testifies to the existence of God. But I do not place it as the sole arbiter of what is "real." The existence of morality, the beauty and complexity of nature attest to the existence of God. The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and the textual integrity of the holy scriptures point to the existence of God. The fact that humans even aspire to create, to achieve, to love and to become more than what they seem - all of these attest to the fingerprints of a Divine Creator. These may not seem "hard" evidence to you, but to the believer, they are there and are very, very real. And, besides, as I have repeatedly said, "verifiable" evidence cannot be the definitive standard of reality: you exercise faith everytime you go out to eat - because you have no verifiable proof that the cook washed his hands, didn't spit in your soup, etc; as well, you do not have verifiable "proof" that when someone says sorry to you that they really are - you must rely upon faith. Please stop going on about the "observable" and how it decides whether God exists or not - the observable is only PART of the picture.

----------


## The Atheist

> what on earth are you talking about? its very simple logic that I would like to be answered. Don't try and put it down, all you did was prove that the arguement I put forth is valid because no where in that post did you ever present a valid counter-arguement.


I pointed out that I don't need to have a counter argument. I'm not bothered by either infinite regress *or* first cause. If there's a god/entity/being which caused the big bang, then that's fine. Personally, I see the "what came before the big bang" as a futile chicken'egg scenario. Accordingly, since it happened many billions of years ago, I'm happy to ignore it.

As to simple logic, there's no logic in it at all - it's a circular argument, the very enemy of logic.

----------


## The Atheist

> ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subject



Now I know this was aimed at billyjack and he's answered it, but your question contains such blatant and basic errors, that I'll add a little.

If evolution worked as your question suggests, there would be no mammals other than humans. That is the kind of hypothesis I'd expect from an intelligent design proponent.

Evolution takes along time.

I'm constantly amazed by creationists who ask, "Why don't we see evolution happening? No chimps give birth to humans!"

Nor did they ever. Eveolutionary changes happen over millennia, not months. Plus, if you go and check some actual facts, you will be able to see that we do indeed have physical evidence of mutations, but in lower animals, which are able to evolve more readily thanks to their basic structure. Again, this supports evolution, not the other way round.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> 1) there are other components he did not address and I wondered if they were affected (since many of the eye's structures are inter-relative) and 2) that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not.


1) You are not asking for a reply on a message board, you are asking for a medical school textbook. I obviously cannot deal with every structrure in the eye, as it is one of the most complicated organs in your body. It is not, however, irreducibly complex, even by the standards of the man who invented the concept. If such hypothetical assumptions are not good enough for you, I suggest you take a look at one of the many thousands of organisms whose eyes, when compared to our own, are missing structures. Here's one. Those spots on the left-hand side are the equivalent of your eyes, minus every structure except a little bit of the retina. Perfectly functional. Here's another one. That's a very interesting one, actually. The eye of the nautalus is to your eye as a pinhole camera is to a Canon. There isn't any lens in other words.

2) A few million years, actually. Imperfect vision would absolutely not be a detriment to the first creature to develop it, because it would be competing with creatures who have absolutely _no_ vision. This question is often postulated as "What good is half an eye?". I've already showed you a picture of a real creature with about 1&#37; of an eye. What good is it? It's a hell of a lot better than none of an eye, evidently.

But don't take my word for it, ask Richard Dawkins.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The difference is that creationists don't have a compelling anything - no evidence, no nothing, just one fairytale. If they could at least come up with a single piece of evidence to support their assertion they might be worth listening to, but they don't. Mostly because they don't have any.


Is that comment based on actually reviewing the evidence or hearsay? The "they don't have any" is a clear exaggeration. They have no less because they're using the same observable world as evolutionists.





> At least science can point to evidence. Incomplete, obviously, as is the fossil record, but actual, hard evidence.


Here we go again - the "hard evidence" position. Is that all reality is to you - that which you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell?





> Again, that's an easy assertion to make, but I'd like you to try to find one thing for which there are no hard facts and where I must make only assumptions.
> 
> Just one, thanks.


When your lover says "I love you" to you, you cannot verify that s/he is telling the truth - you take it on faith, you assume (based on what you know, what you believe, what you wish) that those words are true. When you get married, you have no verifiable "proof" that your spouse will keep his/her vows - you assume s/he will do so and you will continue to do until you get "evidence" to the contrary.





> Sorry, my friend, but this is child's play you're in here. There have been many books and articles written about compatibilist free will which are very easy to find and I suggest you start with Daniel Dennett. 
> In the meantime, I'll just tell you that you're confusing determinism and fatalism/predestination. It's a common mistake, but the simple fact is that humans are faced with so many outcomes that the illusion of free will persists as the choices appear infinite - to our limited ability to understand infinity.


OK - so books and articles have been written expressing a different opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean that my argument doesn't exist anymore - it means that someone else doesn't agree with it. Two interpretations exist - OK - now what?





> I see that your eye fallacy has been explained. The other comment is just way off track. there are no "rules" and nobody's about to suggest that matter came from "nothing". Simple high-school physics & biology is all you appear to be missing at this stage


I'm not convinced the irreducable complexity argument has necessarily been fully refuted, and I certainly wouldn't lable it a "fallacy." 

billyjack's comment that nothing exists outside the universe implies that the universe generated itself. That is impossible. I detect some condescension in your final comment, but I'll ignore it for now.





> Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.


Fine - provide me with your sources and I'll happily retract my statement - since you yourself (I _assume_) would _never_ concede an argument without "hard evidence" - right? Otherwise you're asking me to _assume_ that you're trustworthy. So let's have your hard evidence that contradicts the numbers I posted.




> Well, I hope he wasn't a mathematician, because those chance things do actually happen. The good news is that I don't have to bother explaining it because it's not relevant to evolution - as noted.


Borel was a mathematician. 

Here: "However, the initial difficulties of evolutionary theory so clearly laid out in many books, pale to insignificance when faced with the heroic difficulty of finally evolving a man. The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000which Borels law says is no chance at all.14 (See below.) Indeed, a chance so small is not even conceivable. This is a figure with 2 billion zeroes after it and would require some ten thousand books, of one hundred and fifty pages just to write it out."
from _What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?Part Two by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon_




> Again, this is outrageously false. You assert that "evolutionary scientists" make those claims. I refute that utterly. They may be people claiming to be evolutionary scientists, but they clearly aren't. Or, if they are, they are so out of touch with 99.999999999% of actual evolutionary scientists that they are certifiably insane. Thomas Aquinas' first redux is, "Truth cannot contradict truth", so even some religions need to accept some of the truths we already have about evolution. Statements like your above claim isn't part of a debate, it's silly rhetoric. The fact that it's demonstrably wrong is a very good reason why you shouldn't parrot it.


So you say. Feel free to commence with the "demonstration" as to the "wrongness" of those numbers (which Carl Sagan - does he count as evolution scientist? - seems to have echoed above).





> Seriously, if that's the way you feel, why do you debate these things? You are exercising Doublethink if you are denying facts. You're saying that you will deny proof. I'm not saying that evolutionary science has all of the answers, but positing ideas which go against the facts we do have already makes it mighty hard to defend. If you wish to ignore actual, physical evidence, you really shouldn't debate them. You are essentially arguing that black is white.


Not at all. You and I are arguing from two different presuppositional bases: yours says that there is no such being as God; as such, all your arguments and conclusions are stemming from that foundation. In contrast, I am operating from the foundation that God is real and that He did all the creating; as such, all my arguments are stemming from that foundational conclusion. Don't act like you're any different; you've _chosen_ a humanist foundation to argue from - therefore there is no "evidence" that I could give you that would change your position any more than you could change mine - the "evidence" you so love to tout is made meaningful by the frame within which you have placed it; inside my frame (one dictated by an all-powerful being), science's best work are merely good guesses and speculations that try to finish the equation by plugging in astronomical numbers because it HAS to - there is no choice but to accept evolution's fantastic odds if one denies the existence of God. Don't you get that? As far as I'm concerned, you are as dogmatic and "clueless" to me as I must appear to you. But, since you've got "observable evidence" _seemingly_ on your side, you think you've got the stronger position. To others who are standing on the same humanistic presupposition as you - you're winning; to those who are standing on the same presupposition as I (that God is real) your arguments hold no real force.






> Again, that's a very silly factual error. Actual studies using real DNA and animals has long since exploded that notion.


The complexity of DNA is likened to the complexity of a computer program - computer programs do not write themselves - a designer does.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 1) You are not asking for a reply on a message board, you are asking for a medical school textbook. I obviously cannot deal with every structrure in the eye, as it is one of the most complicated organs in your body. It is not, however, irreducibly complex, even by the standards of the man who invented the concept. If such hypothetical assumptions are not good enough for you, I suggest you take a look at one of the many thousands of organisms whose eyes, when compared to our own, are missing structures. Here's one. Those spots on the left-hand side are the equivalent of your eyes, minus every structure except a little bit of the retina. Perfectly functional. Here's another one. That's a very interesting one, actually. The eye of the nautalus is to your eye as a pinhole camera is to a Canon. There isn't any lens in other words.


Persuasive, but not definitive. That simplified forms of eyes exist does not necessarily mean that the human eye went through a comparable stage of evolution. And if you're telling me that I came from something like that then I have to tell you you're feeding me something no less fantastic than the idea of God doing all the creative work. I'm interested in your use of "the equivalent of your eyes" in your post; does "equivalent" mean that they are eyes, or that they are that particular creature's "equivalent" to my eye - like a claw is the "equivalent" to my hand?




> 2) A few million years, actually. Imperfect vision would absolutely not be a detriment to the first creature to develop it, because it would be competing with creatures who have absolutely _no_ vision. This question is often postulated as "What good is half an eye?". I've already showed you a picture of a real creature with about 1&#37; of an eye. What good is it? It's a hell of a lot better than none of an eye, evidently.


Maybe so. But none of this escapes the odds - and those cannot be argued away so easily.




> But don't take my word for it, ask Richard Dawkins.


I watched the video. Interesting. If Dawkins weren't so militant in his hostility towards religion, I might take him more seriously.

----------


## The Atheist

> Is that comment based on actually reviewing the evidence or hearsay? The "they don't have any" is a clear exaggeration. They have no less because they're using the same observable world as evolutionists.


Well, I've spoken to lots of creationists and I have yet to see any actual evidence presented by one. I see assertion, fallacy and rhetoric, but never evidence. If you feel that you have some, please let me know as I'm always open to seeing evidence.




> Here we go again - the "hard evidence" position. Is that all reality is to you - that which you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell?


 **edit**Trying to posit a supernatural being on the basis that the alternative is only physical things Art, music, even.... heck, we're in a literature forum - not having a fairy in the sky doesn't diminish anything apart from church coffers.




> When your lover says "I love you" to you, you cannot verify that s/he is telling the truth - you take it on faith, you assume (based on what you know, what you believe, what you wish) that those words are true. When you get married, you have no verifiable "proof" that your spouse will keep his/her vows - you assume s/he will do so and you will continue to do until you get "evidence" to the contrary.


Do you guys learn this by rote?

I've seen all these **edit** questions before. They make no sense, see what I stated above. Also, just before you get too stuck on love and marriage - have a look at divorce statistics for christians. Hint: it isn't pretty.




> OK - so books and articles have been written expressing a different opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean that my argument doesn't exist anymore - it means that someone else doesn't agree with it. Two interpretations exist - OK - now what?


On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.

On the other, wild assertions a series of texts known collectively as the "bible" and a total lack of facts and evidence.

Again, if you think there are any facts at all which shows that creationism isn't just a fairytale, let me know.

**edit**




> billyjack's comment that nothing exists outside the universe implies that the universe generated itself. That is impossible. I detect some condescension in your final comment, but I'll ignore it for now.


This is always the hardest for christians to understand - the need to replace "X" with "godidit". Unfortunately, there is no "before the universe" or "outside the universe", it just is what it is. Infinite regress is bunkum. **edit**



> Fine - provide me with your sources and I'll happily retract my statement - since you yourself (I _assume_) would _never_ concede an argument without "hard evidence" - right? Otherwise you're asking me to _assume_ that you're trustworthy. So let's have your hard evidence that contradicts the numbers I posted.


This is a really good place to start as it clearly shows how the algorithm relates to evolution and pretty much proves that evolution works, mathematically and physically.

As you will note, the chances of intermediate species due to evolution is 99.999999999927942&#37; likely to be correct. 

I'm quite happy to back up every statement with factual details. 




> Borel was a mathematician.


Maybe he should have spent more time playing poker. 

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;352561]Here: "However, the initial difficulties of evolutionary theory so clearly laid out in many books, pale to insignificance when faced with the heroic difficulty of finally evolving a man. The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000—which Borel’s law says is no chance at all.14 (See below.) Indeed, a chance so small is not even conceivable. This is a figure with 2 billion zeroes after it and would require some ten thousand books, of one hundred and fifty pages just to write it out."
from _What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon_

Now I understand. That is an outrageous lie. I have no idea who "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon are, but I obviously know who Sagan and Crick were and I can assure you that if either of them were alive and that comment attributed to them, they would be seeing "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon in a court, suing them for a number with pages full of zeroes on it. 

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but those people are plain lying. Ask either of them where Sagan or Crick said any such thing. Either the words have been twisted totally out of context or they have been made up. Suggesting that either of them thought the chances of evolution working as it has being small, is a lie. No grey area, a lie.

Francis Crick won a Nobel Prize, for his work for crying out loud. You yourself point out that small chance odds are unlikely - you think the Nobel Institute hands out prizes to complete idiots?




> So you say. Feel free to commence with the "demonstration" as to the "wrongness" of those numbers (which Carl Sagan - does he count as evolution scientist? - seems to have echoed above).


Ditto.




> Not at all. You and I are arguing from two different presuppositional bases: yours says that there is no such being as God; as such, all your arguments and conclusions are stemming from that foundation.


Another Jack Chick tract-like statement. Demonstrably false. I am an atheist because the argument, the evidence and the likelihood of "god" existing are along the lines of those you and Borel are so enamoured of.

Saying that I started with a null hypothesis is nonsense.




> In contrast, I am operating from the foundation that God is real and that He did all the creating; as such, all my arguments are stemming from that foundational conclusion.


Whereas your admission that you start with, "godidit" pretty much means where I know your "argument" is going to end up.




> Don't act like you're any different; you've _chosen_ a humanist foundation to argue from - therefore there is no "evidence" that I could give you that would change your position any more than you could change mine


Demonstrably incorrect.

I am on record in many places as stating that if I were to be given one - get that one; singular - piece of actual evidence as to a god's existence, I would be changing to a worshipper of that god immediately.




> - the "evidence" you so love to tout is made meaningful by the frame within which you have placed it; inside my frame (one dictated by an all-powerful being), science's best work are merely good guesses and speculations


No, that's precisely what they're not. This is where religion really loses the plot, teaching you fallacies like this.

If christianity had even quarter of a clue, it would embrace science. Science, philosophy, you name it, every human endeavour wirth its salt started a sa result of religion. Not god/s, but religion. The bad news is that as science looked for god, they found answers which pointed to "not god". The churches have never got over it. You're being taught stuff by complete idiots by the sound of it. Science and mathematics deal in facts. 1 + 1 really does = 2. we're not living in _The Matrix_, we're living in a real world. If, at some stage, that real world shows up evidence pointing to "god", I'll buy it. There hasn't been any yet.




> The complexity of DNA is likened to the complexity of a computer program - computer programs do not write themselves - a designer does.


Haha! Finish off with the computer argument! An improvement on bananas, I guess.

Why didn't refrigerators evolve? They are nowhere near as complex as DNA!

That is like asking me what two times green equals - it's a nothing statement which just emphasises the complete lack of evidence, commonsense, logic or facts surrounding the ID **edit*.* If the best analogy is to compare rocks and watermelons, evolutionary science is safe.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well, I've spoken to lots of creationists and I have yet to see any actual evidence presented by one. I see assertion, fallacy and rhetoric, but never evidence. If you feel that you have some, please let me know as I'm always open to seeing evidence.


If I come across some, I'll send it your way - but would you even take it seriously? I don't tend to engage in the "battling evidence" game because I think "evidence" comes in a number of categories; some categories are irrefutable facts; other categories involve "reasonable hypotheses," "logical conclusions" and/or "facts" that require _interpretation_. As such, complete certainty as to the "truth" of certain types of evidence is contingent upon probability - and probability is not certainty. That is primarily what I'm arguing. Evolution - _in the absence of the existence of God_ - is perfectly reasonable because it is the best hypothesis that explains our existence. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the logic of evolution - but that "logic" only holds water if I approach it from outside the framework of believing in a Divine Being.




> Trying to posit a supernatural being on the basis that the alternative is only physical things is nuts. Art, music, even.... heck, we're in a literature forum - not having a fairy in the sky doesn't diminish anything apart from church coffers.


Your response reveals that you did not read my post very carefully. I did not suggest anything about the existence of God - I asked you if you judged the contents of reality based only upon that which is observable/experiencial - and you didn't answer the question. I'd prefer an _answer_ rather than your attempts to belittle my questions.





> Do you guys learn this by rote?


Not that I'm aware of.




> I've seen all these meaningless questions before. They make no sense, see what I stated above. Also, just before you get too stuck on love and marriage - have a look at divorce statistics for christians. Hint: it isn't pretty.


Deflection. The example is valid - and if it's not, you have failed to explain why it's not. Your second comment is a _non sequiter_ and has nothing to do with my posted comment.





> On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.


Bravo - and has all of that "evidence" stood the test of time? Or has some of it required revision because - oops! - we discovered it was _wrong_.




> On the other, wild assertions a series of texts known collectively as the "bible" and a total lack of facts and evidence.


Tit-for-tat: I've heard this tired charge a hundred times from other atheists. I'll quote you: 




> Do you guys learn this by rote?


The Bible wasn't written to perform as a science text-book. Books are written with a particular purpose/intent and audience. The Bible was written as a revelation of God's character. God, apparently, was not as concerned that human beings comprehend how He created what He created. Sorry.




> Again, if you think there are any facts at all which shows that creationism isn't just a fairytale, let me know.


Any "facts" I might offer will be meaningless inside your frame of reference - just as my frame of reference makes many of your "facts" seem absurd to me - despite their status as "hard facts" from scientific investigation.




> This is always the hardest for christians to understand - the need to replace "X" with "godidit". Unfortunately, there is no "before the universe" or "outside the universe", it just is what it is. Infinite regress is bunkum.


I'd like you to explain precisely how infinite regression (which involves the existence of _actual infinities_ (which do not exist in reality)) is "bunkum" (is that a scientific term?). Instead of telling me where I should go to post, why don't you educate me by answering my questions? Explain to me where the universe came from, please.






> This is a really good place to start as it clearly shows how the algorithm relates to evolution and pretty much proves that evolution works, mathematically and physically.
> 
> As you will note, the chances of intermediate species due to evolution is 99.999999999927942&#37; likely to be correct.


I'm sorry - I read through the link and saw nothing about odds or numbers. I saw a lot of talk about transitional life forms but that's it. Was that supposed to answer my question? It didn't. My original statement had to do with the mathematical odds of evolution. Care to try again?




> I'm quite happy to back up every statement with factual details.


That's a good thing.




> Maybe he should have spent more time playing poker.


Maybe. Maybe not.




> Now I understand. That is an outrageous lie. I have no idea who "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon are, but I obviously know who Sagan and Crick were and I can assure you that if either of them were alive and that comment attributed to them, they would be seeing "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon in a court, suing them for a number with pages full of zeroes on it.


OK - then could you direct me to the source that would show that the Drs are lying - something more _substantial_ than just your _opinion_?




> I know you'll find this hard to believe, but those people are plain lying. Ask either of them where Sagan or Crick said any such thing. Either the words have been twisted totally out of context or they have been made up. Suggesting that either of them thought the chances of evolution working as it has being small, is a lie. No grey area, a lie.


I don't need to defend the doctors - they can defend themselves. I'd like you to show me how they're misquoting/lying, please.




> Francis Crick won a Nobel Prize, for his work for crying out loud. You yourself point out that small chance odds are unlikely - you think the Nobel Institute hands out prizes to complete idiots?


Not at all - believing in evolution does not indicate "idiocy" at all. I think very intelligent people accept it as true.





> Another Jack Chick tract-like statement. Demonstrably false. I am an atheist because the argument, the evidence and the likelihood of "god" existing are along the lines of those you and Borel are so enamoured of.


How is my suggestion of presuppositional foundations "demonstrably false"? I'd like you to "demonstrate" (as your verb implies) how my suggestion is false. Atheism becomes reasonable once one rejects the reality of God. You must reject God first in order to embrace atheism.




> Saying that I started with a null hypothesis is nonsense.


The only nonsense that I can see here is your refusal to accept that human beings are incapable of full objectivity - and that we are all subject to various "filters" through which we process what we call reality.





> Whereas your admission that you start with, "godidit" pretty much means where I know your "argument" is going to end up.


Congratulations.




> Demonstrably incorrect.
> 
> I am on record in many places as stating that if I were to be given one - get that one; singular - piece of actual evidence as to a god's existence, I would be changing to a worshipper of that god immediately.


"Demonstrate" away, then. "Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You cannot have an automechanic give you psychological counseling. Likewise - the spiritual reality of God cannot be discerned via the "objective" tools of scientific inquiry.




> No, that's precisely what they're not. This is where religion really loses the plot, teaching you fallacies like this.


Maybe I overstate the speculative nature of science's discoveries, but the main thrust of my post stands: facts make sense inside a framework.





> If christianity had even quarter of a clue, it would embrace science. Science, philosophy, you name it, every human endeavour wirth its salt started a sa result of religion. Not god/s, but religion. The bad news is that as science looked for god, they found answers which pointed to "not god". The churches have never got over it. You're being taught stuff by complete idiots by the sound of it. Science and mathematics deal in facts. 1 + 1 really does = 2. we're not living in _The Matrix_, we're living in a real world. If, at some stage, that real world shows up evidence pointing to "god", I'll buy it. There hasn't been any yet.


We don't reject science; we question its conclusions when they come into conflict with what the Bible teaches (especially when the conclusions are based on _hypothesis_ and _probablility_ [probability with massive odds]). From your current position, evidence of God would be meaningless to you. You have to "open" to the idea of God for Him to even start becoming real to you.





> Haha! Finish off with the computer argument! An improvement on bananas, I guess.
> Why didn't refrigerators evolve? They are nowhere near as complex as DNA!


Once again, you've avoided addressing the issue. For someone with such a "superior" position - one bolstered by mountains of evidence, you are surprisingly unwilling to answer my questions. Why is that? Is dismissing questions some sort of effective arguing technique? Can't you deal with the points I'm making? Your making humor at my expense does little to advance your argument because I'm seeking answers.




> That is like asking me what two times green equals - it's a nothing statement which just emphasises the complete lack of evidence, commonsense, logic or facts surrounding the ID. If the best analogy is to compare rocks and watermelons, evolutionary science is safe.


Ditto here. You've not addressed the point - only deflected it off somewhere else. Instead of crowing about how silly, predictable or whatever my points are, why don't you simply provide me with the counter-argument or explanation that would show me the error of my thinking?

----------


## Scheherazade

*Warning

Please do not use inflammatory language in your arguments to belittle other members personally or their arguments/beliefs.*

----------


## billyjack

> Here, let me help you a bit. "Magic" has nothing to do with God - in fact, if you do your research, you will find that "magic" is the human attempt to imitate the creative power of God. The existence of magic actually alludes to the existence of God via its attempt to mimic His power.
> .


1) mimicking the creative power of god as magic. . .is the bible magic then? man created it, but it mimicks god...

i could attempt to mimmick big foot. that doesnt make him real. alluding to existence does not prove existence.

----------


## watkinsguy

no comment lol... I think Red has this one  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 1) mimicking the creative power of god as magic. . .is the bible magic then? man created it, but it mimicks god...


No No No: the Bible does not "mimic" God - it _reveals_ Him and His character, His divine plan for the redemption of mankind.




> i could attempt to mimmick big foot. that doesnt make him real. alluding to existence does not prove existence.


I didn't post that comment as a definitive proof of the existence of God - and I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept it - but from inside the presuppositional framework of a believer, that's what magic is.

----------


## andave_ya

I've been reading the latest posts on the thread and would like to join in the discussion, if I may. Most of this stuff goes way over my head but the evolution/creation debate is something that interests me intensely. I've presented speeches and essays on the topic from the creationist standpoint; I am a creationist and a traditional Christian.

I won't try to debate on the philosophical level because I am in no way qualified to speak on that level.




> Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.


May I have names please? I'd like to research that.




> On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.


What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?




> Nor did they ever. Eveolutionary changes happen over millennia, not months. Plus, if you go and check some actual facts, you will be able to see that we do indeed have physical evidence of mutations, but in lower animals, which are able to evolve more readily thanks to their basic structure. Again, this supports evolution, not the other way round.


Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?




> "Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be.


I've never heard it said so succinctly before; may I quote you?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?


??? What about them?




> Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?


Yes, they are only very rarely beneficial, but the ones that are beneficial tend to stick around. This is why evolution takes so long. As for specifics: HIV, which I imagine you've heard of, speciated within the last century as a result of beneficial mutation (beneficial to the virus, that is, not to us).

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Yes, they are only very rarely beneficial, but the ones that are beneficial tend to stick around. This is why evolution takes so long. As for specifics: HIV, which I imagine you've heard of, speciated within the last century as a result of beneficial mutation (beneficial to the virus, that is, not to us).


This kind of "one step forward two steps" progression of mutations seems mighty questionable: if the majority of mutations are negative (as you seem to be saying here), then how is it logical that a minority of positive mutations could sustain life? Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form). I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).

Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about _perspective_, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.

----------


## The Atheist

> If I come across some, I'll send it your way - but would you even take it seriously? I don't tend to engage in the "battling evidence" game because I think "evidence" comes in a number of categories; some categories are irrefutable facts; other categories involve "reasonable hypotheses," "logical conclusions" and/or "facts" that require _interpretation_. As such, complete certainty as to the "truth" of certain types of evidence is contingent upon probability - and probability is not certainty. That is primarily what I'm arguing. Evolution - _in the absence of the existence of God_ - is perfectly reasonable because it is the best hypothesis that explains our existence. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the logic of evolution - but that "logic" only holds water if I approach it from outside the framework of believing in a Divine Being.


Well, I see your problem entirely.

You note in several places that you're unable to accept facts unless they fit into your god-centric view of the universe. Accordingly, why are we even discussing this? If I point you to facts which you refuse to acknowledge, why bother seeking them?

Evidence only comes in two varieties - that which has been tested and re-tested by peers and become accepted and that which hasn't.




> Your response reveals that you did not read my post very carefully. I did not suggest anything about the existence of God - I asked you if you judged the contents of reality based only upon that which is observable/experiencial - and you didn't answer the question. I'd prefer an _answer_ rather than your attempts to belittle my questions.


I did answer it, but I will again, briefly.

There is more to reality than observation. Any slight understanding of quantum physics would show this. Did you/are you doing science at school? These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.

Reality is a combination of science and philosophy. Obviously the philosophical points cannot be proven, but the science can. When the two complement each other, we find truth. When they contradict, we either lean to the scientific, or we deny facts.




> Deflection. The example is valid - and if it's not, you have failed to explain why it's not. Your second comment is a _non sequiter_ and has nothing to do with my posted comment.


Completely incorrect.

My point was that love is fickle, and demonstrably so. People marry "till death us do part" then get divorced. Love is a chemical reaction in your brain + habit. Nothing more.

Using "love" as any basis for faith is unenforceable. 




> Bravo - and has all of that "evidence" stood the test of time? Or has some of it required revision because - oops! - we discovered it was _wrong_.


See, this is where you go wrong. The fact that science has been wrong and had to change is a strength, not a weakness. Science changes with evidence. It is reviewed and constantly updated as new discoveries are made.

Does religion?




> The Bible wasn't written to perform as a science text-book. Books are written with a particular purpose/intent and audience. The Bible was written as a revelation of God's character. God, apparently, was not as concerned that human beings comprehend how He created what He created. Sorry.


But you need to remember that science grew out of man's quest for answers. To deny science is to deny the bible.




> Any "facts" I might offer will be meaningless inside your frame of reference - just as my frame of reference makes many of your "facts" seem absurd to me - despite their status as "hard facts" from scientific investigation.


No. I have stated times without number that I am open to evidence.




> I'd like you to explain precisely how infinite regression (which involves the existence of _actual infinities_ (which do not exist in reality)) is "bunkum" (is that a scientific term?). Instead of telling me where I should go to post, why don't you educate me by answering my questions? Explain to me where the universe came from, please.


I can't. I have no idea, nor do I care. Asking me to explain something which happened 15+ billion years ago, for which an actual science has been around for a century or so isn't feasible.

Given time, there will be answers, but to expect one now doesn't work. If lack of knowledge of what caused the big bang leads you to god, that's fine, but you have no need to ignore all of the facts we know about the universe and life since then.




> I'm sorry - I read through the link and saw nothing about odds or numbers. I saw a lot of talk about transitional life forms but that's it. Was that supposed to answer my question? It didn't. My original statement had to do with the mathematical odds of evolution. Care to try again?


OK. Because you asked, I had assumed you would be able to do advanced calculus. If you could, the algorithm can be gleaned fromt he results there. If you can't anything I post is going to be meaningless, and I can't post LaTex superscript here, so I can't give you the equation.

If you are able to work with calculus and are likely to believe the results, please PM me and I will send you more data, but please don't waste my time if you won't understand it.




> OK - then could you direct me to the source that would show that the Drs are lying - something more _substantial_ than just your _opinion_?


Ditto, once you can work out the algorithm for yourself, you'll see that they are not only lying, but stating enormous lies.

No opinion involved, the facts are there, if you choose to accept them.




> I don't need to defend the doctors - they can defend themselves. I'd like you to show me how they're misquoting/lying, please.


Ditto.




> Not at all - believing in evolution does not indicate "idiocy" at all. I think very intelligent people accept it as true.


I guess that depends on your view of "intelligent". To me, an "intelligent" person will look at evidence and be able to separate fact from fantasy. I know no intelligent people - on that basis - who do not believe that evolution is real. Many of those who accept the fact of evolution are christians.




> How is my suggestion of presuppositional foundations "demonstrably false"? I'd like you to "demonstrate" (as your verb implies) how my suggestion is false. Atheism becomes reasonable once one rejects the reality of God. You must reject God first in order to embrace atheism.


No, you simply do not understand.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god - a position that no, or insufficient evidence is available to support belief in god. Lack of god is a *result* of a search for evidence, not a starting point. You yourself admit that everything starts with a god. I, on the other hand start with an open page, which may include god. As the page is filled up and none of it points to "god", I become an atheist.

Atheism is not a reverse religion.

Atheism is reasonable on its own with nil suppositions and assumptions.




> The only nonsense that I can see here is your refusal to accept that human beings are incapable of full objectivity - and that we are all subject to various "filters" through which we process what we call reality.


Mate, you need to realise that _The Matrix_ was only a movie. Reality is real. How you perceive it does not affect how it actually is. Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat _et al_.




> "Demonstrate" away, then. "Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You cannot have an automechanic give you psychological counseling. Likewise - the spiritual reality of God cannot be discerned via the "objective" tools of scientific inquiry.



The Babel Fish! 

Instead of giving you a pat answer to your pat comment, I'll ask a question:

If everything is part of god's master plan, why do you see the need to try to tell other people about your disbelief of science? If it's all god's master plan, then he must have wanted us to accept scientific fact.

Or are all scientists agents of Satan? 




> Maybe I overstate the speculative nature of science's discoveries, but the main thrust of my post stands: facts make sense inside a framework.


Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't




> We don't reject science; we question its conclusions when they come into conflict with what the Bible teaches (especially when the conclusions are based on _hypothesis_ and _probablility_ [probability with massive odds]). From your current position, evidence of God would be meaningless to you. You have to "open" to the idea of God for Him to even start becoming real to you.


See, again, you're dismissing facts which don't gel with your god. I can't change that, but it saddens me.

I will reiterate my comments about the odds, however.

Please, either learn calculus and work it out yourself, or don't quote false statements.




> Once again, you've avoided addressing the issue. For someone with such a "superior" position - one bolstered by mountains of evidence, you are surprisingly unwilling to answer my questions. Why is that? Is dismissing questions some sort of effective arguing technique? Can't you deal with the points I'm making? Your making humor at my expense does little to advance your argument because I'm seeking answers.


Given your own statements that facts which don't fit with your view of god can be ignored, I don't believe you.

I don't believe you are seeking answers at all. I believe you've been taught a load of fallacies by a pastor and have come in here to parrot them. Not one comment of your so far has suggested that you are seeking to learn anything at all and I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.

In the case of why a computer program is cunningly designed and life isn't, you can only get trite answers, because it's not a real question. It is, as I said, like asking what blue squared is. The two have nothing to do with each other. In what way does a computer program resemble life? Both are complex, so couldn't exist without design? That's wrong and you know it.




> Ditto here. You've not addressed the point - only deflected it off somewhere else. Instead of crowing about how silly, predictable or whatever my points are, why don't you simply provide me with the counter-argument or explanation that would show me the error of my thinking?


Impossible. I point you to facts and you ignore them. I have tried to address the point and you fail to spend any time looking for answers yourself. You cannot be helped because, in reality, you don't want to be. Your faith is a little shaky and for some reason you seem to think that coming in here and denying evidence will strengthen your faith. I've indulged your fantasy long enough.

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

----------


## The Atheist

> Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?


Did you go to the link I showed Red?

As someone already noted, the fact that mutations are rarely beneficial is pretty obvious - those which aren't become extinct and those which are survive.

Given that you're a creationist, how do you explain all of the extinct species?

Edit - as to names of people to read to refute the wildly incorrect odds quoted, I suggest starting with Francis Crick himself and read as much of his work as you can

----------


## Redzeppelin

> These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.
> 
> 
> Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat _et al_.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.
> 
> ...


The boldfaced line is a _stereotype_ and is in poor form coming from an educated person.

I'll have to pass on your offer of "education," thanks. But, in view of your generosity, I will reciprocate: if you ever want to truly understand the God who rules the universe, feel free to send me a PM and I will be happy to lift you out of your elementary understanding of the Almighty. It's the least I could do. 

Cheers.  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form).


Yes, some mutations do result in the death of the individual organism, thereby removing that mutation from the gene pool. However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism that it occurs in has (by definition) an evolutionary advantage, and therefore that mutation spreads throughout the gene pool. Mutations occur in individuals, not species. A harmful mutation in one individual has almost no chance of causing the extinction of the entire species (which is what I assume you mean by "the death of the lifeform").



> I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).


Because when a beneficial mutation does occur, that gene is rewarded with more copies of itself; and when a harmful mutation does occur, the gene in question is punished by extinction. The odds are indeed long, but one-in-a-million odds aren't so bad when you're allowed several billion trials and several billion years with which to work.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about perspective, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.


Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.



Fair enough; I kind of sensed that the point I was making would result in this answer.

----------


## andave_ya

I read the article you suggested, The Atheist, but before I began I was inclined to doubt its veracity because it's a Wikipedia article and anyone, trained and untrained, is free to get in there and edit it. The article itself was full of unecessary jargon and I would like to know who is the "we" of whom the author speaks.
Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.

For me, the extinction of the dinosaurs is explained by this verse from the Bible:




> In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:11


Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct. 


I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.




> What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man? 
> 
> ??? What about them?


The Atheist said we have hundreds of years of scientifically proven fact. The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community. 





> To deny science is to deny the bible.


That's creationist thinking and I think Redzeppelin already said that the Bible and science are not incompatible. Did you mean to say it that way or did I misunderstand you? Sorry.




> Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't


Precisely! Now how does that fit in with the whole forged embryo mess?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.


Well, the jury is still out on Java Man (or men, rather, there were two different specimens), but it certainly wasn't an intentional forgery. Cro-magnons and Neanderthals aren't individual finds, but rather entire species. Neaderthals aren't a missing link between anything, they're simply antoher species of ape, now extinct. No word on either of those species having been forgeries. You're postulating a rather large conspiracy if you claim that they are.

The "missing link" betwen humans and other apes is not a scientifically valid concept, and is in any case unnecesary, as we can compare human and chimpanzee genomes to determine common ancestry.

----------


## billyjack

> Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.
> 
> 
> I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?


1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me). 

2) so people lived for 300 years on average pre-floud thanks to the climate? the world as it is today is full of all the climates on the spectrum. no one lives past 120. our medicine is head and shoulders above the medicine of old too. so why would people live longer back then?

----------


## Reccura

Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).


The return of the "missing link." I've been doing so thinking and reading on this subject and I think the dismissal of the importance of transitional/intermediate forms is more important than (at least some) evolutionists seem to want to admit. First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of _singular_. Since most living creatures (including microscopic creatures) are composed of multiple intricate/interrelated systems that often must function _together_ to function _at all_, then it seems logical to assume that there should be many many transitional forms to allow for the multiple alterations that many (if not _all_ ) forms of life had to go through to become what they currently are. Since the process apparently went on for millenium after millenium, it seems logical that the fossil record should (_must_) be littered with numerous transitional forms to indicate the various stages that the creature went through. I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions. I get cuppajoe's argument that "common ancestry" can be established, but the "6 degrees of separation" phenomenon pretty much establishes that being related isn't necessarily a _linear_ progression (as I think he's implying).

----------


## The Atheist

> Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct. 
> 
> 
> I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.


Same applies as I said to Red.

If you're actually able to believe that a global flood happened, then you clearly have no knowledge of reason, science, or physics and no understanding of what facts or evidence actually are.

There is a level of wilful disregard for scientific fact at which I have no interest. Belief in a the Noah's Ark/global flood far surpasses my tolerance level.

I hope you have a pleasant discussion.

----------


## The Atheist

> Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)


And yet all scientific evidence points to ever-increasing longevity of humans. Funny how all of the remains, bodies from peat-bogs and tombs, which match, or pre-date biblical times have been under 70 years of age at death.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Hi there, Mr. Atheist - 

I think it was Einstein who said (roughly paraphrased) that "creativity is more important than intellect."

Trust me, we'll enjoy our discussion.

----------


## billyjack

> . I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions. I get cuppajoe's argument that "common ancestry" can be established, but the "6 degrees of separation" phenomenon pretty much establishes that being related isn't necessarily a _linear_ progression (as I think he's implying).


agreed. the phrase should have been missing link(s). evolutionary evidence has come up with forms of our ancestors carbon dated to 4.4 million years ago: Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien, us. there arent millions of forms between where man's ancestor split from the primates because small changes in each type's body chemistry don't neccessitate an entirely knew type of animal. for example, modern humans have infinite numbers of bodily differences within races, but we still call all of them humans. major differences like body composition and size as well as bone structure, brain size, reliance on olfactory sensing, and tool making are what seperate the types of our ancestors. as far as the relation of these forms being more similar to kevin bacon's relation to winona judd rather than your relation to your great grandfather, just check the carbon dating evidence.

----------


## Pendragon

Well, I personally see no reason for me to stir the pot further than anything that I have said before, which is that I believe that God created the Earth and everything in it and we evolved from that point into what we are today. I cannot believe in chance as the start of all things given that you must give it infinite tries to make it work. I _choose_ to believe in God. You may choose to believe in whatsoever you wish. I do not choose to waste my time in trivial arguments. I think we should start taking care of this planet before we lose our home, no matter how we believe it came to be here. May God bless everyone one of you, even those who do not believe in Him. Adieu.

Pen

----------


## Redzeppelin

> agreed. the phrase should have been missing link(s). evolutionary evidence has come up with forms of our ancestors carbon dated to 4.4 million years ago: Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien, us. there arent millions of forms between where man's ancestor split from the primates because small changes in each type's body chemistry don't neccessitate an entirely knew type of animal. for example, modern humans have infinite numbers of bodily differences within races, but we still call all of them humans. major differences like body composition and size as well as bone structure, brain size, reliance on olfactory sensing, and tool making are what seperate the types of our ancestors. as far as the relation of these forms being more similar to kevin bacon's relation to winona judd rather than your relation to your great grandfather, just check the carbon dating evidence.


There are creatures in nature that have no know predecessors - evolution cannot account for them. As well, there are characteristics of many creatures that - if they had to occur over millenia with multiple tries (since the majority of mutations are harmful) - that would have effectively destroyed the species before it could have "learned" to alter itself. And, how does an entity like a plant "learn" or "realize" it needs to mutate? How - even at a molecular level - do these things "figure out" and "instigate" such change?

----------


## billyjack

> There are creatures in nature that have no know predecessors - evolution cannot account for them. As well, there are characteristics of many creatures that - if they had to occur over millenia with multiple tries (since the majority of mutations are harmful) - that would have effectively destroyed the species before it could have "learned" to alter itself. And, how does an entity like a plant "learn" or "realize" it needs to mutate? How - even at a molecular level - do these things "figure out" and "instigate" such change?


no known predessors could mean two things: none have been found with fossil evidence OR this creature is so ancient and successful that its been basically the same for millions of years (crocs)--so there really is no evidence that is unearthable, its buried too deep. 

species don't learn to alter themselves anymore than you learn to breath. it just happens genetically. you didnt have to think you hair red did you? (assuming that by red zepellin your hair is red, sorry if i'm way off). species aren't destroyed when a negative mutation takes place. instead, that individual with the bad mutations chances of reproducing are reduced because it wont get mated with or it dies before it can get laid. 

same goes with plants. they don't learn anything. they just do it. how did you learn to open and close your hand? you didn't. you just do it. same with plants. mutations happen for 2 reasons: inheritance and acquired. for our purposes, the latter is what we need to focus on. it happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division. in this case, the cell doesnt know what to do. when this happens, the cell must guess at it. some guesses are good, some bad. but the cell doesnt need to "Know" or "figure out" anymore than an acorn needs to figure out how to become an oak, it just does it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> no known predessors could mean two things: none have been found with fossil evidence OR this creature is so ancient and successful that its been basically the same for millions of years (crocs)--so there really is no evidence that is unearthable, its buried too deep. 
> 
> species don't learn to alter themselves anymore than you learn to breath. *it just happens genetically.* you didnt have to think you hair red did you? (assuming that by red zepellin your hair is red, sorry if i'm way off). species aren't destroyed when a negative mutation takes place. instead, that individual with the bad mutations chances of reproducing are reduced because it wont get mated with or it dies before it can get laid. 
> 
> same goes with plants. they don't learn anything. *they just do it*. how did you learn to open and close your hand? you didn't. you just do it. same with plants. mutations happen for 2 reasons: inheritance and acquired. for our purposes, the latter is what we need to focus on. it happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division. in this case, the cell doesnt know what to do. when this happens, *the cell must guess at it*. some guesses are good, some bad. but the cell doesnt need to "Know" or "figure out" anymore than an acorn needs to figure out how to become an oak, *it just does it.*
> 
> Bolding by Redzeppelin



The stuff I bold-faced is the problem that evolution cannot answer. Nothing "just does" anything; if life is accidental, then we need an explanation as to why creatures (especially plants) altered. Why must a cell "guess" and what says it should even have such a capability as the ability to do "trial and error" problem solving? That's what evolution cannot answer. We cannot go from the first protein (or whatever it was) into making alterations that help an entity survive without some sort of explanation as to why the thing would even _try_ to survive at all. It "just happens" is no more credible than the idea of a Divine Being creating life.

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

your not going to get brilliant answers from an online forum, so i suggest that you dont use this discussion to bolster belief in creation or evolution. but, there are particles called free radicals which are discussed in gerontology that might be what causes alterations in DNA. cells dont know to improve it happens on accident. then those creatures which gain good changes survive to reproduce more and so do their descendants until the become the common species.

----------


## billyjack

> The stuff I bold-faced is the problem that evolution cannot answer. Nothing "just does" anything; if life is accidental, then we need an explanation as to why creatures (especially plants) altered. Why must a cell "guess" and what says it should even have such a capability as the ability to do "trial and error" problem solving? That's what evolution cannot answer. We cannot go from the first protein (or whatever it was) into making alterations that help an entity survive without some sort of explanation as to why the thing would even _try_ to survive at all. It "just happens" is no more credible than the idea of a Divine Being creating life.


everything just does everything. your hair is part of you, right. do you think about growing it. no, it just does it. just doing it does not mean accidental nor does it mean the "just doing" is not understood. it just means it can't be described effectively with words. you understand how to grow your hair, i know this because you do it. of course you can't explain how you do this, but you do it. same goes with opening and closing your hand. how do you do it? please don't try to explain. you'd have to type for days just to explain exactly what is going on to move your pinky. 

why wouldnt a cell guess? what about when a cell's supposed to take a step with its left foot, figuratively speaking (cells have no feet), and there's no left foot there. . .well then, the cell with have to improvise. it will have to hop on its right foot so to speak. 

cells arent thinking in terms of "trial and error." that is how we interpret their behavior from our standpoint. each cell is simply doing what it does. saying we lack a knowledge of cell "thought" isnt a hole in the evolutionary argument. its just you being anthropocentric. we know tons of stuff about human pregancy, but that doesnt mean we know if the sperm who almost made it to the egg feels bummed out. 

thing is, "it just happens" happens all the time, every day, every moment. it just happens is saying we can't desribe it, but there it is. god creating the universe has only one of these "it just happens qualities." the exact opposite of "it just happens" actually: you can describe it, but there its not. 

i'd rather have my beliefs lacking in description than lacking in existence. words are fickle anyways

----------


## The Atheist

> Hi there, Mr. Atheist - 
> 
> I think it was Einstein who said (roughly paraphrased) that "creativity is more important than intellect."
> 
> Trust me, we'll enjoy our discussion.


We won't - I've done it countless times before and the rare instance of a person starting to think is far outweighed by the refusal of the majority to use their brains.

Pass, thanks.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We won't - I've done it countless times before and the rare instance of a person starting to think is far outweighed by the refusal of the majority to use their brains.
> 
> Pass, thanks.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. We'll try to muddle through as best we can.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Hold on, I do believe we're on to something:




> First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of singular.


As any credible biologist will tell you, there most certainly is not.




> Since most living creatures (including microscopic creatures) are composed of multiple intricate/interrelated systems that often must function together to function at all, then it seems logical to assume that there should be many many transitional forms to allow for the multiple alterations that many (if not all ) forms of life had to go through to become what they currently are. Since the process apparently went on for millenium after millenium, it seems logical that the fossil record should (must) be littered with numerous transitional forms to indicate the various stages that the creature went through.


Wonderful. This is exactly what the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts.




> I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions.


Of course not every transitional form can be dug up. Fossilization is relatively rare, and many entire species have no doubt gone extinct without leaving any evidence that we can turn up. However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot. Here's a severly abbreviated list on the wiki. Here is several hundred pages worth of transitional forms just for certain fish, and if you read the entire thing I will be very impressed.

Saying that the theory of evolution is unsaisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Of course not every transitional form can be dug up. Fossilization is relatively rare, and many entire species have no doubt gone extinct without leaving any evidence that we can turn up. However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot. Here's a severly abbreviated list on the wiki. Here is several hundred pages worth of transitional forms just for certain fish, and if you read the entire thing I will be very impressed.
> 
> Saying that the theory of evolution is unsaisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.



I'm aware that transitional fossils (or at least what is interpreted to be transitional fossils) exist - but I'm questioning the reality that the necessary changes required for _every_ creature to go through for _every_ specific modification that allows that creature to do what it specifically (and often _uniquely_) can do, should point to an _endless supply_ of transitional fossils. Even if you argue that away, we still have to deal with the fact that there are certain characteristics of creatures that could not have developed slowly or by steps because either a) the lack of this characteristic would have resulted in the death of the creature because the characteristic if fundamental to the creature's life, or b) the lethal nature of some of the creature's defense systems would have resulted in the death of the creature during prior "flawed" mutations.

As much as I'd like to impress you, like yourself, I've got far too much reading and - as a liberal arts guy - I have extreme difficulty wading through dense scientific texts. I'll peruse a bit, but I've got papers to grade.

And yes, I may be arguing from ignorance, but how is evolution's arguing from a serious lack of said evidence any more credible? The theory is touted as being "factual" by many - yet the existence of a large and convincing body of transitional form evidence is incomplete - and perhaps, at best, merely _suggestive_ rather than _conclusive_.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> 'm aware that transitional fossils (or at least what is interpreted to be transitional fossils) exist - but I'm questioning the reality that the necessary changes required for every creature to go through for every specific modification that allows that creature to do what it specifically (and often uniquely) can do, should point to an endless supply of transitional fossils.


In a perfect world, everything that died would be fossilised, and you would have your endless supply. The world, sadly, is quite imperfect and almost nothing gets fossilised.




> Even if you argue that away, we still have to deal with the fact that there are certain characteristics of creatures that could not have developed slowly or by steps because either a) the lack of this characteristic would have resulted in the death of the creature because the characteristic if fundamental to the creature's life


I'll need an example of a creature that could not possibly survive if one of it's charactaristics were different.




> b) the lethal nature of some of the creature's defense systems would have resulted in the death of the creature during prior "flawed" mutations.


We've been over this. Bad mutation = immediately removed from the gene pool. Good mutation = immediately spreads through the gene pool.

----------


## JGL57

> However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot...Saying that the theory of evolution is unsatisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance...


It occurs to me the following analogy might be helpful to some in understanding this. Let's say your friend has a jigsaw puzzle that is two feet on a side consisting of a thousand pieces, but he keeps 800 of the pieces and give you only 200 to try to do the puzzle.

If you are very clever, you might very well correctly determine where the 200 pieces fit on the board and thus see enough of the picture to determine what the complete picture actually is.

The fossil record is like this (plus there are other lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, e.g., consistency between fossils and geological layers, DNA similarities matching form similarities, consistent radioactive dating, overall redundancy of evidence, etc.).

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In a perfect world, everything that died would be fossilised, and you would have your endless supply. The world, sadly, is quite imperfect and almost nothing gets fossilised.


Then the necessary evidence that would solidly establish evolution is beyond our ability to procure. Is that what you're saying?




> I'll need an example of a creature that could not possibly survive if one of it's charactaristics were different.


The whip scorpion can store a poison inside its body which is 84% acetic acid without dissolving itself. How many tries did that one take, and why would that particular defense arise? How can there be a transistional phase for this modification?

A chameleon without a complete ability to camoflage itself would be much more likely to predation.

Without echolocation, a bat would struggle to feed itself (if at all).

The gastric frog of Australia stops acid production to raise her tadpoles in her stomach. There cannot be transitional forms or else the eggs would be digested.




> We've been over this. Bad mutation = immediately removed from the gene pool. Good mutation = immediately spreads through the gene pool.


But why mutation at all? Am I really to believe that every process that goes on in nature, the human body, the earth is a result of numerous failures? Why should life persist at all? If it only started by chance, and the odds are so largely against its survival, I don't get how people believe that the complex systems that orchestrate nearly every aspect of life are the product of random chance. Lots of time + lots of stuff = life. Really?





> It occurs to me the following analogy might be helpful to some in understanding this. Let's say your friend has a jigsaw puzzle that is two feet on a side consisting of a thousand pieces, but he keeps 800 of the pieces and give you only 200 to try to do the puzzle.
> 
> If you are very clever, you might very well correctly determine where the 200 pieces fit on the board and thus see enough of the picture to determine what the complete picture actually is.
> 
> The fossil record is like this (plus there are other lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, e.g., consistency between fossils and geological layers, DNA similarities matching form similarities, consistent radioactive dating, overall redundancy of evidence, etc.).


Nice analogy - but I don't think we're in disagreement about the fact that nature provides us with an incomplete puzzle in terms of its origins. I think what we disagree upon is what kind of _picture_ the puzzle makes when completed. Evolutionists say that the picture is of blind force, chaos, random chance; Creationists say that the picture is of God.

----------


## billyjack

> Evolutionists say that the picture is of blind force, chaos, random chance; Creationists say that the picture is of God.


sorry to bud in, but i think the picture you painted evolutionist as putting together is a false one. what you call blind force, random chance and chaos would probably be better called ordered chaos or the nature of things. animals and plants werent following set rules, but nor were they acting randomly. they were following insticts which were passed to them from previous generations and some were also following behavior learned from parents or packs during the organisms lifetime. . . these animals and their genes were doing what came natural--surviving. survival, though chance may play a part, can be seen as not chaotic but orderly in that those that adapt, those that learn, those that compete better are more likely to survive.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> sorry to bud in, but i think the picture you painted evolutionist as putting together is a false one. what you call blind force, random chance and chaos would probably be better called ordered chaos or the nature of things.


In the absence of God, all that's left are the things I listed; without an intelligent being all we have is force, chance, arbitrary occurrence.




> animals and plants werent following set rules, but nor were they acting randomly. they were following insticts which were passed to them from previous generations and some were also following behavior learned from parents or packs during the organisms lifetime. . .


And where did those insticts come from? As well, learned behavior cannot be incoporated into the genetic code that controls instinctual behavior.




> these animals and their genes were doing what came natural--surviving. survival, though chance may play a part, can be seen as not chaotic but orderly in that those that adapt, those that learn, those that compete better are more likely to survive.


That's the problem: a God-less universe would be hostile to life; that life arose by chance (and at unbelievable odds) clearly argues against the natural tendency to survive.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Then the necessary evidence that would solidly establish evolution is beyond our ability to procure. Is that what you're saying?


Not at all. We've got quite enough to be able to infer aproximately what's missing from the fossil record, and we can determine common ancestry among still-living creatures in other ways. If we have the fossilized remains of Organism A and Organism E, we can assume that there were living, at some point, transitional forms B, C and D. We might also be able to guess what they look like. If we find fossilized remains of B at some point, and they look something like what we expected to, that reinforces our theory. If not, oh well, the theory wasn't depending on them. If, at that point in the fossil record, we find the fossilized remains of Organism Z, then we have a serious problem on our hands, but that hasn't happened yet.




> The whip scorpion can store a poison inside its body which is 84% acetic acid without dissolving itself. How many tries did that one take, and why would that particular defense arise? How can there be a transistional phase for this modification?
> 
> A chameleon without a complete ability to camoflage itself would be much more likely to predation.
> 
> Without echolocation, a bat would struggle to feed itself (if at all).
> 
> The gastric frog of Australia stops acid production to raise her tadpoles in her stomach. There cannot be transitional forms or else the eggs would be digested.


The pre-scorpion first develops a risistance to some sort of venom that is present in its environment. It then, over time, starts developing the poison in its own body as a defense against being eaten. Nature eventually selects those scorpions which collect the poison in a gland, as opposed to excreting it, because those would be more poisonous, and therefore less likely to be eaten. Eventually, the pre-scorpions develop the ability to eject the poison from their bodies, first as a defense mechanism, and then for the purposes of hunting. Nature selects for those scorpions which can hunt most efectively, and you wind up with something extremely scary.

There are plenty of reptiles who survive without the ability to change colours. The chameleon likely developed that trick out of necessity as his environment became increasingly multi-coloured, likely by flowers competing for the attention of insects.

Bats, despite their reputation, are not blind. Early bats probably hunted in the day, until they were forced by environmental pressures to develop the ability to do so at night. Better hearing is certainly an advantage when you can't see, and the echolocation probably developed in parallel with that.

The frog is an interesting one. Perhaps the ability to turn of the stomach acid developed first, maybe because this particular frog was suceptible to ulcers to the point where it affected its ability to procreate. Raising ones young inside one's self has obvious advantages in terms of chances of passing on one's genes.

I am not saying that this is definitely how these traits evolved, or even that it is probably how those traits evolved. All I'm saying as that, even if you can't imagine transitional forms for some creatures, I certainly can. That doesn't make me right, but it makes it true that transitional forms aren't impossible.




> But why mutation at all?


Because the process by which DNA is replicated is imperfect.




> Am I really to believe that every process that goes on in nature, the human body, the earth is a result of numerous failures?


You've made it quite clear that you refuse to believe that. That's your perogative.




> Why should life persist at all? If it only started by chance, and the odds are so largely against its survival, I don't get how people believe that the complex systems that orchestrate nearly every aspect of life are the product of random chance.


If you are genuinely interested, _Climbing Mount Improbable_ by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. The odds are indeed long, but we've had one sextillion* trails running for 13.7 billion years. Something interesting was bound to come up eventually.


*A rough estimate of the number of planets in the universe

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Not at all. We've got quite enough to be able to infer aproximately what's missing from the fossil record, and we can determine common ancestry among still-living creatures in other ways. If we have the fossilized remains of Organism A and Organism E, we can assume that there were living, at some point, transitional forms B, C and D. We might also be able to guess what they look like. If we find fossilized remains of B at some point, and they look something like what we expected to, that reinforces our theory. If not, oh well, the theory wasn't depending on them. If, at that point in the fossil record, we find the fossilized remains of Organism Z, then we have a serious problem on our hands, but that hasn't happened yet.


I kind of figured you have an answer like this.




> The pre-scorpion first develops a risistance to some sort of venom that is present in its environment. It then, over time, starts developing the poison in its own body as a defense against being eaten. Nature eventually selects those scorpions which collect the poison in a gland, as opposed to excreting it, because those would be more poisonous, and therefore less likely to be eaten. Eventually, the pre-scorpions develop the ability to eject the poison from their bodies, first as a defense mechanism, and then for the purposes of hunting. Nature selects for those scorpions which can hunt most efectively, and you wind up with something extremely scary.
> 
> There are plenty of reptiles who survive without the ability to change colours. The chameleon likely developed that trick out of necessity as his environment became increasingly multi-coloured, likely by flowers competing for the attention of insects.
> 
> Bats, despite their reputation, are not blind. Early bats probably hunted in the day, until they were forced by environmental pressures to develop the ability to do so at night. Better hearing is certainly an advantage when you can't see, and the echolocation probably developed in parallel with that.
> 
> The frog is an interesting one. Perhaps the ability to turn of the stomach acid developed first, maybe because this particular frog was suceptible to ulcers to the point where it affected its ability to procreate. Raising ones young inside one's self has obvious advantages in terms of chances of passing on one's genes.
> 
> I am not saying that this is definitely how these traits evolved, or even that it is probably how those traits evolved. All I'm saying as that, even if you can't imagine transitional forms for some creatures, I certainly can. That doesn't make me right, but it makes it true that transitional forms aren't impossible.


Interesting answers (and I figured you'd have answers for these too). My short response would (predicatably) be that the precision and complexity that is involved at all levels of life - from the solar system down to microbiological entities - argues for a designer. I understand why you will attribute such things to random chance - what other choice is there if you eliminate God? I don't intend to change your position - but the evidence and speculation that props up evolution still requires a significant amount of guesswork about gaps that may/may not suppport your position. 




> Because the process by which DNA is replicated is imperfect.


But why mutate in a _beneficial_ way? Especially to some of the uniquely specific ways some creatures have (i.e. Venus flytrap)?




> You've made it quite clear that you refuse to believe that. That's your perogative.


I suppose I'm asking if you believe that - does that really seem reasonable to you - or, _must it_ because you have disavowed the option of the exitence of God?




> If you are genuinely interested, _Climbing Mount Improbable_ by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. The odds are indeed long, but we've had one sextillion* trails running for 13.7 billion years. Something interesting was bound to come up eventually.
> 
> 
> *A rough estimate of the number of planets in the universe


Perhaps - but I dislike Dawkin's militant stance against Christianity - his venom towards us dampens my interest in appreciating his work as a scientist because I question HIGHLY his ojectivity.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> But why mutate in a beneficial way? Especially to some of the uniquely specific ways some creatures have (i.e. Venus flytrap)?


Short answer: why not? If enough mutations occur, some are bound to be benneficial in some way, and these get selected and spread through the gene pool.

The Venus Flytrap's fly trap was not the product of one mutation, but thousands, each giving it a slight edge over its competition and each bringing it closer to its current form.




> I suppose I'm asking if you believe that - does that really seem reasonable to you - or, must it because you have disavowed the option of the exitence of God?


Acceptance of evolution came before atheism in my particular case. And yes, it seems more than reasonable to me, it seems almost self-evident.




> Perhaps - but I dislike Dawkin's militant stance against Christianity - his venom towards us dampens my interest in appreciating his work as a scientist because I question HIGHLY his ojectivity.


I'm not overly fond of Dawkins' militancy either, but if you want to understand evolution, he's one of the few in the field who knows how to talk like an actual human being (as opposed to a scientist).

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Short answer: why not? If enough mutations occur, some are bound to be benneficial in some way, and these get selected and spread through the gene pool.


It seems that the immense time spans that had to pass while life forms adapted would contribute more to the ending of life than its advancement, because creatures still had to eat in the meantime; are we assuming that prey and predator developed reciprocally, so that the predator's adaptations didn't advance faster than the prey's ability to defend/elude? The timing of all these changes seems too fantastic to be believed. When you consider the numerous things that happen when the birth process begins (heck, the entire process of pregnancy) how can we account for that? How did the species survive whilst all those thousands of chemical/neurological processes worked themselves out? 




> The Venus Flytrap's fly trap was not the product of one mutation, but thousands, each giving it a slight edge over its competition and each bringing it closer to its current form.


Right: and what good is a partial "jaw," or one missing the "trip hairs" inside, or an an incomplete "closing" muscle reflex? In other words, am I to believe that all the interlocking components that allow a venus flytrap to do what it does all evolved _simultaneously_? Because if not, then the other developments in isolation would have proved useless, and therefore should not have "carried forward" in the evolution of that particular creature.




> Acceptance of evolution came before atheism in my particular case. And yes, it seems more than reasonable to me, it seems almost self-evident.


Understandable. But "self-evident" I disagree with - like the old anecdote of finding the watch on the beach, I think the idea that complex, non-random structures occur naturally is less intuitive than the idea that this thing is so detailed and complex (with interlocking and cooperating systems precisely balanced to do what they do) that it clearly shows an intention of design and purpose.




> I'm not overly fond of Dawkins' militancy either, but if you want to understand evolution, he's one of the few in the field who knows how to talk like an actual human being (as opposed to a scientist).


I may too buried in my position to appreciate Dawkin's explanation because I do not have faith in humanity's attempts to attribute to mindless nature that which clearly shows intelligent design.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> It seems that the immense time spans that had to pass while life forms adapted would contribute more to the ending of life than its advancement, because creatures still had to eat in the meantime; are we assuming that prey and predator developed reciprocally, so that the predator's adaptations didn't advance faster than the prey's ability to defend/elude?


Predator population develops slightly better eyesight, prey population declines, genes for slightly better camoflage spread throughout prey population, predator population declines, genes for slightly better eyesight spread throught predator population...you get the picture.




> Right: and what good is a partial "jaw," or one missing the "trip hairs" inside, or an an incomplete "closing" muscle reflex? In other words, am I to believe that all the interlocking components that allow a venus flytrap to do what it does all evolved simultaneously?


They probably evolved from something like a pitcher-plant. Pitcher plant develops a mechanism for closing slightly when a fly enters using the light-sensitive membranes that most plants already have, then a mechanism for detecting the presense of insects more accurately, etc., etc., etc.




> But "self-evident" I disagree with - like the old anecdote of finding the watch on the beach, I think the idea that complex, non-random structures occur naturally is less intuitive than the idea that this thing is so detailed and complex (with interlocking and cooperating systems precisely balanced to do what they do) that it clearly shows an intention of design and purpose.


Self-evident once all the evidence is present. I agree that one would have considerable trouble coming to that conclusion on one's daily walk.




> I may too buried in my position to appreciate Dawkin's explanation because I do not have faith in humanity's attempts to attribute to mindless nature that which clearly shows intelligent design.


Then one of us is wasting his time.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Predator population develops slightly better eyesight, prey population declines, genes for slightly better camoflage spread throughout prey population, predator population declines, genes for slightly better eyesight spread throught predator population...you get the picture.


True - but you're describing a pretty balanced progression here - one that presents a certain logic that I wonder doesn't implicitly also point towards a designer; why should nature progress in such a "fair" and balanced way? 




> They probably evolved from something like a pitcher-plant. Pitcher plant develops a mechanism for closing slightly when a fly enters using the light-sensitive membranes that most plants already have, then a mechanism for detecting the presense of insects more accurately, etc., etc., etc.


But why develop this particular characteristic _at all_? Why carnivorous plants? Why only these few varieties? Why not all plants carnivorous, or none? Why these few?




> Self-evident once all the evidence is present. I agree that one would have considerable trouble coming to that conclusion on one's daily walk.


But "all of the evidence" will _never_ be present - certain realities preclude that from happening - you've admitted that yourself. One of the things evolution cannot do is obey the tenants of the scientific method:

1) Observation
2) Hypothesis information
3) Prediction
4) Testing and predictions

Evolution cannot answer to these requirements.




> Then one of us is wasting his time.


Probably you more than I - but is that a surprise to you?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> True - but you're describing a pretty balanced progression here - one that presents a certain logic that I wonder doesn't implicitly also point towards a designer; why should nature progress in such a "fair" and balanced way?


Well, sometimes it doesn't work that way. The alternative is one or both species going extinct. That usually happens one way or another. It progresses slowly because evolution takes several generations to take effect.




> But why develop this particular characteristic at all? Why carnivorous plants? Why only these few varieties? Why not all plants carnivorous, or none? Why these few?


Because they happen to live in an environment where it's easier to get certain nutrients out of insects than out of the ground. Why else?




> But "all of the evidence" will never be present


I suppose I should have said "all the evidence thus far collected".




> One of the things evolution cannot do is obey the tenants of the scientific method:
> 
> 1) Observation
> 2) Hypothesis information
> 3) Prediction
> 4) Testing and predictions
> 
> Evolution cannot answer to these requirements.


I can't believe I've bothered to respond to this. For information regarding the observations that lead to evolution and the predictions which it makes and then tests sucesfully, please refer to the entire rest of this thread.




> Probably you more than I - but is that a surprise to you?


No.

----------


## billyjack

pardon, one quick thing.




> In the absence of God, all that's left are the things I listed; without an intelligent being all we have is force, chance, arbitrary occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> And where did those insticts come from? As well, learned behavior cannot be incoporated into the genetic code that controls instinctual behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem: a God-less universe would be hostile to life; that life arose by chance (and at unbelievable odds) clearly argues against the natural tendency to survive.


1) i don't buy the whole intelligent being doohicky. that would suggest that god consiously created everything. that means he thought everything. thought happens linearly, one thing at a time in a series. You can only think of one thing at a time, but that is too slow for understanding anything at all and much too slow to understand everything. "it would be like trying to drink the pacific ocean with a one pint beer mug" (watts). a silly method for drinking the ocean, a beer bong would be more feasible. anyways, maybe "intelligent" design isnt the best way to desribe creation. 

2) instincts are innate, found in geneology.

the ability to learn is an instinctual behavior--some are naturally better at it than others. although that which is learned during a lifetime is not passed down in the genetic code, that ability to learn is! 

3) on the contrary to your claim that a godless world is hostile to life--"what has been the greatest objection to existence so far? god." (N)

----------


## cuppajoe_9

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

In Red's absense, I will point out that while _you_ can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> You accept a theory as fact or your reject it as fact. Believing in something is about opinion, whereas acceptance of something is about knowledge. 
> 
> I can believe that I can fly, but that doesn't make it true. I can reject the knowledge that tells me that I cannot fly and therefore still make my belief reasonable. If I accept the knowledge that I cannot fly but still believe I can fly anyway, I'm unreasonably believing in something. 
> 
> Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.
> 
> Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself. Personally speaking, the whole "vs" idea of evolution against creation is absurd because the argument comes down to Biblical truth as being capable of being interpretted as scientific truth or the dismissal of such truths as merely literature that is more philosophy than scientific fact. 
> 
> A bit of a long-winded reply, but I do find it more succint to get the basics out of the way early. heh


Evolutionary biologists are relying on theory alone, and have been relying on such since their last (false) evidence collapsed on itself. On the contrary, the fossil record shows a completely contrary notion. Fossils of animals do not have a gradual chain, but show explosions of extinction and creation of new species. For example, the dinosaurs died and were almost immediately replaced by mammals. The fossil record should also show many errors, that is, organisms who have been unfortunate enough to have mutated undesirable traits. There have been no such examples. Natural selection could and probably did develope the different finch species on the Galapagos, but it cannot create anything more complex than a variation of beak shape.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> *puts on devil's advocate hat*


I find that ironic in many ways on nine levels.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

It seems that Red is involved in every theological discussion on this site.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Evolutionary biologists are relying on theory alone, and have been relying on such since their last (false) evidence collapsed on itself.


Completely false.




> On the contrary, the fossil record shows a completely contrary notion. Fossils of animals do not have a gradual chain, but show explosions of extinction and creation of new species. For example, the dinosaurs died and were almost immediately replaced by mammals.


"Almsot immediately" is geological terms, means "in about 10 million years". Anyhow, if this is evidence of any kind of design, "intelligent design" is hardly the right term. "Psychotic design" might be more accurate. Why create a plethora of dinosaur species and then kill every single one?




> The fossil record should also show many errors, that is, organisms who have been unfortunate enough to have mutated undesirable traits. There have been no such examples.


That's because an undesireable trait, by definition, decreases one's chances for survival. It is completely impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesireable trait.




> I find that ironic in many ways on nine levels.


I don't strike you as a good Catholic boy, Dante?

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Completely false.
> 
> "Almsot immediately" is geological terms, means "in about 10 million years". Anyhow, if this is evidence of any kind of design, "intelligent design" is hardly the right term. "Psychotic design" might be more accurate. Why create a plethora of dinosaur species and then kill every single one?


I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy, not in proving intelligent design. It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.




> That's because an undesireable trait, by definition, decreases one's chances for survival. It is completely impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesireable trait.


It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind. Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite. 




> I don't strike you as a good Catholic boy, Dante?


I thought you were Protestant!!!! (here I would add a smiley if not for my dislike of adding smileys)

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.


Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 _billion_ years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5&#37;.




> It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind.


Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.




> Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite.


Nope, it requires more non-beneficial _mutations_ than beneficial. However, it predicts that _creatures_ displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.

----------


## billyjack

> *puts on devil's advocate hat*
> 
> In Red's absense, I will point out that while _you_ can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.


okay. i do not think that this being able to think more than one thing at a time would be called thinking as we know it. it would be more in par with the same kind of intelligence we possess when we breath, grow our hair, fire our nerves, digest our meals, ect....basically, unconscious, or ignored by our consciousness.

point is, this kind of intelligence isnt godly-- at least not in the christian sense--rather, its nature. and if this is what they want to call godliness, i am going to have to call myself god, and you, and red, and everybody and everything because we all have the natural ability to do without knowing how we do or do many things at once.

----------


## hyperborean

> I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy, not in proving intelligent design. It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.


yea, 10 million years according to some crazy evangelical preacher :FRlol:

----------


## The Atheist

What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?

Other than christianity, I mean.

----------


## The Atheist

> I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy,


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

Good luck!

Let me know how you get on, I have a link to the Nobel Institute and you'll be a certainty for the Biology Prize!

Mate, that's the funniest thing I've seen this year - cheers.

----------


## The Atheist

Interesting poll details so far, on quite a large sample.

Glad to see that over 49&#37; of responses are sane.

----------


## Reccura

Creation -- believe in creation. Every little thing's are created. That means us too.

----------


## hyperborean

> Creation -- believe in creation. Every little thing's are created. That means us too.


No but the debate is whether you believe if God zapped humans directly on the planet from scratch, or if you believe in evolution. please specify (of course we were created, but from what?)

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well, sometimes it doesn't work that way. The alternative is one or both species going extinct. That usually happens one way or another. It progresses slowly because evolution takes several generations to take effect.


Several generations? That's it?




> Because they happen to live in an environment where it's easier to get certain nutrients out of insects than out of the ground. Why else?


A good answer, but come on - the idea that a plant is carnivorous goes against the general rule of plant life. I do not see the logic in a plant which lives in an environment so bereft of "food" in the soil that it _somehow_  managed to morph into a meat eater rather than simply die (like most of the other plants around it that were certainly starving too)? Really? Your answer is at the same time reasonable and absurd.




> I can't believe I've bothered to respond to this. For information regarding the observations that lead to evolution and the predictions which it makes and then tests sucesfully, please refer to the entire rest of this thread.


Well good grief, joe, don't let me waste _your_ time. You're free to ignore any comment of mine that strikes you as absurd, illogical, or just plain ignorant, OK? Nobody _makes_ you respond.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?


I wonder the same thing, but in the spirit of Christian forgiveness and compassion, I and my believing brothers do the best we can to put up with them  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Good luck!
> 
> Let me know how you get on, I have a link to the Nobel Institute and you'll be a certainty for the Biology Prize!
> 
> Mate, that's the funniest thing I've seen this year - cheers.


Why is that the funniest thing you've seen this year? It is an odd theory and the evidence of it is something I wish to analyze. Einstein analyzed Newton, but that detracts nothing from either. Einstein even proved Newton wrong in regards to the details of gravity. Speculation is inevitable, and just because I have a preconcieved notion in the issue does not mean that it is false. You have given no evidence to suggest that you are more knowledgable than I except that you side with a majority of biologists while I don't. That means nothing. New ideas inevitably replace old ones. The story of Genesis has been replaced, but what it has been replaced with (Darwinism) can still be subject to retrospect. I'm not even talking about religion, I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.

----------


## kilted exile

Just attempting to clear up a few things from the last couple of pages:

Generations to take effect for adaptations/mutations:

Ok, I am going to attempt to not go too far into genetics to explain this, but there are some basics of genetic theory neccessary to be understood for this (the work of the monk Mendel in particular).

The short answer is the # of generations for the change to be noticeable basically depends on 3 things: How beneficial is the original mutation; How shallow is the gene pool; How complex is the organism.

Now the longer answer.......Most physical characteristics have a dominant and recessive characteristic, the characteristic I am going to use in this example is vestigial wings in fruit flies (idea is the same for all characteristics - with the exception of linkage, which if people are interested I will try to explain at a later date).

So a short intro to genetics (please bear with me I am not sure the level of knowledge of everyone regarding this subject so I will be starting from scratch) Genes are located on different chromosomes. Chromosomes are found as pairs inside the nuclei of cells. When an offspring is created it will get one chromosome from each parent for each chromosome pair.

All right back to our Drosphilia (fruit fly). The dominant characteristic is to have normal wings (designated to be N in the cross below) as opposed to vestigial wings (signified by n).

*2 "strong" normal wing parents:*

NN x NN Parents

NN NN NN NN Offspring

All offspring will be "strong" normal winged fruit flies


*1 "strong" normal wing & 1 vestigial wing:*

NN x nn Parents

Nn Nn Nn Nn Offspring

All offspring "weak" normal winged


*1 "strong" normal wing & 1 "weak" normal wing:*

NN x Nn Parents

NN Nn NN Nn Offspring

"strong" and "weak" normal offspring created in 1:1 ratio


*2 "weak" normal winged:*

Nn x Nn Parents

NN Nn Nn nn Offspring

Normal and vestigial winged offspring created in a 3:1 ratio

So as can be seen from the above once the mutation has found its way into the gene pool it will become visible in the 3rd generation, however the offspring bearing that charateristic will be in a definite minority. Then depending on the benefits/drawbacks of the mutation it will become more or less prevalent in the society


I had been going to attempt to explain some other things as well, but this post has taken longer than I thought so I'll adress them at a later date.

----------


## Bakiryu

It's a mix between Creation and Evolution.

The whole thought of creation arises the possibility of a creator. I could easily believe that even if i don't follow any mainstream religion.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> It's a mix between Creation and Evolution.
> 
> The whole thought of creation arises the possibility of a creator. I could easily believe that even if i don't follow any mainstream religion.


Exactly. No one doubts that simple changes can arise, but complex organs (such as the cellular cilia) cannot be explained without undertaking immense odds against such an occurance. Darwinism doesn't accept cellular Darwinism.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 _billion_ years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5&#37;.


When refering to billions of years, 5% is an awful lot.




> Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.
> But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures.
> 
> Nope, it requires more non-beneficial _mutations_ than beneficial. However, it predicts that _creatures_ displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.


But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures. Fossils show a direct pathway, without as many poor mutations as there should be.

----------


## Bakiryu

The Earth is said to be indefenedtly old, yet life is a recently new development.

If the Earth is so old, why did life wait so long?

What caused the first mutation? The first organism wasn't born out of nothing? And then, how can if an organism be first, if it had to be born? There will always be an ancestor. A being can mutate unless is there!

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Several generations? That's it?


At least.




> A good answer, but come on - the idea that a plant is carnivorous goes against the general rule of plant life.


Plants don't respect the 'general rules of plant life', they just survive or not.




> I do not see the logic in a plant which lives in an environment so bereft of "food" in the soil that it somehow managed to morph into a meat eater rather than simply die (like most of the other plants around it that were certainly starving too)?


The plant likely had some quirk of root structure that allowed it to get the nutrients required out of the marshy soil it lives in. The carnivorous adaptations simply help it do so more efficiently. It isn't an all-or-nothing game, and small advantages can lead to large effects.




> Well good grief, joe, don't let me waste your time. You're free to ignore any comment of mine that strikes you as absurd, illogical, or just plain ignorant, OK?


I apologize for being short. I do, however, maintain that the comment was flat-out false.




> I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.


You are the only person on this part of the thread who has mentioned either peppered moths or archaeopteryxes.




> When refering to billions of years, 5&#37; is an awful lot.


Yeah, fortunately we're only talking about hundreds of millions, 0.153% is still not very much. Argon is a double-check, and there are a few others that I couldn't find the specific accuracies of.




> But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures.


Nope. Badly mutated creatures don't reproduce. Because they're dead.

I'm curious as to what you think the 'direct pathway' indicates.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The Earth is said to be indefenedtly old, yet life is a recently new development.


The earth is a little over 4.56 billion years old and life is probably somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1 billion. The difference is presumeably the time it took for conditions to become favorable (it's hard to have life with a molten crust, for example).




> What caused the first mutation? The first organism wasn't born out of nothing? And then, how can if an organism be first, if it had to be born? There will always be an ancestor. A being can mutate unless is there!


Short answer: dunno. There are a few hypotheses floating about regarding how organic molecules could have arisen from inorganic compounds, but nothing is really settled.

----------


## Bakiryu

Exactly! That is why there can't be evolution without creation!

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Exactly! That is why there can't be evolution without creation!


 :Confused:  

I'm missing something.

----------


## The Atheist

> Exactly. No one doubts that simple changes can arise, but complex organs (such as the cellular cilia) cannot be explained without undertaking immense odds against such an occurance. Darwinism doesn't accept cellular Darwinism.


Wrong again.

For heaven's sake will you _please_ at least do some elementary mathematics and biology before you make these wild, incorrect assertions.

----------


## The Atheist

> Why is that the funniest thing you've seen this year? It is an odd theory and the evidence of it is something I wish to analyze.


I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off. Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"

The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.

They now accept evolution, but you're going to see it dismissed as an idle fancy.

Ok.





> Einstein analyzed Newton, but that detracts nothing from either. Einstein even proved Newton wrong in regards to the details of gravity.


See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is *not* going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you? 

It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong. I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.

And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?




> Speculation is inevitable, and just because I have a preconcieved notion in the issue does not mean that it is false.


Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.




> You have given no evidence to suggest that you are more knowledgable than I except that you side with a majority of biologists while I don't.


And physicists, mathematicians, members of the NAS, Medical doctors and evolution scientists, yep.

The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is _almost always right, or very, very close to being right._

If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion. 





> That means nothing. New ideas inevitably replace old ones.


Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.

During the past 100 years, methods of identifying ages of substances found on this planet have become remakably accurate - well over 99% accuracy. That can sound like a lot when billions of years are considered, but it's minute. It may be improved to 99.9999999999% accuracy, but it will *not* be proven to be 100% wrong.





> The story of Genesis has been replaced, but what it has been replaced with (Darwinism) can still be subject to retrospect.


**SIGH**

You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.

It has been well and truly refuted as any kind of fact.

Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves. 





> I'm not even talking about religion, I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.


Well, I do wish you the very best of luck, because as noted, if you genuinely seek answers, you'll find them alright. They won't do your beliefs any good, though.

You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.

Read and enjoy.

----------


## andave_ya

> What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?
> 
> Other than christianity, I mean.


Faith. For both sides, Christianity and evolution. That's how I believe the Flood happened and that Jesus died and rose again because of course, I wasn't there to see those events happen but God and other people did and God inspired them to write the books of the Bible. Evolutionists have to have strong hearty faith in order to believe evolution because evolutionists have no way of knowing that the Big Bang actually occured, say, or that a whale actually is an animal that was a sea-creature-turned-land-animal-turned-sea creature again simply because there was/are no people there to observe it.

Glad you rejoined the discussion.  :Wave:

----------


## billyjack

> Faith. For both sides, Christianity and evolution. That's how I believe the Flood happened and that Jesus died and rose again because of course, I wasn't there to see those events happen but God and other people did and God inspired them to write the books of the Bible. Evolutionists have to have strong hearty faith in order to believe evolution because evolutionists have no way of knowing that the Big Bang actually occured, say, or that a whale actually is an animal that was a sea-creature-turned-land-animal-turned-sea creature again simply because there was/are no people there to observe it.
> 
> Glad you rejoined the discussion.


i am not convinced one way or the other, but i do like solid evidence and good arguments. evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. its what happened once life started that evolution theorizes. 

sure, people werent around to observe the whale change from sea to land to sea. but fossil evidence is. fossil evidence is the equivalent of a telescope. although the stars arent really observed by people since a device is aiding them, ,so goes with fossils. people arent really observing the evolutionary changes, but we are using a device--fossils--to see these changes.

----------


## hyperborean

> **SIGH**
> 
> You need to realize that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.


Finally. The reason why the arguments have been going on in this thread is because certain individuals still believe that adam and eve is historical fact.

----------


## Nightshade

> No but the debate is whether you believe if God zapped humans directly on the planet from scratch, or if you believe in evolution. please specify (of course we were created, but from what?)


 How come you cant belive in both? Thats what I would like to know. I belive in both 



> The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.
> 
> They now accept evolution,


really? Now this I want to read are there any books on religion and eveloution as in the compromise between the 2.





> Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.


Can I say somthing now this is a pure aside and neither here or there just a logical argument point.... but if people like Darwin and whoever else lets say galilio only it wasnt him but never mind. If people like that hadnt said OI there is somthing distinctly fishy with this well established idea we all take for granted evloutionary theory would exsist heck America as we know it wouldnt exsist. 

 :Biggrin:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Finally. The reason why the arguments have been going on in this thread is because certain individuals still believe that adam and eve is historical fact.


Incorrect: the reason arguments are still going on in this thread is that you have two suppositional foundations upon which two parties are hurling their "evidence" at each other; neither has definitive (or even thoroughly convincing) proof of their position; both foundations - because they are fundamentally unprovable and _unobservable_ - require a certain degree of faith from its adherents in order to accept as true; both involve _indoctrination_. Whether or not Genesis is literal or metaphorical or allegorical does not change the fact both sides of this debate are entrenched into their presuppositional foundations upon which both are constructing their arguments.

----------


## billyjack

> Incorrect: the reason arguments are still going on in this thread is that you have two suppositional foundations upon which two parties are hurling their "evidence" at each other; neither has definitive (or even thoroughly convincing) proof of their position; both foundations - because they are fundamentally unprovable and _unobservable_ - require a certain degree of faith from its adherents in order to accept as true; both involve _indoctrination_. Whether or not Genesis is literal or metaphorical or allegorical does not change the fact both sides of this debate are entrenched into their presuppositional foundations upon which both are constructing their arguments.


sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off.


Only if "facts" and observable reality (requiring human _interpretation_) are the _full measures of reality_ (they're not). You also underestimate faith - but then again, Naturalists have no need of faith, so perhaps it's less a matter of _underestimating_ and more of _not understanding at all._




> Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"


Why don't you do us all a favor: rather than tell us how _ignorant_ you _think_ we are, why don't you _show_ us how knowledgable your comments imply you to be - because it really takes zero knowledge, ability or understanding to express how un-knowledgable you _believe_ _others_ to be. Walk the walk you appear to be talking and show us what you know that makes you so confident; telling us how lacking in knowledge we must be really accomplishes nothing of value. I see lots of dismissiveness pointed towards the assertions of other posters, but no "facts" or arguments to rebut them effectively.




> See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is *not* going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you?


Evolution will eventually be proven false (because Earth's Architect will show up and silence all argument on the matter  :Smile:  ). To suggest that the roughly 1.7 million lifeforms on the earth developed out of a single cell is beyond any "fantasy" that the Bible may be accused of presenting and is easily as absurd as the Biblical literalist's insistence of a 6000 year-old earth.




> It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong.


Not quite - just the parts that tell us that life came from non-life, that matter came out of nothing, that random chance designed the mind-numbing complexity of all living creatures. Those parts are wrong - but the rest - the stuff about gravity and colds and how earthquakes happen? That stuff's all right (as far as I've heard).




> I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.


What "physical laws" say the flood could not have happened? Besides, if God is behind the flood (the Bible says He was) then so what? He created the physical laws; He can "bend" them when He wishes to accomplish His will (such things are called "miracles"). "All known" biology isn't wrong - just the parts that say life came from non-life and random chance took a single cell and morphed it into the hundreds upon thousands of forms of life now on the earth.




> And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?


No odder than people who claim as fact an _unproven theory._





> Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.


500 years of science has not been directed towards the validation of evolution. The theory of evolution is not 500 years old. "Established science" is almost an oxymoron: it is "established" on many things at a fairly stable level; on others, its "establishment" is liable to be revised and "re-established."




> The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is _almost always right, or very, very close to being right._


I'm tired of this cop-out. Either you have evidence or you don't; either you have confidence in it or you don't. Quit bluffing and show your cards - because I'm starting to wonder.

Your final sentence is a key one, because it reveals the _presuppositional base_ that you're arguing from; note that you understand that one must _first_ accept your presupposition about science in order for the assertions of evolution to make sense and seem plausible. This could be restated from my side of the coin like this: If you wish for me to "prove" Creation to you, I'll be happy to do so; first we'll need you to accept that 1) God exists and 2) that the Bible is His revelation of Truth.

Side note: I loved the qualifiers: "_almost_ always right or _very, very close_ to being right." That's awesome  :Biggrin:  




> If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion.


The same could be said about _you_ in terms of considering Creationism or Intelligent Design; the truth is, you are as deeply _indoctrinated_ as the Christians here are. Again - here you are retreating from the challenge; if you've got evidence, let's see it - quit bluffing. Finally, notice again that you have revealed your suppositional requirements for the argument: see things from inside _my_ frame and I'll give you evidence. You're a smart person, because you know, just like I know, that facts can only be considered inside a _frame_ that gives them meaning. Without Naturalism firmly in place as your frame, you know that your evidence has no power.




> Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.


Clever but flawed logic. Notice how you "spun" the flat-earth problem by saying essentially "well, since it _looked_ flat to them, it _was_ flat, so science was right." The flat-earth believers were _wrong_ because they based their "facts" on limited observation (they didn't have the entire picture, and were therefore _speculating_ based on their _physical observations_ to _fill in the gaps_ - you know, like evolutionists are doing right now).




> **SIGH**


Yes: I know the feeling too - it generally strikes me whilst posting on this forum (right about now, I think).




> You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.


I love it when people who know little if anything about the Bible tell believers what they need to do - that's pretty silly. Here: What you need to realize is that God wrote the book and it's for real. There: how effective was that? Are you "realizing" even now as you read? Why not?

"Sensible" because they fit your world-view. Are they still sensible if they say Christ's resurrection was literal? Can a church be partially "sensible" and partially "deluded"?




> Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.


Neat analogy, but not apt. Darwin's theory has become even less convincing and even adherents admit to some of the difficulties in the theory.




> You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.


Here we go again: nobody "needs" to do anything you say. We only _need_ present our points in a reasonable and coherent manner (the same as you). The incomplete fossil record is one of the key pieces of evidence that is frustrating evolution's "triumph." Without it to confirm the speculations of evolutionists, the hypothesis of evolution remains speculative. When you're dealing with something you claim to have happened historically, you need more than speculation - you need to have some sort of corroboration - and without the fossil record, you're down a big one.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.


And you would be wrong in most of what you've said here. Both positions are inherently _unprovable_; both positions have "evidence" that is largely given force through matters of _interpretation_; both positions require a "leap of faith" in order to accept. _Faith_ is at the bottom of both positions. Your analogy is interesting, but irrelevant.

Faith an "wishing" are not synonyms.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.


But the fossils don't prove slow, gradual evolution. They show masses of organisms appearing out of nowhere (again, see Cambrian Explosion). You keep calling on the fossils when you must have faith in halfway creatures to believe that the fossils prove evolution.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> But the fossils don't prove slow, gradual evolution. They show masses of organisms appearing out of nowhere (again, see Cambrian Explosion).


The Cambrian Explosion took about 100 million years.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off. Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"


The 'foolish fancy' may have been excessive on my part, but you are being excessive as well. You assume that I have no grasp of scientific topics (which is like calling me an idiot, which is rude). You also assume that I am a creationist. I am uncertain as to what you mean, but if you mean being a Christian, you will be suprised to find that a great many scientists are Christian, and if you mean that I believe Genesis verbatum then you are incorrect. I am questioning that, just like I am questioning evolution. Established science is always being changed, evolving as it were, but you seem to be angry that I should question evolution, like the anger the inquisition had over heresy.




> The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.
> 
> They now accept evolution, but you're going to see it dismissed as an idle fancy.
> 
> Ok.


If the NAS does not dissuade me on a scientific issue, the Vatican certainly won't.







> See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is *not* going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you? 
> 
> It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong. I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?
> 
> Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.


I didn't say the Earth was created 6010 years ago, nor did I say I was going to disprove evolution in one afternoon. I intend to find what is true, and so far have not heard very convincing things to the support of evolution. You have not given me any reason to believe what you believe, so why should I believe you. Also, Darwin wasn't alive 500 years ago, his theory is less than 200 years old.






> And physicists, mathematicians, members of the NAS, Medical doctors and evolution scientists, yep.
> 
> The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is _almost always right, or very, very close to being right._
> 
> If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion. 
> 
> Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.
> 
> During the past 100 years, methods of identifying ages of substances found on this planet have become remakably accurate - well over 99&#37; accuracy. That can sound like a lot when billions of years are considered, but it's minute. It may be improved to 99.9999999999% accuracy, but it will *not* be proven to be 100% wrong.


Darwinism is more than just science, it is Earth's history, and history is constantly being refuted, and even if it wasn't, why should I just accept something because others say so? I haven't believed things just because someone I respect told me to since I was 1, so why start now? You have given no reason why I should not search, but you have insulted me without any basis. Also, your reason for denying me evidence is stupid






> **SIGH**
> 
> You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.
> 
> It has been well and truly refuted as any kind of fact.
> 
> Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.


You still think that I am basing my claims on Genesis. I have given no reason for this. Technology improves, as do theories, but that doesn't mean that theories should be taken as fact.







> Well, I do wish you the very best of luck, because as noted, if you genuinely seek answers, you'll find them alright. They won't do your beliefs any good, though.


Thank you, but the not doing my beliefs good is not necessarily true.




> You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.
> 
> Read and enjoy.


Lack of a complete record by no means speaks in favor of an evolutionary time-frame. Where do you get this idea?

----------


## hyperborean

> How come you cant belive in both? Thats what I would like to know. I belive in both


I believe that something divine created the universe. I don't believe that the divine created man as we see it today with the snap of his fingers. 

This thread can go on forever because creationists spin the whole issue. They make it seem as if evolution has nothing supporting it, when if fact their theory is absolute myth. They attack evolution, forgetting that their own theory can never be proven. 

I'm not the biggest evolution buff on the forum, but I have read about fossil records (paleontology), geographic distribution of species, and the evidence from molecular biology (proteins and molecules).

here are some good links: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

----------


## Nightshade

> I believe that something divine created the universe. I don't believe that the divine created man as we see it today with the snap of his fingers.


 Oh well we are half way to agreeing completly since I do sort of belive in evoloution I just belive the divine as you put it controls/created evolution.
But I do belive he could have and potentially did create man as we see him today if He wanted that way with the idea of snapping his fingers and thanks Ill look at that list.

----------


## The Atheist

> The 'foolish fancy' may have been excessive on my part, but you are being excessive as well. You assume that I have no grasp of scientific topics (which is like calling me an idiot, which is rude). You also assume that I am a creationist. I am uncertain as to what you mean, but if you mean being a Christian, you will be suprised to find that a great many scientists are Christian, and if you mean that I believe Genesis verbatum then you are incorrect. I am questioning that, just like I am questioning evolution. Established science is always being changed, evolving as it were, but you seem to be angry that I should question evolution, like the anger the inquisition had over heresy.


I'm calling you a creationist because you believe in creation. Most christians I talk to are well aware that evolution has taken billions of years.




> Also, your reason for denying me evidence is stupid


Disagree entirely.

If I thought there was any chance you'd read and understand it, I'd give you all the evidence you wish for. I don't believe that's going to happen and I'm not about to waste my valuable time finding out things which you're quite capable of finding yourself - if you had the desire to find them.




> You still think that I am basing my claims on Genesis. I have given no reason for this. Technology improves, as do theories, but that doesn't mean that theories should be taken as fact.


Oh boy. Nobody's asking you to take the theory as fact. If you check the facts, current evolution theory is the *only* possible option.




> Thank you, but the not doing my beliefs good is not necessarily true.


You could certainly retain a belief in god, but you'd lose all of your beliefs about evolution. I do realise that this is precisely why you won't go and check the *facts* - if you do, you will find that much of what you've been saying is nothing more than lies. Once you find that one of your beliefs is a lie, you'll lose your faith and you are scared of that happening. Faith works so much better with closed eyes.




> Lack of a complete record by no means speaks in favor of an evolutionary time-frame. Where do you get this idea?


Very simply.

Fossils only form in very specific circumstances. Well in excess of 99% of all animals which have died did not die in those specific circumstances, so there will only ever be a tiny fraction of fossils to work with. Had the earth been created much later than the current estimate of ~4.5 bn yrs ago, then we would expect to find almost all of the bones of dead animals and we clearly haven't and aren't going to.

----------


## The Atheist

> Why don't you do us all a favor: rather than tell us how _ignorant_ you _think_ we are, why don't you _show_ us how knowledgable your comments imply you to be - because it really takes zero knowledge, ability or understanding to express how un-knowledgable you _believe_ _others_ to be. Walk the walk you appear to be talking and show us what you know that makes you so confident; telling us how lacking in knowledge we must be really accomplishes nothing of value. I see lots of dismissiveness pointed towards the assertions of other posters, but no "facts" or arguments to rebut them effectively.


I gave you a very good link which also links to further information. I gave you other details to follow up.

As I just said to the other creationist, I'm not about to waste a couple of days sorting evidence into approriate forms for you to read and dismiss.

If you genuinely want to *find facts*, there are sufficient around for you to find them

**edit**




> Evolution will eventually be proven false (because Earth's Architect will show up and silence all argument on the matter  ). To suggest that the roughly 1.7 million lifeforms on the earth developed out of a single cell is beyond any "fantasy" that the Bible may be accused of presenting and is easily as absurd as the Biblical literalist's insistence of a 6000 year-old earth.


Ridiculous assertion, unbacked by any evidence at all. As to god coming to earth, we've been waiting ~2000 years so far and he hasn't been, despite every relevant piece in the bible suggesting it would be "very soon".

No matter, once you're dead, there'll be another generation of people ready to buy the myth.




> Not quite - just the parts that tell us that life came from non-life, that matter came out of nothing, that random chance designed the mind-numbing complexity of all living creatures. Those parts are wrong - but the rest - the stuff about gravity and colds and how earthquakes happen? That stuff's all right (as far as I've heard).


Yet if you accept that earthquakes happen as a result of tectonic plate movement, then you cannot believe a global flood happened - the science only works one way.




> What "physical laws" say the flood could not have happened? Besides, if God is behind the flood (the Bible says He was) then so what? He created the physical laws; He can "bend" them when He wishes to accomplish His will (such things are called "miracles"). "All known" biology isn't wrong - just the parts that say life came from non-life and random chance took a single cell and morphed it into the hundreds upon thousands of forms of life now on the earth.


And that's exactly why I won't debate with you or find evidence for you to ignore.

You know the truth, but when in doubt, revert to, "god can change physics as he wants".

Absurd stuff. You believe a "just-so" story from 4000 years ago, but you can't accept actual science from last week.




> No odder than people who claim as fact an _unproven theory._


Another ridiculous assertion. The theory of evolution has been proven in as many ways as possible. As I said to you, it may well be refined, but it won't be proven wrong if you live to be a million.




> 500 years of science has not been directed towards the validation of evolution. The theory of evolution is not 500 years old. "Established science" is almost an oxymoron: it is "established" on many things at a fairly stable level; on others, its "establishment" is liable to be revised and "re-established."


I never suggested evolution was 500, I'm talking about science in general and as you're intending to refute all of it, it fits.

Your statement is ridiculous. Every aspect of accepted evolution science has been checked, tested by peers and is accepted fact. Your assertion that it isn't is completely incorrect.




> I'm tired of this cop-out. Either you have evidence or you don't; either you have confidence in it or you don't. Quit bluffing and show your cards - because I'm starting to wonder.


See above. Show me one area where you don't revert to "goddidit" when you strike a problem and I'll get you the evidence, no trouble.




> Your final sentence is a key one, because it reveals the _presuppositional base_ that you're arguing from; note that you understand that one must _first_ accept your presupposition about science in order for the assertions of evolution to make sense and seem plausible.


Absolute gibberish and 100&#37; wrong.




> This could be restated from my side of the coin like this: If you wish for me to "prove" Creation to you, I'll be happy to do so; first we'll need you to accept that 1) God exists and 2) that the Bible is His revelation of Truth.


Again, completely wrong. I can accept that and still see creationism as absurd, as do most christians.




> Side note: I loved the qualifiers: "_almost_ always right or _very, very close_ to being right." That's awesome


Glad you see it as funny - being the exact opposite of the bible, which has been proven to be completely incorrect in many, many places.




> The same could be said about _you_ in terms of considering Creationism or Intelligent Design; the truth is, you are as deeply _indoctrinated_ as the Christians here are.


I'm surprised you don't get sick of being completely wrong. I approached evolution with a completely open mind and arrive at agreement with current theory because it makes sense and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds on the planet.

It is christians who start with a pre-conceived notion, as you yourself have admitted. Please don't try to tar me with your brush - I rely on factual analysis. You rely on ridiculous assertion and tract-quoting.




> Again - here you are retreating from the challenge; if you've got evidence, let's see it - quit bluffing.


See above.




> Finally, notice again that you have revealed your suppositional requirements for the argument: see things from inside _my_ frame and I'll give you evidence. You're a smart person, because you know, just like I know, that facts can only be considered inside a _frame_ that gives them meaning. Without Naturalism firmly in place as your frame, you know that your evidence has no power.


Again you are so wrong it's laughable.

**edit**

As regards evidence - again, see above.

Facts are *not* subjective.




> Clever but flawed logic. Notice how you "spun" the flat-earth problem by saying essentially "well, since it _looked_ flat to them, it _was_ flat, so science was right." The flat-earth believers were _wrong_ because they based their "facts" on limited observation (they didn't have the entire picture, and were therefore _speculating_ based on their _physical observations_ to _fill in the gaps_ - you know, like evolutionists are doing right now).


Be thankful this isn't a philosophy or logic paper, because you'd be heading into negative marks already. Go read what I wrote and talk about that rather than what you think I wrote.




> I love it when people who know little if anything about the Bible tell believers what they need to do - that's pretty silly. Here: What you need to realize is that God wrote the book and it's for real. There: how effective was that? Are you "realizing" even now as you read? Why not?


I'm glad you posted that, because I'd bet any amount of money you like that my biblical knowledge is *far* superior to your own. You won't get off like that.




> "Sensible" because they fit your world-view. Are they still sensible if they say Christ's resurrection was literal? Can a church be partially "sensible" and partially "deluded"?


Depends whether or not they try to dispute known facts.




> Neat analogy, but not apt. Darwin's theory has become even less convincing and even adherents admit to some of the difficulties in the theory.


Lemme give you a tip - science has moved a long way from Darwin. That's another problem with creationists - thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist god. He wasn't, he was a very clever scientist, but his work is somewhat outdated. Given the state of his instrumentation, he was abloody genius to have got as far as he did.

**edit**




> The incomplete fossil record is one of the key pieces of evidence that is frustrating evolution's "triumph." Without it to confirm the speculations of evolutionists, the hypothesis of evolution remains speculative. When you're dealing with something you claim to have happened historically, you need more than speculation - you need to have some sort of corroboration - and without the fossil record, you're down a big one.


Here, you're again emphasising your comlplete lack of knowledge about actual evolution science.

Keep putting it that way, though, it's so much easier to assert than think.

And note my previous reply - the lack of fossil record is further proof of evolution being correct. 

As to evolution's triumph over creationism, that battle has long since been won, which is why actual churches agree with it. The only dissenters are those few deluded people who listen to, and believe, charismatic preachers who stand and tell lies.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I gave you a very good link which also links to further information. I gave you other details to follow up.


Yes, and I read through it. I saw nothing in there that definitively proved anything. I saw lots of descriptions and graphs that suggested a line of developement - but a line that made sense if one proceeded from the supposition that evolution is true; otherwise, there are other explanations for similarities between creatures. Just because two species share a feature (like elbows, for instance) does not necessarily mean they had a common ancestor; it may also imply that a designer equipped both the same because it was an efficient and flexible design.

Here were my favorite parts of the lengthy (and boring) page you sent me to:


It is *supposed*, then, that the chordates evolved from tunicates 
it was *presumed* that they were the feeding parts of some animal which
*It is hard to say why*, exactly, the early agnathans had such heavy bony armour on their heads in the first place
It is *considered* to be transitional between poroforms and true osteolepiforms
it is *almost certain* from their anatomy
*Some of the most significant differences* between them, such as warm blood and suckling of young, *are not, of course, preserved in the fossil record*. 




> As I just said to the other creationist, I'm not about to waste a couple of days sorting evidence into approriate forms for you to read and dismiss.


Then why bother replying at all? Didn't you already leave this discussion once before? Here (from post #1592):




> I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.
> 
> Cheers.


If you've got nothing to add in terms of proof to back up these refutations you think you're doing, why bother re-entering the conversation?




> If you genuinely want to *find facts*, there are sufficient around for you to find them


I came here to hear the evolutionist position and challenge it. Since you seem to be standing on the "winning" side (judging by your rhetoric here), that puts you in the position of clarifying to all of us who remain confused as to why we ought to consider your position valid. You speak _as if_ you _know_ something, but then when pressed, you come up with nothing but brush-offs. That's not how debate works, my friend.

**edit**


> Ridiculous assertion, unbacked by any evidence at all. As to god coming to earth, we've been waiting ~2000 years so far and he hasn't been, despite every relevant piece in the bible suggesting it would be "very soon".


The "evidence" in question - like the conclusive "evidence" that establishes the truth of evolution - will be revealed someday soon. I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the Bible's "very soon" - any more than I'm sure you're troubled by the words I bold-faced in navy-blue from the evolution page you sent me to.




> No matter, once you're dead, there'll be another generation of deluded people ready to buy the myth.


Yes - but thankfully there'll be other Christians here to help them see the light.





> Yet if you accept that earthquakes happen as a result of tectonic plate movement, then you cannot believe a global flood happened - the science only works one way.


Sure I can - see? I just did. God isn't confined by science.





> And that's exactly why I won't debate with you or find evidence for you to ignore.


Then don't waste my time with these posts that do nothing but tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Give me some sort of real response rather than this repetitive dismissiveness.




> You know the truth, but when in doubt, revert to, "god can change physics as he wants".


You're correct there: I do know the Truth. I just can't get you to see it.




> Absurd stuff. You believe a "just-so" story from 4000 years ago, but you can't accept actual science from last week.


Sure I can - it just depends on the absurdity of the claim that last week's science is making.





> Another ridiculous assertion. The theory of evolution has been proven in as many ways as possible. As I said to you, it may well be refined, but it won't be proven wrong if you live to be a million.


Nothing has been proven - lots of "evidence" has been amassed that has been interpreted to suggest results that fits the theory of evolution. From Dr. Lee Spetner (Ph.D, MIT):

"Random variations cannot lead to the large-scale evolution claimed by the neo-Darwinians...There is a lot of evidence for nonrandom [purposeful, therefore intelligent] variation."

From John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary (evolutionist scientists and authors of _The Origins of Life_:

"The first replicating molecules, whether nucleic acids or something simpler, could not have specified anything, and so could not be said to carry information. They are best thought of as replicating structures."

Overall, since you say evolution has been "proven in as many ways as possible," why don't you explain how these things have been proven to be true:

1) Life can come from non-life
2) Life can, by itself, bring about new forms of life
3) Eventually, animal life can develop into human life

As far as I know, evolutionists are still scrambling around trying to find enough evidence to make these outlandish claims seem true. Once their literature gets rid of the "could be" "maybe" "almost" "it is presumed" and all the other qualifiers that suggest that "were still making educated guesses" then maybe we'll have something worth considering.





> I never suggested evolution was 500, I'm talking about science in general and as you're intending to refute all of it, it fits.


Perhaps you ought read the posts addressed to you more carefully - I don't believe anybody here intends to prove all of science wrong.




> Your statement is ridiculous. Every aspect of accepted evolution science has been checked, tested by peers and is accepted fact. Your assertion that it isn't is completely incorrect.


At least that's what you say and would like us to believe. Tell me: how do you "check" an event that reportedly occurred billions of years ago? Because without verification of that event, all else is educated speculation.




> See above. Show me one area where you don't revert to "goddidit" when you strike a problem and I'll get you the evidence, no trouble.


Well, what should I say if indeed, God _did_ do it?




> Absolute gibberish and 100&#37; wrong.


Offer some argument or evidence to back up this unsubstantiated claim.





> Again, completely wrong. I can accept that and still see creationism as absurd, as do most christians.


"Most Christians"? Really? And your statistics for this number come from where?





> Glad you see it as funny - being the exact opposite of the bible, which has been proven to be completely incorrect in many, many places.


I've heard this one before. How does one "prove the Bible wrong"?





> I'm surprised you don't get sick of being completely wrong. I approached evolution with a completely open mind and arrive at agreement with current theory because it makes sense and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds on the planet.


I'd get sick of being _proven_ wrong if it happened with regularity (luckily, it hasn't occurred in this conversation yet, aside from _claims_ to the contrary). Your denial is stunning: you more than likely went to school somewhere, and that school more than likely gave you textbooks that spoke of evolution as a given fact (despite all its holes, inconsistencies and unproven claims); you - my friend - grew up just as _indoctrinated_ as I - but you refuse to acknowledge that; I at least will admit to that fact. Your so-called "open mind" was already conditioned by years of a naturalistic foundation that you now stand upon and that decides what evidence you find compelling.

Some of the greatest minds on the planet have pronounced evolution wrong too - so what?




> It is christians who start with a pre-conceived notion, as you yourself have admitted. Please don't try to tar me with your brush - I rely on factual analysis. You rely on ridiculous assertion and tract-quoting.


Sorry - Christians don't have a lock on philosophical presuppositions - atheists have them too; the most clear-sighted IMO will admit such. You and I both select facts, sources and evidence that fits into our already established position.




> Again you are so wrong it's laughable.


The feeling is mutual, trust me.




> Mate, I seriously hope you grow up one day and look back at this stuff, because my seven-year old has a better knowledge of how science actually works than you do.


Bravo for him - but again, don't _all_ parents think their kids are the best? I know I feel the same about my kids.





> Facts are *not* subjective.


Facts, no; _interpretations_ of said facts, absolutely.




> Be thankful this isn't a philosophy or logic paper, because you'd be heading into negative marks already. Go read what I wrote and talk about that rather than what you think I wrote.


Well, I'm not sure what qualifies you as an expert on philosophy or logic - so I'll pass on the grade for now, thanks.





> I'm glad you posted that, because I'd bet any amount of money you like that my biblical knowledge is *far* superior to your own. You won't get off like that.


"Knowing" (i.e. I've read it and know the factual contents) the Bible and _understanding_  it (especially its spiritual ramifications) are two different things. Confusing the two is a serious mistake.




> Lemme give you a tip - science has moved a long way from Darwin. That's another problem with creationists - thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist god. He wasn't, he was a very clever scientist, but his work is somewhat outdated. Given the state of his instrumentation, he was abloody genius to have got as far as he did.


You originally brought up Darwin - not me. He was smart - he even predicted the flaws in his position that scientists are still trying to solve.





> I wish you could do that.


And yet, somehow, we still manage to communicate. 





> Here, you're again emphasising your comlplete lack of knowledge about actual evolution science.


So you say.




> And note my previous reply - the lack of fossil record is further proof of evolution being correct.


And how might that work?




> As to evolution's triumph over creationism, that battle has long since been won, which is why actual churches agree with it. The only dissenters are those few deluded people who listen to, and believe, charismatic preachers who stand and tell lies.


"Long since won" eh? Hyperbole will get you no where. Evolution has not definitively proven anything. It makes the amature arguer's mistake of assuming that mounds of evidence can overwhelm an opponent into thinking that so much "evidence" must mean a solid argument. No such thing - sorry. 

The only real "liars" in this argument are high-school textbooks.

----------


## Scheherazade

*Reminder

Inflammatory comments will get you banned from the Forum temporarily / permanently.

Please discuss the subject matter, not each other.*

----------


## hyperborean

I have to say that "The Atheist" concluded this debate in my eyes. As evolutionists provide factual evidence, creationists use the desperate "god did it" and the "god will prove you wrong". 

The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths and he explores the mysteries of mankind using science. If only the rest of mankind would be more like him. Instead we have people concluding that a spirit is behind all the things we can't explain.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I have to say that "The Atheist" concluded this debate in my eyes. As evolutionists provide factual evidence, creationists use the desperate "god did it" and the "god will prove you wrong".


Debatable. 

(The "God will prove you wrong" response is only silly if it _isn't_ true. We've yet to establish that it's not.)




> The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths and he explores the mysteries of mankind using science. If only the rest of mankind would be more like him. Instead we have people concluding that a spirit is behind all the things we can't explain.


Equally debatable. 

"Open minded" appears to mean in your post "I agree with him." Not the criteria I would say that correctly identifies an "open mind."

----------


## Virgil

> The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths


 :FRlol:  I'm not in this debate, but I thought those two sentences were funny. Complete contradictions. Before you jump on me, hyperborean, I believe in evolution.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm not in this debate, but I thought those two sentences were funny. Complete contradictions. Before you jump on me, hyperborean, I believe in evolution.


Good call, Virgil. I wish I'd caught that irony and pointed it out!  :Smile:

----------


## hyperborean

I did word it wrong, and put the two phrases in the same sentence. He is open minded in the sense that most atheists have already reevaluated the myths brought upon them by society. 

def of open-minded: "Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas"

Christianity would be the old idea...evolution being the new one. You on the other hand show no receptiveness at all when it comes to evolution.

----------


## Virgil

> I did word it wrong,


I'm only teasing you, hyper.  :Wink:  Despite our diferences, you're OK in my book.  :Smile:

----------


## hyperborean

> I'm only teasing you, hyper.  Despite our diferences, you're OK in my book.


Glad to hear it :Wink:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I did word it wrong, and put the two phrases in the same sentence. He is open minded in the sense that most atheists have already reevaluated the myths brought upon them by society. 
> 
> def of open-minded: "Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas"
> 
> Christianity would be the old idea...evolution being the new one. You on the other hand show no receptiveness at all when it comes to evolution.


You have no idea what I'm open to - you _assume_. As a theory, evolution makes a certain amount of sense. However - just like the evolutionists/atheists who claim they need more "proof" to believe in God - I need some of the "gaps" in evolution filled before the theory seems reasonable to me. Either way - the Christian is less concerned with "fitting in" to the world's logic than he is in obeying God - entrance into heaven isn't granted because you were "right" all the time, or because you "knew" everything - it's based on your faith and your obedience.

----------


## HannibalBarca

I think that there was no Adam and Eve, that it is just a fable that someone came up with to convince people to not defy the Almighty

----------


## andave_ya

That's the core of the battle between evolution and creation. Man doesn't want to acknowledge God and therefore people believe in evolution yet turn a blind eye to its fallacies. I can understand that to some, God seems like a needless complication to life but because He has saved me I know otherwise.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Man doesn't want to acknowledge God and therefore people believe in evolution yet turn a blind eye to its fallacies. I can understand that to some, God seems like a needless complication to life but because He has saved me I know otherwise.


This is, I must say, a fairly useless comment. First of all, acceptance of the theory evolution does not entail atheism. Ken Miller, for example, is both a brilliant evolutionary biologist and a Roman Catholic. Second, atheism does not require acceptance of the theory of evolution (take a look at David Hume, for one, who died thirty years before Darwin was born). Third atheists are not people who don't "want to acknowledge God" or people to whom "God seems like a needless complication to life", they are people who _don't believe in God_.

Seriously, we've got enough _ad hominem_ arguments on this thread as it is.

----------


## andave_ya

I apologize for annoying you but I don't budge from what I say. Yes, you can believe that all the Bible is correct except Genesis and still be a Christian. But, if one doesn't believe the first book of the Bible is legit, what makes the other books true? The next logical step would be to say that the Resurrection is impossible. Then the entire purpose of God and Christianity would fall apart because Jesus' Resurrection is the core of my faith.

And furthermore, a nice sort of witness I'd be if I believed in both the Bible and in something contradictory to it.

I'm afraid I didn't clarify. I didn't mean that all atheists are evolutionists; rather, I've read accounts of atheists who disbelieve evolution because of a lack of proof but didn't believe in creation either.

I'm not qualified to talk about what atheists believe because I don't know any personally. I never even talked about atheists in my post! As you say, they don't believe in God because they _refuse to acknowledge He exists._ Does that make my stand a little more sharply defined?

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Atheism doesn't require evolution, but evolution is the most powerful engine of atheism invented. It allows one to be an intellectual atheist, whereas the previous scientists were attempting to understand God.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Yes, you can believe that all the Bible is correct except Genesis and still be a Christian. But, if one doesn't believe the first book of the Bible is legit, what makes the other books true?


One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.




> The next logical step would be to say that the Resurrection is impossible. Then the entire purpose of God and Christianity would fall apart because Jesus' Resurrection is the core of my faith.


This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.




> I'm not qualified to talk about what atheists believe because I don't know any personally. I never even talked about atheists in my post!


Well perhaps I was reading into it a bit too deeply, but that's who I thought you were refering to when you said that man refuses to acknowledge God.




> As you say, they don't believe in God because they refuse to acknowledge He exists.


No, that's not what I said. Refusal to acknowledge that God exists would require a) that God exists and b) a fairly large body of evidence of this fact that one might ignore. a is in question, and b simply isn't there. Refusal to acknowledge God's existence requires theism.




> It allows one to be an intellectual atheist...


Because there were no intellectual atheists before Darwin.




> ...whereas the previous scientists were attempting to understand God.


Nope. They were attempting to understand nature. Previous _philosophers_ were trying to understand God (or gods, depending on which philosphers), but natural philosophy (alias science) has never had much to do with God.

----------


## the fett man

[QUOTE=Dyrwen;53370]Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only has to do with how life evolved over time to become what it is today. [QUOTE]

Well just to let you know evolution has everyhting to do with life because if it didn't then what are we doing here. really if you want my opinion i think you don't know what you believe in and that you are completely confused on the subject of life its self.

This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.



well actually cuppajoe_9 you are wrong because the whole point of the resurection is the fact that he broke the gap from humans to god. the whole popint of christ dying on the cross was so that we didn't have to go through a prest to talk to him and last time i checked the cathlics believed that they are not worthy enouph to talk to god himself so they pray to mary and all of the saints and they rely on them talking their prayers to god and taht is not what the resurection is about.
So they might believe that it happened but they don't actually belive in it the porpose of it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Well just to let you know evolution has everyhting to do with life because if it didn't then what are we doing here.


No. The theory of evolution describes how animals speciate and adapt to their environment. The _hypotheses_ of abiogenesis describe how life _may_ have originated on earth. The two concepts are quite seperate.




> the whole popint of christ dying on the cross was so that we didn't have to go through a prest to talk to him and last time i checked the cathlics believed that they are not worthy enouph to talk to god himself so they pray to mary and all of the saints and they rely on them talking their prayers to god and taht is not what the resurection is about.


What? I was raised Catholic, friend. They pray to God (and Jesus, and the saints). They believe in the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus' body from the grave.




> So they might believe that it happened but they don't actually belive in it the porpose of it.


What I am talking about it whether or not they believe it happened. The differences between Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the Resurrection are not strictly relevant to my point.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.


Yep - or one could take it litarally. We choose the latter.




> This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.


Not necessarily. If you remove a foundational piece of a highly integrated work, it is possible to start an avalanche of sorts. andave_ya is speaking of the unity of the Bible. The Bible presents a unified picture - once you start pulling pieces out and discarding them or reinterpreting them to where they alter the picture of _Who God Is_, then all other miracles in the Bible are subject to such revision. It's hard for me to explain this in a clear way, because it involves the arc of the entire Bible - but it all links together. 




> No, that's not what I said. Refusal to acknowledge that God exists would require a) that God exists and b) a fairly large body of evidence of this fact that one might ignore. a is in question, and b simply isn't there. Refusal to acknowledge God's existence requires theism.


This is because of the presuppositional natures of our two positions: yours is that God doesn't exist; ours is that He does; therefore, it is perfectly accurate to use the language andave_ya uses - because the Bible makes it clear that all humans have an internal "knowledge" or at least an awareness (of sorts) of God. From the Christian perspective, there is no framework that exists outside Him. To say He doesn't exist is to refuse to acknowledge what the Bible claims you _know_ - even if only at a subconscious level.





> Nope. They were attempting to understand nature. Previous _philosophers_ were trying to understand God (or gods, depending on which philosphers), but natural philosophy (alias science) has never had much to do with God.


At least after the Enlightenment. Before then they had a bit closer relationship. But the Enlightenment was when science decided that it no longer needed the knowledge gained through spirituality - which is why it will always lack part of the picture when it claims to have assessed exactly what "reality" is.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Yep - or one could take it litarally. We choose the latter.


You're quite welcome to. That isn't the issue, however. The point is that the theory of evolution does not necessarily demand that Genesis be untrue, just allegorical.




> If you remove a foundational piece of a highly integrated work, it is possible to start an avalanche of sorts.


I suppose it's possible, but andave suggests that it is necessary.




> To say He doesn't exist is to refuse to acknowledge what the Bible claims you know - even if only at a subconscious level.


This is not, I must say, very impressive reasoning.

1. Everybody knows, even if subconciously, that God exists.
2. We know this, because it says so in the Bible.
3. We know the Bible is reliable because it was inspired by God.
4. We know that God exists because everybody, even if subconciously, knows that God exists.

And we have now completed a playful circle. Anthropology, however, has a bone to pick with P1. Children raised in atheist families do not readily understand the concept of a God. A study of the wretchedly poor underclasses of Victorian England found that many children did not know who God is or what he does.




> ...which is why it will always lack part of the picture when it claims to have assessed exactly what "reality" is.


Show me the scientist who claims to "have assessed exactly what 'reality' is".

----------


## andave_ya

> One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.


The same thing would hold then. If Genesis is a metaphor or an allegory, why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be metaphors or allegories?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> The same thing would hold then. If Genesis is a metaphor or an allegory, why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be metaphors or allegories?


Because they have (allegedly) more historical support than Genesis, perhaps? It's still a slipperly slope fallicy. Catholics hold the concepts of an allegorical Genesis and a literal Luke in their heads quite comfortably.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Evolution is a hypothosis based on the theory of spontaneous generation,
which is contrary to a proven law of science. The law of biogenesis meaning
that living things can only come from other living things. Another is the 
cell principle, which states that all living things are divided into cells and that
cells come only from preexisting cells. These are tried and proven laws and 
principles accepted in the scientific world. Not anyones oppinion.So if you 
believe the Bible or not isn't important, however, the fact that evolution
couldn't of even occured is.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Evolution is a hypothosis based on the theory of spontaneous generation


No, evolution is a theory and it does not in any way depend on abiogenesis.




> The law of biogenesis meaning
> that living things can only come from other living things. Another is the
> cell principle, which states that all living things are divided into cells and that
> cells come only from preexisting cells. These are tried and proven laws and
> principles accepted in the scientific world. Not anyones oppinion.


They are also arguments from ignorance:

1. It is not known how life can originate from non-life.
2. Therefore, life cannot originate from non-life.

1. All known examles of life are divided into cells.
2. Therefore, life cannot exist unless divided into cells.

Kind of an 'all rats have tails' problem.




> So if you believe the Bible or not isn't important, however, the fact that evolution couldn't of even occured is.


But, again, you are talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Evolution is based on abiogensis, and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.
Evolution has never once been verified. It is therfore a hypothesis.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Evolution is based on abiogensis...


Not it is not.




> and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.


That is correct. Guess what?

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

did you really expect me to read all that?

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

so what would you say evolution is based on?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Tell you what, read _any_ of it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> so what would you say evolution is based on?


Readily observable evidence of common descent, for a start.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

and what would you say is readily observable?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

The genomes of _E. coli_, _Pan paniscus_ and _Homo spaiens sapiens_ have been fully sequenced and are available for your comparison, if you have the time.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

your Homo erectus is also a bad argument most have been proven to be frauds and others only awaiting and yet still others that have been proven to be frauds and people still cling to them as proof.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I didn't even mention _Homo erectus_?

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

I am not sure what you mean by the genomes of E. coli, so far I've never heard that argument?

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

what I ment by that is that all of the so called remains have been proven to be either 100&#37; animal or 100% human.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

E. coli was one of the first species to have its genome decoded (the entire pattern of proteins in its DNA is known, in other words). The same has been done to humans and to bonobos, as well as thousands of other species. Not only do these three species use the same 22 amino acids out of a possible 390 naturally occuring ones, but signifigant strands of DNA are _identical in all three species._ If you accept the principle that common gentic material implies ancestry, this is a hard thing to get over if you would like to disprove the theory of evolution.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

That still dosn't prove evolution.You are missing the basic fact that life can not reproduce except by life. Nothing can come from nothing. Simularities do not make proff.And if you believe this line of reasoning why are there no transitional forms?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

And you are still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution. You can believe that God, chemical soup, aliens or whatever you like resulted in the first life form on earth, but after that, I can show you common descent for every organism.




> And if you believe this line of reasoning why are there no transitional forms?


Hey, look! Hundreds of transitional forms!

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Evolution had to begin somewhere, I have seen no other explination as to how it began other that abiogenesis.So in my book it is abiogenesis. If you feel differently please explain how it began, I'd be happy to understant.
Also I'am not interested in your websites I want to here the argument from you.

I also have no interest in aliens or chemical soup. Only the truth.

just a question how many classes have you taken on this subject?

another question do you believe the punctuated equilibrium?

----------


## Adolescent09

It surprises me how heated these debates become (after I post this it will be the 1713th reply in this topic). If we could truly accept the fact that some people believe in God and Creation while others believe in "Evolution" why would we have to incessantly debate on the matter? I've seen some eloquently written posts in this thread, some of which have progressively strong points to support their opinions, but it appears (to me at least) outright ridiculous to go on back and forth, back and forth on which view appears more plausible. I personally believe in both creation and evolution... I believe Providence created the creatures which encompassed the earth and evolution biologically tweaked God's creatures to adapt with capricious environmental changes (Giraffe neck growth over centuries and land turtles to armadillos for an example..)

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Evolution had to begin somewhere, I have seen no other explination as to how it began other that abiogenesis.So in my book it is abiogenesis. If you feel differently please explain how it began, I'd be happy to understant.


I don't know how it began. Neither does anybody. It doesn't matter, because it happens.




> Also I'am not interested in your websites I want to here the argument from you.


You're getting the argument from me. The websites contain the evidence.




> just a question how many classes have you taken on this subject?


Whether I've never taken a class or whether I'm Emiritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University has no relevance to my argument. If you're interested, however, I finished high school biology and read a few books out of personal interest.




> another question do you believe the punctuated equilibrium?


It seems to be the way things work, yes.




> I've seen some eloquently written posts in this thread, some of which have progressively strong points to support their opinions, but it appears (to me at least) outright ridiculous to go on back and forth, back and forth on which view appears more plausible.


As for myself, I stay here because it forces me to stay educated about biological evolution, not because I really think I'm going to convince anybody.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Well I'll start with your punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.According to this idea, new kinds of oraganisms arise as a result of drastic environmental changes, which bring about rapid genetic changes in small groups of animals and plants.Some even go as far as to state that drastic genetic restructurings called macromutations that suddenly change one kind of creature into another.(1 What proof do you have that there was a sudden drastic enviromental change that would cause macromutation?(2 mutations are not an improvement in an organisms it is always harmful and distructive.

This is nothing but a way to side step the fact that there are no true transitional forms.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

However,it matters greatly how it began. This is the whole question of the matter. You stated that you do not know, neither does evolution. It only provides more questions,not awnsers.I want to give ya some more quotes.
This is by Thomas Henery Huxley, an accredited scientist," If the hypothesis of evolution be true,living matter must have originated from non-living matter 
for,by that hypothesis, the conditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:" We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

I have two other problems for ya.(1 What about the plant life? There are no signs of evolutionary, or otherwise.C.A. Arnold said this," As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
Also what about you "simularity equals connection" hypothesis? Take for instance Eohippus or "dawn horse," the linage runs thus from "dawn horse" to "modern horse," goes like this, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendant Orohippus had only 15 pairs;a later stage in the "tree,"
Pliohippus, had 19 pairs of ribs, while the modern horse has 18 pairs of ribs. Such jumping back and forth, with ribs disappearing and reappearing like magic, is a strong indication that the "horse series" is actually a collection of unrelated mammals that share a smiliar overall body plan.
Somewhat like your human,ape, E. coli.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> (1 What proof do you have that there was a sudden drastic enviromental change that would cause macromutation?


Observation. We can see observe animals that have experienced sudden, drastic, environmental changes and the ensuing speciation. For example, we can compare those organisms on volcanic islands with those on continental islands. The organisms on volcanic islands, who would've had to wind up there by accident, can be shown to have diverged greatly from their ancestors because of the difference between the continental environment and the sea-locked environment. Species on continental islands, however, are relatively close in physiology and genetics to their ancestors, because a continental island's environment doesn't change much when it seperates from the mainland. Check out the differences in the animal populations between, say, Vancouver Island and Hawaii.




> (2 mutations are not an improvement in an organisms it is always harmful and distructive.


Demonstrably false. We've observed organisms speciating due to beneficial mutations, as in the HIV, for example.




> However,it matters greatly how it began. This is the whole question of the matter. You stated that you do not know, neither does evolution.


Fortunately, it doesn't need to. The theory of evolution by natural selection describes how all life on earth originally speicated from a common ancestor. Where that ancestor came from is entirely secondary.

An illustration: most evolutionary biologists assume that abiogenesis occured because the conditions on early earth were such that self-replicating organic molecules were formed which, over the course of millions of years, evolved into the first cells. Suppose, however, the hypothesis suggested by the film _Mission to Mars_ was shown to be correct, and the first organisms on earth were actually put there my martian scientists. Modern biologists would certainly be surprised, but would they have to throw out their taxonomy tree? No, of course not, because the fact that organisms evolve and speciate through the process of natural selection does not depend on the current assumtion of abiogenesis from self-replicating organic molecules.

Another illustration: the theory of gravity is, to put it one way, generally accepted among physicists. How gravity actually works, however, is deeply mysterious. The best current hypothesis, in my limited understanding, is Loop Quantum Gravity which, if you try to understand it, will give you a raging headache. There are numerous competing hypotheses for the mechanics of gravity, however, and nothing is difinitely settled as to how gravitation actually takes place. This does not, however, change the fact that whenever you drop an object it travels at a certain number of meters per second per second towards the centre of the earth until somehow impeded.

Incompleteness is not proof of defect for the theory of gravity, and it is not proof of defect for the theory of evolution.




> This is by Thomas Henery Huxley, an accredited scientist," If the hypothesis of evolution be true,living matter must have originated from non-living matter
> for,by that hypothesis, the comditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."


Well he may be an accredited scientist, but I hope he's not a biologist, because evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, and it does not depend on abiogenesis.




> Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:" We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."


Translation: we don't know. Yet.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> (1 What about the plant life? There are no signs of evolutionary, or otherwise.C.A. Arnold said this," As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."


Again, I don't know who C.A. Arnold is, but I hope he's not a biologist, because that is simply false. We've traced the taxonomy of the plant kingdom the same way we've traced the taxonomy of the animal kingdom.




> Also what about you "simularity equals connection" hypothesis? Take for instance Eohippus or "dawn horse," the linage runs thus from "dawn horse" to "modern horse," goes like this, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendant Orohippus had only 15 pairs;a later stage in the "tree,"


Evolution = more ribs, now? The question is not one of 'similarity', we can trace inhereted genetic markers as a way of confirming physiolgical similarity, and it almost always works. In addition, most fossilized transitional forms, by necesity of probability, are not actual ancestors, but rather closely related evolutionary 'side-branches' that went extinct.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Ok I went and looked at the website, try looking into old tales of original tribes, most have a story concerning a world wide flood,sometimes the details are different but it is generally the same story. So if you don't believe the Bible you might try listening to them.Study tip, start with the Tower of Babel.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

What makes you think I _haven't_ studied the Bible?

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

There isn't any where in the world that you can observe animals in speciation you can only speculate that it happened that way, no proof. That is merely
an example of natural selection. ALSO THE BEGINING IS VERY IMPORTANT,ELSE YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT THAT YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS EVEN CREDIBLE!!!

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

I didn't say you didn't study the Bible, I said if you don't believe it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> There isn't any where in the world that you can observe animals in speciation you can only speculate that it happened that way, no proof.


Yes, we can. We observed the speciation of the HIV. You may have heard something about it in the news.




> That is merely an example of natural selection.


Umm...yes.




> ALSO THE BEGINING IS VERY IMPORTANT,ELSE YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT THAT YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS EVEN CREDIBLE!!!


You can just read my previous post again if you want me to tell you why this is wrong.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

the ribs were a point that the linage isn't logical.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

natural selection does not mean evolution.
We clearly have a different meaning of the term.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> the ribs were a point that the linage isn't logical.


There is no reason to assume that the number of ribs could not go back and fourth due to environmental changes that, for whatever reason, made it advantageous to have greater or fewer ribs.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> natural selection does not mean evolution.


No, but it is the process by which evolution happens.

Would you mind terribly trying to keep all the points you want to make at a given time in one post? It clutters up the boards. Thank you.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Sorry, didn't mean to clutter, thought just come to me.
Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution


Interesting how the book in which the theory was first described is a book about evolution then, eh?

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.
It is a self evident truth-an animal well-suited to its enviroment is certainly more likely to thrive than an animal poorly suited to its enviroment.Darwin
believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.


Darwin invented the term, he can define it how he likes.




> Darwin believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.


You're going to have to define the term 'kinds' a little better. Do you mean species? Genuses? Kingdoms?

----------


## Adolescent09

> Sorry, didn't mean to clutter, thought just come to me.
> Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution


It's quite hilarious how absolutely wrong you are. Natural Selection is the *REASON* for Evolution. The fundamental process of Natural selection in biology is the reason Evolution exists... Even I know that for sure..  :Tongue:

----------


## Adolescent09

> That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.
> It is a self evident truth-an animal well-suited to its enviroment is certainly more likely to thrive than an animal poorly suited to its enviroment.Darwin
> believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.


This perception is completely false and you're not even backing it up with feasible arguments...

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

We could debate this subject to the end of the world, so I am going to state 
my truth clearly, as best I can.

I do not accept evolution on the basis that it is an unfounded and baseless hypothesis.It goes against 3 universally accepted laws and principles,(1 being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it states that for every process,there is an overall loss of useful energy and a tendency toward greater disorder(this is the opposite of evolution.) (2 being the Law of Biogenesis, that states that living things can only come from other living things. Evolution has no other explination other than abiogenesis. This begining is very important, it is the basic question behind creation vs. evolution.(3 being the cell princple, that 
states that all living things are composed of living units called cells and of cell products and that all cells come from preexisting cells.Not even the simplest of oranisms can develop from nonliving matter,that is on the authority of Louis Pasteur.

Scientific facts exist.Answers to scientific question exists.Evolution doesn't
offer any facts or proof that can or will hold up to scientific observation or experimentation.Most evolutionist conceed to this point.

I do not accept the evolutionists geologic column because there is not a single place on the earth where you can go and see the geologic column.
It is only a tool in circular reasoning ,there is no objective way to look at a sample of sedimentary rock and determine its age.There are no "Missing Links"
as evolutionists present, all "transitional form" have been proven to be either 100% human or 100% animal, no 50-50.
Variety within kinds generally results from preexisting genetic variety(genes that were present from the beginning),and that there are fixed limits to biological change.Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained,so the rules out the puntuated equilibrium."The chance that highter life forms might have emereged in this way [by mutations and natural selection] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard migh assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"-Sir Fred Hoyle,astronomer.
As for the slower version of evolution it would require that all structures had to develop one small step at a time, while remaining fully functional at every step.For example evolutionists believe that the four-chambered heart of birds and mammals evolved from the one-chambered heart of invertebrates.Obviously,the heart sould not cease to function at any time during this transition, for the animal would quicky die without a functioning heart.This is a quote from Darwin himself"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possible have been formed by numerous,successive,slight modifications,my theory would absolutely break down." Ok here is an example of his organ,take the bat ,evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small,four-legged,rodentlike mammal similar to the modern shrews.However,a bat's wing are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones conected by a thin web of skin.In order for a shrew's forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would be able to fly. Darwin's theory destroyed.

I do however accept the Genesis record that God created the heavens and the earth, including all that they contain, in six literal days(for ya'll who know latin check it out, the translation of the word means literal 24 hr. days.)God spoke that dosen't need non-living matter to living matter, it is so much simpler.I believe the King James Bible is the complete and literal word of God,
it states"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.Try reading the first 2 chapters.Any questions concerning this I'd be happy to try and find an answer. Thanx, ruhbr_ducky

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

Kind means a group of similar organisms that are all decsended from a single group of originally created animals and may refer to a species, a genus, or a family.As a general rule,members of the same kind are biologically capable of producing fertile offspring,although they may not interbreed at all in nature because of geographical or behavioral differences. Defined enough?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> (1 being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it states that for every process,there is an overall loss of useful energy and a tendency toward greater disorder(this is the opposite of evolution.)


Creative, but no. The Second Law predicts a tendency towards disorder in a closed system, which the earth is not. It is constantly being bombared with radiant energy. From the sun.




> (2 being the Law of Biogenesis, that states that living things can only come from other living things. Evolution has no other explination other than abiogenesis. This begining is very important, it is the basic question behind creation vs. evolution.(3 being the cell princple, that
> states that all living things are composed of living units called cells and of cell products and that all cells come from preexisting cells.Not even the simplest of oranisms can develop from nonliving matter,that is on the authority of Louis Pasteur.


I've already dealt with the abiogenesis straw-man several times now.

Even if you're Louis Pasteur, it is not logically possible to prove that something can't be done.




> .Evolution doesn't offer any facts or proof that can or will hold up to scientific observation or experimentation.Most evolutionist conceed to this point.


An outrageous lie. I've linked you to a site which provides several of the predictions that evolution makes, the evidence that bears these predictions out, and possible falsifications thereof. You may read it at your pleasure.




> I do not accept the evolutionists geologic column because there is not a single place on the earth where you can go and see the geologic column.


So what? There are plenty of place where you can go to see bits and pieces of the geological column, and these can be pieced together using radiometric dating and other independant confirmations.




> There are no "Missing Links" as evolutionists present, all "transitional form" have been proven to be either 100&#37; human or 100% animal, no 50-50.


This is becaue you don't know what a 'missing link' (or, more properly, transitional form) looks like. If we have a fossilized organism with traits AAAA and a fossilized organism with traits BBBB, then the transitional forms are organisms AAAB, AABB, and ABBB. You're looking for a organism A/B A/B A/B A/B, which would be inviable and doesn't exist. In addition, the human/animal distinction has no scientific value. Humans _are_ animals, in the biological sense.




> Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained,so the rules out the puntuated equilibrium."


Beneficial mutations have been observed to cause speciation, in both the wild and in the lab, in both unicellular and more complex organims.




> Ok here is an example of his organ,take the bat ,evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small,four-legged,rodentlike mammal similar to the modern shrews.However,a bat's wing are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones conected by a thin web of skin.In order for a shrew's forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would be able to fly. Darwin's theory destroyed.


Why couldn't the shrew go through a number of flying-squirrel-like stages on its way to being a bat? I can deal with as many arguments from lack of imagination as you're willing to think up.




> I do however accept the Genesis record that God created the heavens and the earth, including all that they contain, in six literal days(for ya'll who know latin check it out, the translation of the word means literal 24 hr. days.)God spoke that dosen't need non-living matter to living matter, it is so much simpler.I believe the King James Bible is the complete and literal word of God, it states"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.Try reading the first 2 chapters.Any questions concerning this I'd be happy to try and find an answer.


I've read them. However, I have a proposition for you: I will reread one book of the Bible of your choice for every page of my link that you read, provided that you also read the linked references for any claim that you find suspicious. Even so, that has me reading about ten words to your one. If I'm going to look at your evidence, you can certainly look at mine. Fair?




> Kind means a group of similar organisms that are all decsended from a single group of originally created animals and may refer to a species, a genus, or a family.As a general rule,members of the same kind are biologically capable of producing fertile offspring,although they may not interbreed at all in nature because of geographical or behavioral differences. Defined enough?


That's almost exactly the same thing as a species and, as I say, speciation has been observed.

----------


## HannibalBarca

I'm going with creation, but it may be both.

----------


## ruhbr_ducky

:Smile:  Try checking out some of these,and see if you don't find some answers.
icr.org and anwsersingenesis.org
If The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only creative then why do you see the atrophathy of the earth? Since we are so observant.
There are deffinant laws and limits to a rational world, so it is illogical to say that nothing can be known for sure.It really dosen't matter that it was Pasture I stated, it is a scientific law that organismis can't develop from non-living matter.
The geologic column is important because if it were laid down in that order you should be able to observe it.You can't, so it wasn't .
You oppinion on mutation is biased,never has any benificial mutation been produced.Please, don't mention the fly with four wings, it is bogus,the animal was impared and unable to fly.Not a benificial mutation.
Try some other web sites.
Give up on the transitional forms, you have no proof.
Even if the shrew went throught flying bat stages how would it eat,please remember they have to stay fully functional.The shrew would die of starvation for lack of the ability to feed itself in the begining stages.
P.S. I thought you believed in macromutions?
I asked you only to read two chapters.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

:FRlol:  at Answers in Genesis. I've been. 




> There are deffinant laws and limits to a rational world, so it is illogical to say that nothing can be known for sure.


Good thing that's not at all what I said.




> The geologic column is important because if it were laid down in that order you should be able to observe it.You can't, so it wasn't .


I know it's important. Try reading my entire sentence next time.




> You oppinion on mutation is biased,never has any benificial mutation been produced.Please, don't mention the fly with four wings, it is bogus,the animal was impared and unable to fly.Not a benificial mutation.


Dude, I never did mention the fly with four wings. I've never even _heard_ of the fly with four wings. Would it be too much to ask that you respond to what I actually say?




> Give up on the transitional forms, you have no proof.


Yes I do, you just refuse to read the evidence.




> Even if the shrew went throught flying bat stages how would it eat,please remember they have to stay fully functional.


Here's a hint: flying squirrels can eat.




> I asked you only to read two chapters.


I'll re-read the whole book if you read one page.

----------


## kilted exile

ay ay ay......

1) There is evidence of speciation - there is even links to articles within this thread showing such (post 292, page 20)

2) Why would anybody look for an objective analysis at a website called answersingenesis.com?

3) I have posted elsewhere in this thread examples of beneficial mutations, see about 5/6pages back re: sickle cell anaemia. Then of course there is the theory regarding the development of the girrafes elongated neck

4) Am I wasting my time, are people actually interested in learning about the theory of evolution or are you just looking for an argument

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

But the bat has wings with bones and skeletal muscle in them. A flying squirrel would have to mutate both at the same time to be a bat. They couldn't mutate them at seperate times, because, alone, each is detrimental to the squirrel so the squirrel could never get both at one time.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Beneficial mutations have shown to cause nothing like speciation in the observable wild, but it might have in the lab. What lab was that?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Beneficial mutations have shown to cause nothing like speciation in the observable wild, but it might have in the lab.


_Drosophilia_ (fruit flies) have been observed to speciate in the wild _and_ in the lab. Source: _Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647._

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> 1) There is evidence of speciation - there is even links to articles within this thread showing such (post 292, page 20)


I won't even make them look for it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4461827.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

and one of my own:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

----------


## andave_ya

> 2) Why would anybody look for an objective analysis at a website called answersingenesis.com?


Don't look for objective analysis at that site - but do look at the site. My family has several times gone to hear Ken Ham speak and much of the creationist viewpoint that I know comes from AiG. It's a little harsh in its views toward evolutionism but it puts forth compelling arguments.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Ken Ham does not put forth convincing arguments, I'm sorry. He doesn't even put forth falacious arguments. He just lies. From the site:




> Vital evidence for the evolutionary side has included fakes, mistakes, datings that shift to fit the theory better, and classifications that go against clear anatomical evidence.


Lie.




> For example, he points out that a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone.


Lie. It's _more similar_ to a modern human arm-bone than other species of that period, but it's far from indistinguishable.




> But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.


Lie. Later digs uncovered complete and clearly non-human jaw bones and carania from the same species.




> But where do they fit? Although they were a race of humans, evolutionists have no idea where Neandertals came from or went. The Neandertals’ ‘evolutionary’ origin is as mysterious as their alleged rapid disappearance. From a creationist point of view though, the Neandertals were simply a group of humans who lived in the past.


Argument from ignorance. Also, Neandertals _aren't_ humans, by any sort of reasonable standard, as there are overt anatomical differences between the two. No group of humans, modern or ancient, ever had an occipital bun, for example.




> When different ‘types’ of fossil humans which allegedly evolved one into the other (such as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, etc.) are discovered at the same place and/or at the same level, it is regarded as an evolution ‘anomaly’.


Lie. They aren't found together. Ever. The newest _Homo erectus_ fossil is, controvertially, 1.3 million years old, where the oldest _Homo sapien_ fossil is 130 000. 




> Such evidence is either lamely explained away or shelved and largely forgotten. But shouldn’t it alert evolutionists to the fact that their theory may be wrong?


It might if such evidence actually existed.

I really don't want to go on.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Actually, much of past evolution proof has depended on lies. Piltdown Man and the Peppered moth experiment were both regarded as evidence and were both proven frauds. 
However, I would like to know what your response to irreducible complexity argument, as formulated by Michael Behe.

----------


## andave_ya

What I have to say is pretty much in conjunction with what Dante said. 

More Neanderthal men were found. Because they were more similar to humankind than the original one was, the Neanderthal men have been classified as _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_. The original one was discarded as one who had scurvy or rickets or some such bone disease.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Piltdown Man and the Peppered moth experiment were both regarded as evidence and were both proven frauds.


I dare you to find me one, _one_ reference to the Piltdown Man in _any_ peer-reviewed article about evolution written since 1960.

As for the Peppered Moth experiment, it's been repeated with the same results:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2_2.html




> However, I would like to know what your response to irreducible complexity argument, as formulated by Michael Behe.


I've dealt with it. It's an argument from ignorance. In addition, Behe hasn't been able to come up with an irreducibly complex structure, even by his own defitintion.

Ken Miller can take care of that one for me.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Because they were more similar to humankind than the original one was, the Neanderthal men have been classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.


Simply false. Neanderthals are classified as _Homo neanderthalensis_. Full taxonomy of _Homo neaderthalensis_ here.


Edit: a Google revealed that the species was _originally_ clasified _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, but DNA evidence shows otherwise. Sorry about that.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I'll have to get back to you on Behe's "failure."

What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> I'll have to get back to you on Behe's "failure."
> 
> What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.


What are the mathematical odds of there being a god who designed the Universe and all life within it? I would say that the chances have to be better for evolution than for the existence of god. Firstly, we have evidence for evolution.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> What cannot be argued away are the mathematical odds. The math is against most of what evolution - whether abiogenesis or not - suggests as possible.


I've given you the odds that the chimpanzee and human genomes got the way they are by a process other than common ancestry (billions to one against, even discounting the genes that are actually functional).  I can give you some other proofs that can be given to a high level of statistical probability as well, if you'd like.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What are the mathematical odds of there being a god who designed the Universe and all life within it?


How does one calculate such a thing? And, either way, you have shifted the focus; I asserted that evolution struggles with the math required to make it believable. You didn't address that.




> I would say that the chances have to be better for evolution than for the existence of god. Firstly, we have evidence for evolution.


The "evidence" is not conclusive - and it relies upon the tacit acceptance of numbers that are beyond reason, beyond belief.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> I've dealt with it. It's an argument from ignorance. In addition, Behe hasn't been able to come up with an irreducibly complex structure, even by his own defitintion.


What about the eye, or even cilia?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> What about the eye


We've done this before, Dante.




> , or even cilia?


Cilia are incredibly simple.

----------


## atiguhya padma

RedZeppelin,

I would have thought that the evidence relies upon a measurable rate of change in the construction of a species genetic makeup. Measure the average rate of change in genetic makeup of a species over x amount of generations, then work out the percentage difference in genes from any given species to the earliest life forms and calculate the total duration of time elapsed. If this vastly exceeds our dating of life on earth, using other independent techniques, then we can say that evolution theory requires a worrying amount of faith (although it will never require as much as creationism). So you say that you cannot calculate the odds of there being a god, but the chances of evolution occurring and being a driving force in the continuation of life on earth, can be calculated. That in itself speak volumes against creationism doesn't it? 

You say that evolution requires 'the tacit acceptance of numbers beyond reason, beyond belief'. What are those then? What numbers do you find unbelievable, unreasonable? Life has been here a long time. Long enough for us to have evolved.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So you say that you cannot calculate the odds of there being a god, but the chances of evolution occurring and being a driving force in the continuation of life on earth, can be calculated. That in itself speak volumes against creationism doesn't it?


I will deal with the rest of your post later. For now - I said what I said because I'm not sure how you calculate the probability of a _supernatural being_. I do know that we can calculate things like the probability of evolution because the theory requires that we use evidence that is readily available here on earth (to an extent). Simply because I'm not sure _how_ you calculate the odds of a supernatural being doesn't mean the odds are against it - it just means _I'm not sure how to go about it_.

----------


## DRK3RD

Evolution is just a theory! :Yawnb:  But, then, again, so is Creationism!! :Flare:  So it comes down to which thoery do you subscribe to. I prefer to think that there is more than just this life to look forward to. :Wink:  
Thanks for letting me spout off!!!! :Angel:

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Evolution is just a theory! But, then, again, so is Creationism!! So it comes down to which thoery do you subscribe to. I prefer to think that there is more than just this life to look forward to. 
> Thanks for letting me spout off!!!!


It is possible to believe that God created the world, but the world has evolved. It isn't a True/False answer.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Evolution is just a theory! But, then, again, so is Creationism!!


In scientific terms, creationism is a hypothesis.

----------


## The Atheist

The attempt by creationists to insist that both "theories" should stand side by side as equals is one of the more laughable aspects of the debate.

Creationists constantly state that evolution "is only theorised", it's not scientific fact.

To a degree, that's a valid point, but when the theory is backed by enormous amounts of undeniable scientific fact and becomes accepted science, it is a lot more than just another theory.

As Joe points out, creationism is not, scientifically-speaking, a theory's backside. It is at best a very weak hypothesis. Certainly, it can be classed quite correctly as a "theory" in English as the language has that ability. Just as I can hold a theory that the moon is made of cheese.

Creationism has not one fact which backs it up. I long for the day when a creationist will actually attempt to use a fact to suggest that there's any merit in the idea. Scientifically-speaking, it isn't even really a hypothesis, as hypotheses in science should have at least some chance of being proven correct. Unfortunately, creationism can't do that and the idea counts as no more than lunatic ranting.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The attempt by creationists to insist that both "theories" should stand side by side as equals is one of the more laughable aspects of the debate.
> 
> Creationists constantly state that evolution "is only theorised", it's not scientific fact.
> 
> To a degree, that's a valid point, but when the theory is backed by enormous amounts of undeniable scientific fact and becomes accepted science, it is a lot more than just another theory.
> 
> As Joe points out, creationism is not, scientifically-speaking, a theory's backside. It is at best a very weak hypothesis. Certainly, it can be classed quite correctly as a "theory" in English as the language has that ability. Just as I can hold a theory that the moon is made of cheese.
> 
> Creationism has not one fact which backs it up. I long for the day when a creationist will actually attempt to use a fact to suggest that there's any merit in the idea. Scientifically-speaking, it isn't even really a hypothesis, as hypotheses in science should have at least some chance of being proven correct. Unfortunately, creationism can't do that and the idea counts as no more than lunatic ranting.


The mathematical odds against evolution are _astronomical_. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.

----------


## andave_ya

> Simply false. Neanderthals are classified as Homo neanderthalensis. Full taxonomy of Homo neaderthalensis here.
> 
> 
> Edit: a Google revealed that the species was originally clasified Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, but DNA evidence shows otherwise. Sorry about that.


I'm sorry, cuppajoe, but that's wikipedia. Anyone trained and untrained can edit it to say what they please, making it unacceptable as a source. And in your edit, you say that it was originally classified as _homo sapiens_ but DNA shows otherwise? Meaning that it's still classified as _homo sapiens_? or that it _looks_ like _homo neanderthalensis_? I'll research it and get back to you.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I'm sorry, cuppajoe, but that's wikipedia. Anyone trained and untrained can edit it to say what they please, making it unacceptable as a source.


It's cited, I believe, and you can follow it up if you'd like.




> And in your edit, you say that it was originally classified as homo sapiens but DNA shows otherwise? Meaning that it's still classified as homo sapiens? or that it looks like homo neanderthalensis? I'll research it and get back to you.


The species was originally classified as a sub-species of _homo sapiens_, but it is now generally accepted that it could not or did not interbreed with other _homo sapiens_, and therefore qualifies as its own species.

----------


## kilted exile

*Red*, Ok I may not be following this correctly (mainly skimmed the last 2 pages) but I dont really understand your position here: you seem to be complaining that scientists dont examine the creation perspective, but also suggest that is untestable scientifically. If it is untestable scientifically why would scientists attempt to test it? Can you clarify this?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> *Red*, Ok I may not be following this correctly (mainly skimmed the last 2 pages) but I dont really understand your position here: you seem to be complaining that scientists dont examine the creation perspective, but also suggest that is untestable scientifically. If it is untestable scientifically why would scientists attempt to test it? Can you clarify this?


Which post are you referring to?

----------


## kilted exile

> Which post are you referring to?


Sorry,Just realised they are on a mixture of different threads (it all seems to merge together every once in a while) anyway I'll collate them here for easiness:




> "Testable predictions" are very dependent upon 1) the nature of your measuring devices, and 2) the nature of that which you are measuring. Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you; I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.


&




> Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.


As I said previously it is probably just me misunderstanding, but some clarification would be nice :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Sorry,Just realised they are on a mixture of different threads (it all seems to merge together every once in a while) anyway I'll collate them here for easiness:
> 
> As I said previously it is probably just me misunderstanding, but some clarification would be nice


I think I'm saying this:

1) Foundational presuppositions are the basis of our beliefs; these presuppositions act as "filters" through which we consider the nature of reality. Naturalism posits that only the material world and its measurable/observable phenomenon is the basis of reality; Christianity posits that God is the source of reality. These presuppositions mean that evidence that is convincing to one side of the fence will more than likely not convince the opponent on the other side of the fence - because the presuppositional foundations prescribe what is and is not credible evidence; hence, the Naturalist automatically dismisses all supernatural claims of evidence because God's nonexistence is a given, a requirement for Naturalism. Conversely, the Christian will automatically not consider valid any evidence that suggests that God is not who He says He is and that the Bible is not reliable - because the Christian foundation says that the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God.

2) Naturalists (and often atheists) will insist that they are objective, open-minded, individual thinkers (as opposed to us close-minded Christians who are brainwashed and cannot think for ourselves); I contend that real open-minded people would not dismiss the possibility of supernatural forces at work in our world. As such, I challenge the claimed "objectivity" of the atheist, the naturalist, the secular-humanist.

Let me know if I continue to be unclear (I'm prone to being such).

----------


## kilted exile

Ok, thats a lot clearer; it was mainly the phrase "embrace ALL explanatory possiblities." that was troubling me.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok, thats a lot clearer; it was mainly the phrase "embrace ALL explanatory possiblities." that was troubling me.


I should have said "consider" all possibilities; those who claim open-minded must do so to carry that title (which means I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open-minded person - at least to certain possibilities).

----------


## 3kixintehead

> The mathematical odds against evolution are _astronomical_. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.


The "facts" and "evidence" are not to be swept aside by probabilities. You can list off as many statistics as you can the fact is, is tht there is still a chance and the evidence seems to say that that chance happened. True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".

----------


## Babbalanja

> Naturalists (and often atheists) will insist that they are objective, open-minded, individual thinkers (as opposed to us close-minded Christians who are brainwashed and cannot think for ourselves); I contend that real open-minded people would not dismiss the possibility of supernatural forces at work in our world. As such, I challenge the claimed "objectivity" of the atheist, the naturalist, the secular-humanist.


It's not that scientific endeavor dismisses the possibility of supernatural entities, it simply requires evidence of their existence and/or influence in our world. It's easy to condemn naturalism as closed-minded if you forget that the burden of proof is on the believer to provide evidence of supernatural forces.

Methodological naturalism (the basis of empirical evidential inquiry) doesn't claim that natural forces are either a subset of all forces that exist or the only forces that exist. MN merely assumes the pragmatic stance that only verifiable entities should be considered as having relevance to scientific inquiry.

----------


## hyperborean

The reason why many people believe in evolution because it exists. We don't know for sure how life started, but evolution does exist. It's easier to tag initial creation with something we know exists than with something we made up.

----------


## Orionsbelt

Evolution is a mechanism for change. It is not the essence of life itself. It is growth like a root that finds it's way through a crack in the rock. In that sense it ties all life together. However, It pre-supposes the existence of something that will evolve. At the basic level change in based on genetics.. mutations...so... no genes, no mutation, no evolution. Pools of organic chemicals are not genes. You cannot use evolution to explain the start of life. The evidence only suggests that life did not appear suddenly.. it appeared to have come about slowly. Find the link between volition and matter and you will have indeed found something. As it is right now, like gravity, we can only describe the material mechanics.

----------


## The Atheist

> The mathematical odds against evolution are _astronomical_. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.


Can I suggest that before you start with blatant lies about evolution that you actually learn something about it first.

You show with this post that you have no idea at all. It is wrong from start to finish.

----------


## The Atheist

> The "facts" and "evidence" are not to be swept aside by probabilities. You can list off as many statistics as you can the fact is, is tht there is still a chance and the evidence seems to say that that chance happened. True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".


Can I suggest that before you accept any of the lies about the odds for evolution that you check them with someone who actually understands them.

The algorithm for evolution shows evolution to be mathematically almost a certainty.

Comments from creationists that the odds are agaist evolution are nothing more than baseless lies. This just shows what a hopeless position they're in - they [B]never/B] present any evidence (because they don't have any) and they attack evolution with silly lies in the knowledge that most people don't understand calculus.

Unfortunately, lots still do understand it and those people also understand that the weight of mathematical probability is on Darwin's side. The odds of creationism being correct are so low that nobody's even bothered to work it out. Creationism is wilful ignorance.

----------


## The Atheist

> I should have said "consider" all possibilities; those who claim open-minded must do so to carry that title (which means I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open-minded person - at least to certain possibilities).


See, this is the thing - I have considered all the possibilities, unlike you.

Evidence for ceationism: the bible says so. 


Evidence for evolution: 4 billion years of fossils, genetic evidence, geological evidence, intemediate species, thousands of man-years of research proving the links and refining the theories and currently-living species add up to an astronomical amount of evidence.

If creationism ever presents one tiny iota of evidence in favour of it, I will certainly consider it. Feel free to bring one to the table.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Can I suggest that before you start with blatant lies about evolution that you actually learn something about it first.
> 
> You show with this post that you have no idea at all. It is wrong from start to finish.


No, you may not. May I suggest that you stop making suggestions? 

Here:

Most evolutionists believe the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Some speculate that the earliest bacterium might have been able to survive with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA (unlike current bacterium cells which have about 128 million base pairs). Likewise, in the very first bacterium, there was a minimum limit to the number of amino acids for protein production. The accepted number is 10,000 amino acids with at least 100 functional protein chains - each holding a few hundred amino acids. These numbers matter because of chirality.

"Chirality" is the term given to the necessity that all nucleotides in a DNA or RNA chain be of a certain molecular orientation ("right-handed," technically _dextroform_) for the chain to work. The _nucleotides_ are the "rungs" of the DNA ladder, composed of four ingredients: every single one must be right-handed. Likewise, nearly all 20 different amino acids used in cellular protein chains must also be of a specified orientation ("left-handed," technicaly _levoform_) for a protein to work. Not one can be defective. If the chirality requirements are not met, the entire process of manufacture from DNA to RNA to "working protein" fails. Hence, for the first bacterium, a perfect mix of both nucleotide orientation (right handed) and amino-acid orientation (left-handed) had to occur.

In nature we find that all amino acids occur randomly in equal proportions of right- and left-handed (a _recemic_ mixture). After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of purifying the mixutre - that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed animo acids. To create the first cell, all of the thousands of amino acids in the hundred-plus functional proteins required for the first cell would have to suddenly show up - the right types at exactly the right place at exactly the right time - _all left handed._ This is the only way tehy would have been able to properly bond as instructed by the DNA. Likewise, all 100,000-plus nucleotides would have to show up at exactly the right time in exactly the right way - _all right handed_ - to form a functioning DNA molecule.

In other words, to just get the 100,000 correctly oriented nucleotides together in the first place would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row. To get the 10,000 correctly oriented amino acids together would be like flipping 10,000 tails in a row. To do both, which is necessary, would be like correctly getting 110,000 specified flips in a row.

Attempts to prove that chirality is not necessary have failed. Dr. Alan Schwartz of the Evolutionary Biology Research Group at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands describes such an attempt:

"In an experiment designed to test the requirement for chiral purity, it was demonstrated that incorporation of even a single mononucleotide of opposite chirality into the end of a growing chain in template-directed oligomerization is sufficient to terminate the reaction" (Joyce et al, 1984).

Back to the coin flipping: The probablility of each flip being correct is 1 out of 2. One bad flip and the game is over. A direct calculation would simply be multiplying 1/2 X 1/2 110,000 times. What are the odds that result? 1/2 to the 110,000 power, or, in base-ten: 1 in 10 to the 33,133 power. This number is so large that it is the equivalent of winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket for each. Or, if we counted all the subatomic particles in the entire universe (10 to the 84 power) - in fact, in nearly 400 universes - it would be the same as the odds of selecting a single, predesignated particle from that number.

I contend, as I have more than once (and you have _never_ responded to in any substantial way) that the odds that I would need to accept for the evolutionary beginning of life as suggested by the "primordial soup" model, are beyond fantasy - and that they are equally unbelievable and equally unprovable as God appears to you.

I await your response.

----------


## Babbalanja

> After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of purifying the mixutre - that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed animo acids.


Actually, there are plenty of abiotic reactions that either produce or amplify chirality. A sample of the available research is here.

And incidentally, isn't it taking something away from the majesty of a Divine Creator to imagine Him sorting amino acids to produce ancient life forms?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Actually, there are plenty of abiotic reactions that either produce or amplify chirality. A sample of the available research is here.
> 
> And incidentally, isn't it taking something away from the majesty of a Divine Creator to imagine Him sorting amino acids to produce ancient life forms?


Sorry - I checked the link you provided: so what? That there are "plenty of abiotic reactions" doesn't negate what I posted. We need a _particular_ reaction taking place at a _particular_ time and in a _particular_ way with _just the right components and timing_  and without a sentient guiding force. The odds are there - deal with those.

Your 2nd question - what's it for?

edit: note that my post said "purify" and yours said "produce" or "amplify": they're not synonyms.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Sorry - I checked the link you provided: so what? That there are "plenty of abiotic reactions" doesn't negate what I posted. We need a _particular_ reaction taking place at a _particular_ time and in a _particular_ way with _just the right components and timing_  and without a sentient guiding force. The odds are there - deal with those.
> 
> Your 2nd question - what's it for?
> 
> edit: note that my post said "purify" and yours said "produce" or "amplify": they're not synonyms.


Well, I guess short of replaying the course of history so you could witness the _particular_ reaction taking place at a _particular_ time, you'll deny that the ability of abiotic reactions to produce chirality is a scientifically valid avenue for origin-of-life investigations. Does anyone else see this as stacking the deck or is it just me?

And what specifically is the creationist alternative? And how does it serve as a framework for further scientific inquiry?

----------


## billyjack

its not just you. the deck is being stacked.

no need for further scientific inquiry in the creationist's eyes. anything science can come up with is irrelevant because its founded by man and not directly revealed by god him/her self.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Most evolutionists believe the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Some speculate that the earliest bacterium might have been able to survive with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA (unlike current bacterium cells which have about 128 million base pairs). Likewise, in the very first bacterium, there was a minimum limit to the number of amino acids for protein production. The accepted number is 10,000 amino acids with at least 100 functional protein chains - each holding a few hundred amino acids. These numbers matter because of chirality.


Seriously, Red, you know why this is fallicious. I know you know why this is fallicious because I have told you at least twice now. Anyway, that's a complete misrepresentation of current thinking about abiogenesis hypotheses. Via wiki:




> In *1936* Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes. [emphasis added]


That was seventy years ago. Modern thinking is more sophisticated. You're attacking an abiogenetic hypothesis that has not been accepted since the 1860's.

----------


## The Atheist

> I await your response.


Easy, you're wrong.

As Cuppajoe pointed out, you're so wrong that it's quite laughable.

Will you please make some attempt to actually look at some real evidence, please.

Noted the complete lack of evidence to back creationism and another failed attempt to discredit evolution using false data.

Next.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Seriously, Red, you know why this is fallicious. I know you know why this is fallicious because I have told you at least twice now. Anyway, that's a complete misrepresentation of current thinking about abiogenesis hypotheses.


I prefer you not tell me what I know, sir.

Help me understand this, please: for Oparin to be right, we must assume an oxygen-less atmosphere. Is that current scientific belief? From what I read, such a supposition is incorrect. Second, from what I've read, oxygen creates problems present or not: 1) if not present, Mr. Oparin gets to make his hypothesis - but that also creates a problem in that oxygen (in the form of ozone) provides a critical protective barrier against ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have is a sort of Catch-22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't, we have none either."





> That was seventy years ago. Modern thinking is more sophisticated. You're attacking an abiogenetic hypothesis that has not been accepted since the 1860's.


Maybe so. But your understanding and conceptions of God and Christianity (by my reckoning) are equally general, outdated and full of misconceptions. We're both on pretty equal footing when talking about the side of the fence we're not on. So I'm okay with your criticism.





> Noted the complete lack of evidence to back creationism and another failed attempt to discredit evolution using false data.
> Next.


Anybody who's spent even a _little_ time looking at my posts should note that I'm not trying to prove or provide evidence for creation _in the least_ - surely you've noticed that, sir?

----------


## Pendragon

> True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. _And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now._ No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".


I haven't dropped by in a long time, for a very good reason, as I have said before, beating the dead horse won't make it get up and walk. But I find this statement here very credible, I hope Kix doesn't mind my adding italics to one line. This is what I have always said, however we began, we obviously evolved since, or the human race would all have one skin color, one type of features, and forensic anthropology would never solve a single crime. 

What did the suspect look like? Any identifying features?

Gee, guv, ave you looked in th bloody mirror lately? We all got the same mug, loike!

Some animals have made little change because they havent yet had the need to change. Others are still changing, adapting to new environments. At the North Carolina Zoological Park they have bio-domes constructed to represent conditions of jungle and desert. But guess what? Last time I was down there, a full grown banana plant was growing fineoutside the bio-dome on American sandy soil. Even had bananas. Adapted rather well, and rather quickly 

Professing themselves to be wise they became fools Romans 1:22

The Bible can tell you more than you think

----------


## kilted exile

Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.

I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).

So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.
> 
> I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).
> 
> So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.


Did you really expect that a conversation on this topic could be endlessly renewed? I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I'm trying to be practical. Your suggestion, though it sounds new, really isn't; there have been attempts to bring out intelligent design arguments here - which each time have been dismissed by the evolutionists as "irrelevant" or "outdated" or "already been disproven" or called "lies" and "distortions." The problem is that this discussion boils down to two different philosophic views - each is (essentially) contradictory and irreconcilable. I get that. That's why I don't spend a lot of time posting ID theories and "evidence" - to one with a presupposition of _Naturalism_, there is _no_ ID argument that will be accepted as tenable because the foundational belief of the Naturalist already rules out ID because of its very suggestion of something _beyond humanity_  (and by implication, beyond empirical testing and verification) guiding the creation of life. Any argument put forth by ID proponents here will more than likely be dismissed with the same dogmatic stubbornness that the creationist will dismiss evolutionary "evidence." The evidence _doesn't matter_ - the presuppositonal base _does_, because it decides _how the evidence will be interpreted._

That's why I have not been arguing for the believability of creationism; I have simply tried to point out the presuppositons beneath the evolutionists' _question-begging_ assertions that evolution-as-fact is a done deal. It isn't. I imagine that I'll get bored and post elsewhere for a while eventually - because the reality is that the _arguments won't change_: only the posters will. Nobody will be argued into "switching sides" because of "evidence" or "argument." That would require a radical shift in world-view - something that often occurs _despite_ the evidence, _despite_ the logic, _despite_ the reasoned arguments we come across.

Sorry - I wan't helpful in providing you with what you asked for. I'm not the least surprised by the circularity of this thread - why should it be any different if the two philosophical foundations don't change?

----------


## hyperborean

> its not just you. the deck is being stacked.
> 
> no need for further scientific inquiry in the creationist's eyes. anything science can come up with is irrelevant because its founded by man and not directly revealed by god him/her self.


Bingo. This is the reason why this topic goes around in circles.

----------


## WayneMan

Well. I think the Creation Theory is the only logical one out there. It just doesn't seem possible for there to be a big bang in the universe out of nothing, and then to have planets just some how appear, and then for there to just happen to be the right stuff come together, no matter how great the odds against it happening were, and form life. Not only that, but how we came from the simple single cell life forms that are suggested to the people we are today. it's just not adding up to me. And if evolution is the way to go, and we did come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today? wouldn't they all grow up to be people, or just not exist anymore because they have evolved into humans so they are no longer the dominate species. I have full faith and believe that each and everyone of us was created but God.

----------


## kilted exile

I'm not expecting renewal, I'm not expecting anyone to change their minds.

I am however interested in learning, exposing myself to new ideas, and gaining a better understanding of why people hold the beliefs that they do. This thread is going nowhere though.

----------


## Pendragon

> Ok, I am getting increasingly bored with the same argument over and over again. This thread is going nowhere, I have noticed a trend in this thread where every 4months or so someone new joins the discussion and we are subjected to the same questions and the same answers.
> 
> I think there is plenty of evidence & reasoning pointing to the theory of evolution throughout this thread, questions anyone has regarding the theory can be found somewhere in its dark recesses. What is missing however is any argument for the Creationist/Intelligent Design theory, with the exception of the statistics say that wont work (something which in NO way suggests the alternative is any more likely).
> 
> So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.


Hi Kilted:

You may be old enough to remember this, I confess, that in spite of all the birthday sonnets I write, I can't keep up with how old who is on this forum! Gerardo had a seemingly brilliant idea one time: Racial trouble being sadly fact, as much as either side would like to say no, he decided to have a live show and bring together White Supremacists and Black Panthers on the same stage. That caused one of the worst knock-down drag-out fights in the history of live television, and Gerardo received a broken nose so badly broken he had to wear a mask that made him resemble Bozo the Clown for quite some time. People here are *never* going to agree on this issue. I take the middle road and get kicked from both sides, the Creationists because I believe evolution has taken place, and the Evolutionist because I won't accept chance as the starting point. *There is no win/win solution.*  God bless. 

Pen

----------


## Redzeppelin

> People here are *never* going to agree on this issue. I take the middle road and get kicked from both sides, the Creationists because I believe evolution has taken place, and the Evolutionist because I won't accept chance as the starting point. *There is no win/win solution.*  God bless. 
> 
> Pen


Hi Pen - I hope you don't think I've ever "kicked" you. I have less a problem with evolution (in terms of adaptation) than with the idea that this happened without the controlling/initiating guidance of God. I disagree (obviously) about evolution's role in our history, but I have great respect for your opinion.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Help me understand this, please: for Oparin to be right, we must assume an oxygen-less atmosphere. Is that current scientific belief? From what I read, such a supposition is incorrect. Second, from what I've read, oxygen creates problems present or not: 1) if not present, Mr. Oparin gets to make his hypothesis - but that also creates a problem in that oxygen (in the form of ozone) provides a critical protective barrier against ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have is a sort of Catch-22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't, we have none either."


He's not a very good molecular biologist. Organic compounds contain carbon and hydrogen.

I am, in any case, uninterested in defending a hopelessly out-of-date hypothesis. Your assertion that most evolutionists believe that the first form of life was a bacterium is a century and a half out of date, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in any case.




> Maybe so. But your understanding and conceptions of God and Christianity (by my reckoning) are equally general, outdated and full of misconceptions. We're both on pretty equal footing when talking about the side of the fence we're not on.


Entirely irrelivant, even if it is true.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

Organic compounds, however, rely on oxygen in the form of O2 or CO2. A few bacteria may rely on other chemicals, but they could never advance beyond their being bacteria.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Organic compounds, however, rely on oxygen in the form of O2 or CO2.


No. Via wiki:



> An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon and hydrogen; therefore, carbides, carbonates, carbon oxides and elementary carbon are not organic.





> A few bacteria may rely on other chemicals, but they could never advance beyond their being bacteria.


Not sure what that has to do with anything.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> He's not a very good molecular biologist. Organic compounds contain carbon and hydrogen.


Michael Denton is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand. 

I'm sure he'd be devastated by your deft dismissal of his ability.

I think his statement has nothing to do with _what_ organic compounds contain but with _how_ the presence or abscence of oxygen negatively effects the development of said DNA/RNA.




> I am, in any case, uninterested in defending a hopelessly out-of-date hypothesis. Your assertion that most evolutionists believe that the first form of life was a bacterium is a century and a half out of date, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in any case.


And what exactly, is the new hypothesis (good ol' stable science and its _certainty_ in action again I see) as to the first "life form" and how does this revision change what I've presented? 

How can you say this has nothing to do with evolution (or are you still hair-splitting about abiogenesis and such? Sorry - when I refer to evolution, I am referring primarily to abiogenesis and all that follows it)?




> Entirely irrelivant, even if it is true.


Relevant to _me_ in terms of emphasizing the evenness of the playing field; though you don't really indulge in the "you are ignorant of science" stuff thrown at Christians on this thread, I feel it important to remind the so-called experts here that the entity they argue against (God) is one that they only barely understand - just as I'm told my arguments are "out of date" "irrelevant" "illogical" or whatever, I merely point out that many statements made about the nature and character of God reveal a similar lack of knowledge. I just like to keep things in perspective and fair, that's all.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Michael Denton is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.
> 
> I'm sure he'd be devastated by your deft dismissal of his ability.


Then I can only conclude that the quotation was taken out of context or is inaccurate, because organic compounds can and do form without oxygen.




> I think his statement has nothing to do with what organic compounds contain but with how the presence or abscence of oxygen negatively effects the development of said DNA/RNA.


The hypothesis in no way depends on the first self-replicating molecules being exactly like modern DNA and RNA, they need only share certain properties of them.




> And what exactly, is the new hypothesis as to the first "life form" and how does this revision change what I've presented?


I believe I've already said. Rougly: certain self-replicating organic molecules are formed in early earth and, over the course of a few billion years, evolve into cellular life. Your statistics on the probability of cellular life emerging fully-formed are indeed relevant, but do not in any way damage current thinking about abiogenesis, as nobody says that this is what happened.




> (good ol' stable science and its certainty in action again I see)


Science has never emphasized stability or certainty.




> How can you say this has nothing to do with evolution (or are you still hair-splitting about abiogenesis and such? Sorry - when I refer to evolution, I am referring primarily to abiogenesis and all that follows it)?


If it is proven that abiogenesis is impossible, the ramifications for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are talking about) are as follows: none. The evidence that shows common descent would remain completely intact, the observations of speciation completely unchanged, and the genetic markers that show hereditary realtionships with other species would remain.




> Relevant to me in terms of emphasizing the evenness of the playing field; though you don't really indulge in the "you are ignorant of science" stuff thrown at Christians on this thread, I feel it important to remind the so-called experts here that the entity they argue against (God) is one that they only barely understand - just as I'm told my arguments are "out of date" "irrelevant" "illogical" or whatever, I merely point out that many statements made about the nature and character of God reveal a similar lack of knowledge.


When _I_ attack the God hypothesis, _then_ my knowledge of it becomes relevant. I have not or, at least, not during the course of this particular discussion.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> No. Via wiki:
> 
> Not sure what that has to do with anything.


They use oxygen or CO2 to breathe once they have passed the level of bacteria.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> They use oxygen or CO2 to breathe once they have passed the level of bacteria.


Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.


Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.


Yes. So what?

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> Yes. So what?


According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.


The first self-replicating molecules don't need do be chemically the same as RNA for the hypothesis to hold.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then I can only conclude that the quotation was taken out of context or is inaccurate, because organic compounds can and do form without oxygen.


I would assume that DNA is as far down as one can go in terms of "life." I'm probably wrong, but allow me to blunder on. The hypothesis is not so much about bacterium as the DNA/RNA necessary to create life. The suggestion is that chirality is negatively effected either by the presence of oxygen (oxygen decays life) or its absence (protective ozone is missing from earth's atmosphere and ozone allows life to exist on earth). Since chirality is inherent in the construction/replication of DNA/RNA, I'm not sure how you've dismissed my post unless you're going to suggest that DNA/RNA had nothing to do with the initiation of life on earth.




> The hypothesis in no way depends on the first self-replicating molecules being exactly like modern DNA and RNA, they need only share certain properties of them.


The suggestion points to a radically "streamlined" DNA (100,000 pairs) which is far less complex than modern DNA(1 million odd pairs). If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?




> I believe I've already said. Rougly: certain self-replicating organic molecules are formed in early earth and, over the course of a few billion years, evolve into cellular life. Your statistics on the probability of cellular life emerging fully-formed are indeed relevant, but do not in any way damage current thinking about abiogenesis, as nobody says that this is what happened.


Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.




> Science has never emphasized stability or certainty.


No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision. If the Bible altered its ideas about morality like science does about the nature of reality, the Bible would be dismissed as valid by even Christians.




> If it is proven that abiogenesis is impossible, the ramifications for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are talking about) are as follows: none. The evidence that shows common descent would remain completely intact, the observations of speciation completely unchanged, and the genetic markers that show hereditary realtionships with other species would remain.


That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarily; evidence for the other things you mentioned (in the words of Porfiry in _Crime and Punishment_) "cuts both ways."




> When _I_ attack the God hypothesis, _then_ my knowledge of it becomes relevant. I have not or, at least, not during the course of this particular discussion.


In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?


Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.




> Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.


I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated. 




> No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision.


Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarily


Fine but that's not what the thread's about.




> In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.


Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Fine but that's not what the thread's about.


I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.




> Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.


Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.


Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.




> Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.


I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. >

I thought that there was an equation based on the amount of carbon in the Universe, and that this suggested that carbon-based life should be found somewhere.

----------


## Jay

General mod note:

Please, don't personalize your posts and respect each other's beliefs and/or opinions even if you don't agree with them.

----------


## peaches054

To me it doesn't matter of evolution or creation, i mean believe what you want to believe but it's mostly how and what you did for your little world it's how to make a difference and know that you did something good in your life as one of my fav quote says not quoted directly but while your planning your life it's litterally passing you by, so instead of talking what you believe in why not do something to better another persons' life and share what you every day throw away or abuse

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.


I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.




> I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.


I don't want to pursue this line much farther because I think we're hair-splitting; any belief system that advocates that the only reality is material and that denies the existence of God is Naturalistic in nature. I suppose some theists have compromised their beliefs in order to reconcile science with the Bible: so be it. But evolution contradicts the Bible - and unless the entire Bible is true, then there's no need to take any of it seriously as the "Word of God." Just my position. We're free to let this point drop (and I ought not have pursued it).





> Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.


A violation of _Occam's Razor_: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you _speculate_ into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: _I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out_. Convenient.




> I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated.


I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.




> Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.


A fact I'm aware of; my attacks on the "certainty" or "stability" of science are indirect attacks on its often dogmatic adherents - not upon science itself. To listen to some of the posters here, you would never guess that science is often tentative in its conclusions and is always open to revision, or (worse) that it might be wrong. Even I (liberal arts man who is fairly science-ignorant) get that.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I think the odds of the necessary mutations "just happening to happen" involve similarly large odds.


Not when you account for the number of trials taking place they don't.




> I will accept any simplied form you can give or direct me to so that I cease sounding so ignorant on this thread.


The simplest form of the hypothesis that I can give you is contained in the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_, which you apparently refuse to read. I'm _not_ an expert on abiogenesis, I know very little about it, and I'm not particularly interested.




> A violation of Occam's Razor: in order to refute my post about the odds of DNA chirality, you speculate into existence a non-existent entity to explain why my posted statements aren't true. That's a handy argument: I don't like/agree with what the conclusions based upon what we can reasonably speculate lead to (DNA is here and we should assume it always has been since it's so fundamental to life, and as such we'll assume that life is responsible because of DNA) so I will imagine another entity that eventually died out. Convenient.


Since I'm only speculating, and not claiming what I say is fact, I can say whatever I like. There is no reason why what I said is not possible. You asked a question and I answered it based on my limited knowledge of the topic.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Not when you account for the number of trials taking place they don't.


That depends on whether the stated age of the earth would support the necessary number of trials to "beat" the odds.




> The simplest form of the hypothesis that I can give you is contained in the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_, which you apparently refuse to read. I'm _not_ an expert on abiogenesis, I know very little about it, and I'm not particularly interested.


I have not refused so much as expressed hesitancy based on Dawkin's militant attitude towards Christianity. 




> Since I'm only speculating, and not claiming what I say is fact, I can say whatever I like. There is no reason why what I said is not possible. You asked a question and I answered it based on my limited knowledge of the topic.


No one is saying you couldn't say what you wanted; what you said may indeed "be possible" - so might the existence of God. 

I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it _didn't_ happen so it must/might have).

I acknowledge your right to post what you wish - but I also (like you) have the prerogative to indicate that your response did not effectively refute my original assertion substantially.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> That depends on whether the stated age of the earth would support the necessary number of trials to "beat" the odds.


4.5 billion years is plenty.




> I have not refused so much as expressed hesitancy based on Dawkin's militant attitude towards Christianity.


Understandable. However, _Selfish Gene_ is not about Christianity.




> I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (like the existence of God - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).


However, there is nothing inherent in the hypothesis of abiogenesis that discounts it from making testable predictions, whereas the descriptions of God seem – to my jaded eyes, at least – to be specifically designed to avoid testability.




> I acknowledge your right to post what you wish - but I also (like you) have the prerogative to indicate that your response did not effectively refute my original assertion substantially.


Your assertion seems to be the abiogenesis is impossible. It is not. Whether it is the best explaination of the origin of life is, as yet, open to debate, as it is simply a collection of hypotheses and not a formal theory. I'm not interested in having that particular debate because a) evidence is lacking and b) I don't know very much about it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 4.5 billion years is plenty.


Enough to satisfy the chirality odds I quoted earlier (10 to the 33,133 power)?




> Understandable. However, _Selfish Gene_ is not about Christianity.


A few degrees below insulting - as if I didn't understand the title. I would probably read a book where Dawkins discusses Christianity because I would enjoy the laugh.




> However, there is nothing inherent in the hypothesis of abiogenesis that discounts it from making testable predictions, whereas the descriptions of God seem  to my jaded eyes, at least  to be specifically designed to avoid testability.


Sure - but notice how (instead of admitting to the point I made) you brought God into the equation in order to refute Him - something of a _straw man_ (because I didn't bring up that God was a reasonable hypothesis - I just proposed we work with what is existent - so that we were working from within the evolutionist methodology of _Naturalism_).




> Your assertion seems to be the abiogenesis is impossible. It is not. Whether it is the best explaination of the origin of life is, as yet, open to debate, as it is simply a collection of hypotheses and not a formal theory. I'm not interested in having that particular debate because a) evidence is lacking and b) I don't know very much about it.


No: my assertion is that the _odds_ indicate that it is impossible. I personally cannot know if it's impossible because I wasn't there and I'm not a scientist. We don't have to have a debate about it - I simply posted what the odds against abiogenesis are believed to be and nobody has effectively refuted them yet (as far as I'm concerned). You may not want to discuss abiogenesis (and that's fine with me), but without it, evolutionists do end up with a considerable difficulty: where did life come from?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Enough to satisfy the chirality odds I quoted earlier (10 to the 33,133 power)?


Those are the odds of a fully formed bacterium springing into existence, and are therefore not strictly relevant.




> A few degrees below insulting - as if I didn't understand the title.


_I know_ you know what it's about. The point is that Dawkins' views on religion (and, for that matter, politics, literature and interior design) are completely irrelivant in a book about biology.




> Sure - but notice how (instead of admitting to the point I made) you brought God into the equation in order to refute Him.


1) _You_ brought God into the equation. 2) I did nothing of the sort. I compared two hypotheses. Abiogenesis makes certain predictions. Whether or not these predictions are correct has yet to be seen. Until then, there is very little to say about it.




> No: my assertion is that the odds indicate that it is impossible.


You cited the odds of a fully formed bacterium suddenly sprining into existence, and event that _is_ impossible. That's why that's not at all what the hypothesis says. The same numbers obviously do not apply to entirely different events.




> You may not want to discuss abiogenesis (and that's fine with me), but without it, evolutionists do end up with a considerable difficulty: where did life come from?


The problem of where life came from creates no more problems for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Those are the odds of a fully formed bacterium springing into existence, and are therefore not strictly relevant.


No they are not. They are the odds of chirality for a very simple strand of DNA/RNA forming.




> _I know_ you know what it's about. The point is that Dawkins' views on religion (and, for that matter, politics, literature and interior design) are completely irrelivant in a book about biology.


The reason I point out his militant anti-Christianity is because it makes it difficult to read anything of his without my defensiveness being on "full alert" (which means I wouldn't be very receptive to his arguments), which, probably indicates my own issues. I'll consider checking the book out.




> 1) _You_ brought God into the equation. 2) I did nothing of the sort. I compared two hypotheses. Abiogenesis makes certain predictions. Whether or not these predictions are correct has yet to be seen. Until then, there is very little to say about it.


Honestly, I do not recall doing so. I proposed the chirality odds, you dismissed them by stating that there might have been some other now-nonexistent life form that has since disappeared besides the DNA or bacterium. God's not involved in that.




> You cited the odds of a fully formed bacterium suddenly sprining into existence, and event that _is_ impossible. That's why that's not at all what the hypothesis says. The same numbers obviously do not apply to entirely different events.


Nope. As stated above - I gave the odds for the chirality of DNA randomly assembling.




> The problem of where life came from creates no more problems for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity.


How does gravity cause a problem for evolution?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> No they are not. They are the odds of chirality for a very simple strand of DNA/RNA forming.


Ah, see the problem here is you're assuming a certain protein chain. One protein chain isn't any more unlikely than any other. If it wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way.




> Honestly, I do not recall doing so.





> I pointed out that your refutation of my post consisted of a speculation that "multiplies entities unnecessarily" by suggesting a hypothesis that cannot be proven (*like the existence of God* - we can't prove it didn't happen so it must/might have).


See?




> How does gravity cause a problem for evolution?


It doesn't. I was trying to point out that you are making the logical fallacy of incompleteness as proof of defect. Evolution currently cannot fully explain how life came about. Neither can gravity. That doesn't make either one defective.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ah, see the problem here is you're assuming a certain protein chain. One protein chain isn't any more unlikely than any other. If it wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way.


Without another reasonable substitute, we should assume that DNA was necessary for the development of life.




> See?


Almost. The second post you quoted was not my original argument - it was a further attempt at clarification; as well, the reference was a tangential jab at the provability of your hypothetical now-nonexistent life form.




> It doesn't. I was trying to point out that you are making the logical fallacy of incompleteness as proof of defect. Evolution currently cannot fully explain how life came about. Neither can gravity. That doesn't make either one defective.


As I thought. I was pointing out that your imaginary option to the chirality problem violates Occam's Razor because evolutionists could endlessly come up with things that "don't exist anymore" to explain things that now do.

----------


## The Atheist

> So, as a new twist, would a proponent for ID please put forward the case for that being the correct theory - it would make a nice change.


We've been waiting for 4000 years for anything more than "goddidit". You're a bit keen expecting them to come up with actual evidence now.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I was pointing out that your imaginary option to the chirality problem violates Occam's Razor because evolutionists could endlessly come up with things that "don't exist anymore" to explain things that now do.


But, again, this will yield testable predictions. You would to far better to discuss this with somebody who knows what he or she is talking about, I'm afraid, but if a proto-DNA that doesn't look like the current model is necessary for an abiogenetic hypothesis to workm Occam's Razor, which states that no more things should be presumed to exist than are necessary, is not violated.

----------


## Pendragon

OK. I really am not prepared to stir this pot, for myself, the horse has been dead so long it should be carbon dated to determine how long, but I do propose a question. We are faced here with people with diametrically opposed views. We have the view that God created the Universe and everything therein. We have the view that chance created the universe, and evolution formed life on this planet. Now we come to the question of evidence. What sort of evidence would it take for someone to believe in God? What can the creationist say that will produce the evidence necessary for the evolutionist to give it credence, instead of dismissing it as retoric? And vice-versa. There is a mound of evidence in favor of evolution, provided you are inclined to believe that way already. But to someone who has his or her doubts, what is the single defining undisputable evidence that says, this is correct beyond any reasonable doubt?

Again, for the record, I believe God created the universe, yet evolution has and is taking place and shaping the world into what it is today.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> What sort of evidence would it take for someone to believe in God?


Well He presumeably has my phone number.

All fillipancy aside: ID rests on the assumption that complexity implies concious design. The creationist (for the purposes of this post, 'creationism' and 'intellignet design' are synonyms) would have to back up this assumption using comparisons of objects that are known to be designed – cars, say – to objects which are known to be undesigned. Obviously this is something one can't do if one believes that God consciously designed everything in the universe, in which case believe what you like but leave me alone if I don't believe it too. This sort of comparison, if it goes the way the creationists would like it to, will yield certain objective criteria for the sort of complexity which implies design (hereinafter DC for designed complexity). The distinction of compexity vs. design complexity is an important one. If you drop a fistful of sand from a height, it will produce a mathematically complex pattern, but it could not be sanely argued that this means that you designed the pattern. Once we have our objective definition of DC, then intelligent design can become a hypothesis.

Then, we would have to examine features of modern animals to determine if they possess DC. If it is shown that certain features do possess this quality, then we would have to carefully analyse the data to see if the hypothesis that these creatures possess DC because they were, in fact, designed explains this complexity _better_ than the theory of evolution.

_Then_, we would have to throw out the fossil record entirely, and find a convincing explaination as to why endogenous retroviruses an lysomes appear across species, _and_ as to why the genetic code is, against all odds, the same in every organism.

At this point, you'll have me convinced that _some sort_ of deity exists. If you're shooting for Abrahamic one in particular, well, He's got my phone number.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well He presumeably has my phone number.


Yes - He does. As a matter of fact, He may very well have already tried calling you a few times; don't panic if you missed the call; He's very patient and I guarentee you He'll try again. He's anxious to hear from you.




> All fillipancy aside: ID rests on the assumption that complexity implies concious design. The creationist (for the purposes of this post, 'creationism' and 'intellignet design' are synonyms) would have to back up this assumption using comparisons of objects that are known to be designed – cars, say – to objects which are known to be undesigned. Obviously this is something one can't do if one believes that God consciously designed everything in the universe, in which case believe what you like but leave me alone if I don't believe it too. This sort of comparison, if it goes the way the creationists would like it to, will yield certain objective criteria for the sort of complexity which implies design (hereinafter DC for designed complexity). The distinction of compexity vs. design complexity is an important one. If you drop a fistful of sand from a height, it will produce a mathematically complex pattern, but it could not be sanely argued that this means that you designed the pattern. Once we have our objective definition of DC, then intelligent design can become a hypothesis.
> 
> Then, we would have to examine features of modern animals to determine if they possess DC. If it is shown that certain features do possess this quality, then we would have to carefully analyse the data to see if the hypothesis that these creatures possess DC because they were, in fact, designed explains this complexity _better_ than the theory of evolution.
> 
> _Then_, we would have to throw out the fossil record entirely, and find a convincing explaination as to why endogenous retroviruses an lysomes appear across species, _and_ as to why the genetic code is, against all odds, the same in every organism.
> 
> At this point, you'll have me convinced that _some sort_ of deity exists. If you're shooting for Abrahamic one in particular, well, He's got my phone number.


I assume you're familiar with this concept:

"Design" is predicated on two principles:
1. Degree of _complexity_
2. Degree of _specificity_

Example: Lets pretend we have serveral trays of Scrabble-type letters. The following letter sequences were randomly formed:

Tray 1. E T H
*not complex
*not specific 

Tray 2. I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO
*complex
*not specific

Tray 3. THE
*not complex
*specific

Tray 4. UNITED_STATES
*very complex
*very specific

Note: the probablility of those letters randomly forming the words UNITED STATES is 1 chance in 6 billion.

Tray 5. I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A
*extremely complex
*extremely specific

Note: probablility for these letters randomly forming: 1 in 10 to 85th power (the equivalent of winning 12 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket for each).

Your sand example qualifies for #2.

----------


## hyperborean

> He's anxious to hear from you.


I'm sure he is  :Biggrin:  He's got my cell phone # as well

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm sure he is  He's got my cell phone # as well


Excellent! Perhaps we could all join together in a conference call? I would love to be in on the conversation.  :Biggrin:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Red:

I remain unconvinced at specifity as a valid measure of design. For one thing, it's entirely subjective. Mathematically, there is no difference between I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO and I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A, one just happens to mean something a bit more to you if you speak English. If I had just blown in from the planet Xerzicon 4 and spoke only Xerziconese, one would not seem any more 'designed' to me than the other.




> Note: probablility for these letters randomly forming: 1 in 10 to 85th power


No, the probablity of each of those letters randomly forming is 1/27, if we're counting spaces as a character. The probability of getting them all in a row correctly is probably a bit closer to the number you cite, _but so is the probability of coming up with any other string of letters that long_.

One more problem:

I might suggest that language is quite possibly not the best metaphor for you to be using here, because languages _aren't_ designed: they evolve. The metaphor between liguistic and biological evolution is actually quite precise, because, under most circumstances, parents pass on their language to the same people to whom they pass on their genetic material. We can see, from surviving texts, how the traits of Old English that are the 'fittest' retain more 'offspring' (speakers), and thus stay with us today; whereas the traits that are not beneficial (such as the dative tense, and the ð and the þ) become lost as we move into Middle English. Then, as the enivronment of the language changes (ie: a more educated and literate group of 'hosts' emerges), the traits of uniform rules of grammar and spelling (as well as other things) gain a larger evolutionary advantage and eventually become what you and I are speaking in.

Because of this phenomenon, linguists are able to classify languages in the same way biologists classify animals: using an objectively nested hierarchy. Any group of objects can be placed into a nested hierarchy, of course. Cars, for example, could be classified first by number of wheels, then by size, then by manufacturer, then by model and so on. The problem with this is that another person could come and do the classification in a different order (manufacturer, then size, then number of wheels...). This is not possible with biological species or languages, because traits that appear in one group do not, and cannot appear in other groups. You can take more or less any kind of enginge and put it in more or less any kind of car, but you can't take warm-bloodedness and put it in a fish. Let me rephrase that: there _is no particular reason_ why warm-bloodedness should not appear in fish, but it never does, because that trait is _only_ found in whichever mammals and birds, due to the way they happened to evolve. Similarly, there is no particular reason why _kanji_-like characters (which represent ideas instead of sounds) should not appear in western languages, but they never do, because of the way that those two languages evolved. There is a mathematical way to determine whether or not a given set of objects fit into an objectively nested hierarchy, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I've just realized that I'm _way_ off topic. It's late.

In conclusion: the sentence "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America" may be designed, but the language that produced it isn't, and it is therefore a poor analogy to use when arguing for design.

----------


## Pendragon

Cuppa, I salute your attempt at answering the question. At least you took the time to give it a bit of thought, and lined out a sequence of events. Why others resort to flippancy so easily is something I simply cannot understand. I would rather hear an honest "I neither know nor care." than any sort of flippant dismissal of a question, which makes me wonder if the person has ever considered the validity of their own statements, and wondered if they could be wrong.

I have little problem with fossil records if enough fossil exists to give a clear picture of the creature that left the remains. My problems come with fragmentary evidence, built into a single skull; the skin depth markers guessed at, and the face constructed by forensics. I have seen them turn out looking fairly normal human until the hair and stuff was added. It could be a miss-identification. The full fossils I do not question, the creatures are subjective, but probable. 

God to exist would be a being that would be beyond explanation, beyond any real ability to prove. We are talking a being who could create simply by speaking. How would you test that? And if man actually saw it happen, an entire group of people, would not the rest of the world simply shake their collective heads and call them insane? You are trying to prove something that cannot be proven. Do I personally believe in God? Yes. I have my own reasons, which would mean nothing to you. The only way for someone to believe in God is not through experimentation but experience. You either can accept it or you simply cannot. Or like many, you can pretend to accept it, while secretly thinking "Well, it looks good on the old résumé. 

I have been totally honest. I cant prove God. Convincing you of Gods existence would take more than my word that He exists. Quoting any religious text to you will just be words on paper, they hold no meaning for you, because you already have decided God is not out there. So I will believe what I believe, and as Cuppa said, leave me alone, Im happy. And if you are happy without me preaching to you, Ill leave you alone. You ever feel the need to talk, you know how to PM me.

God bless.

Pen

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Cuppa, I salute your attempt at answering the question. At least you took the time to give it a bit of thought, and lined out a sequence of events. Why others resort to flippancy so easily is something I simply cannot understand. I would rather hear an honest "I neither know nor care." than any sort of flippant dismissal of a question, which makes me wonder if the person has ever considered the validity of their own statements, and wondered if they could be wrong.


I thank you kindly, sir, and thank you again for the question. 




> I have little problem with fossil records if enough fossil exists to give a clear picture of the creature that left the remains. My problems come with fragmentary evidence, built into a single skull; the skin depth markers guessed at, and the face constructed by forensics. I have seen them turn out looking fairly normal human until the hair and stuff was added. It could be a miss-identification. The full fossils I do not question, the creatures are subjective, but probable.


The way around this is that every time any guesswork is involved, a plethora of paleantologists spring up to 'guess' something else. Except in reasonably clear-cut cases, one can find a respectable source to testify that just about any _Homo_ genus fossil belongs to a creature that walked upright, or on all fours, or swung from trees; used tools or didn't; had expressive language or didn't; hunted in groups, or alone, or raised crops, or pracitsed husbandry, or fished, or survived entirely on wild berries and grubs. In fact, if you can get two randomly selected paleantologists to agree on anything, it's a pretty good indication that it's fairly clear. Paleantologists will fight about anything (or so I've heard).




> God to exist would be a being that would be beyond explanation, beyond any real ability to prove. We are talking a being who could create simply by speaking. How would you test that?


Ah, I should have specified: I outline a sequence that would leave me fairly convinced in a deity who spontaneously created all the animal species on the earth more or less as they are today. A deity who creates universes through such methods as Big Bangs and evolution (mysterious ways indeed) is an entirely different kettle of fish.




> I have been totally honest. I can’t prove God. Convincing you of God’s existence would take more than my word that He exists. Quoting any religious text to you will just be words on paper, they hold no meaning for you, because you already have decided God is not out there. So I will believe what I believe, and as Cuppa said, leave me alone, I’m happy. And if you are happy without me preaching to you, I’ll leave you alone. You ever feel the need to talk, you know how to PM me.


I appreciate it. The community in which I live is home to several religious sects which I shall not identify except to say that they are fond of agressive door-to-door proselytizing (I'm thinking of compiling a selection of pamphlets by Bertrand Russell, Percy Shelley and Richard Dawkins to exchange on such occasions). To me, going door-to-door trying to push what I believe about God to people who did not ask my opinion is completely unthinkable. If I would like somebody to tell me their ideas about God I will ask, and I expect the same of everybody else.

----------


## Lote-Tree

*Evolution - Theory in a nutshell -Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:*

1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood. 

2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations. 

3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time. 

5. An implicit struggle for survival ensues. 

6. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment. 

7. Much of this variation is inheritable. 

8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce. 

9.The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations. 

10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, the creations of new varieties, and ultimately, new species.

*Which bit is False?*

----------


## Guzmán

An interesting thing about probability is that in a given experiment, the fact that an event that has, by definition, cero probability of happening doesn't necessarily mean that it wil never happen. 

Take the following experiment: suppose i ask you to choose a real number between cero and one (im treating you as a sort of random number generator here). Suppose you choose pi/4. Now given the nature of the experiment the probability of you choosing that number (or any other one nuber for that matter) is by definition, cero. However you did choose that number which means that an event with cero probability did in fact happen.

Also to take into account is the difference between continuous and discrete probability distributions. When playing around with the letters of the alphabet youre abviously in the discrete casel. However, if you are talking about design of a living being shouldn&#180;t you take into account a continuous model? Anyway, here&#180;s as far as my knowledge of applied probability theory takes me, however in regards to that question i would guess a continuous model fits best although its all conjecture.
I gather from the examples you provided, the pledge of allegiance and such, that you computed favourable cases over all cases possible which assumes some sort of uniform distribution of the characters... Anyway i dont think that example holds much water either since (this is all conjecture) i suppose biological developments are far from random in a uniform sort of way (as far as i know, the sum of various uniform distributed factors contribute in a gaussian distribution) nor would they be independent (as i gather you considered all the letters to be). Besides if you add time into the equation you end up with a random process and boy... (Im well over my head here) 
Ergodicity comes to mind if you want to estimate time development with instantaneous stadistics but anyway this isnt a math forum... my point is that, I consider the random word analogy a pretty poor one to compare to species develoment (hell even to the english language or any other language), not to mention the fact that you didnt justify why did you consider certain things complex or specific, but i think this point was addressed by cuppajoe in the Xerzicon alien being example.

Anyway, even though as i already stated my knowledge of probability is very vague (an undergraduate course of theoretical probability and some applications in communications courses) it would be interesting to discuss your analogy and to make conjectures about if it fits or not biological development in a stricter way and not in the form of a rant I just churned out but i dont think this is the place and i, for myself, am way over my head, i just wanted to add my two cents on the issue since i dont think all that talkabout probability serves as any sort of argument for ID. 

Again sorry for the rant

----------


## Pendragon

> I thank you kindly, sir, and thank you again for the question. 
> 
> I appreciate it. The community in which I live is home to several religious sects which I shall not identify except to say that they are fond of agressive door-to-door proselytizing (I'm thinking of compiling a selection of pamphlets by Bertrand Russell, Percy Shelley and Richard Dawkins to exchange on such occasions). To me, going door-to-door trying to push what I believe about God to people who did not ask my opinion is completely unthinkable. If I would like somebody to tell me their ideas about God I will ask, and I expect the same of everybody else.


No need for the "Sir", mon ami, we are friends. I too, abhor the constant door to door visits, but I have my own way of dealing with them. They do not like to answer my questions. They are quick to leave on their own! Good luck, mon ami!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red:
> 
> I remain unconvinced at specifity as a valid measure of design. For one thing, it's entirely subjective. Mathematically, there is no difference between I R _ M _ PLUEF_ETE_ATEDHE_AO_FIHFT_EAG_S_ENCLE_GT_LDAN_CTO_ IL_EGATO and I_PLEDGE_ALLEGIANCE_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERIC A, one just happens to mean something a bit more to you if you speak English. If I had just blown in from the planet Xerzicon 4 and spoke only Xerziconese, one would not seem any more 'designed' to me than the other.


That's the point: our world is a "closed" system within which we operate; as such, our understanding of everything is based upon our understanding and our interpretive methods (which are based upon how our brains work); thus, Mr. Xerzicon 4 would see most anything of ours as incomprehensible unless he had a similar thinking capability. Either way, the whole point is that the odds for producing a meaningful strand of letters to us here on earth are huge odds - odds that very much go against random arrangement. 




> No, the probablity of each of those letters randomly forming is 1/27, if we're counting spaces as a character. The probability of getting them all in a row correctly is probably a bit closer to the number you cite, _but so is the probability of coming up with any other string of letters that long_.


I was speaking of the latter.




> One more problem:
> 
> I might suggest that language is quite possibly not the best metaphor for you to be using here, because languages _aren't_ designed: they evolve. The metaphor between liguistic and biological evolution is actually quite precise, because, under most circumstances, parents pass on their language to the same people to whom they pass on their genetic material. We can see, from surviving texts, how the traits of Old English that are the 'fittest' retain more 'offspring' (speakers), and thus stay with us today; whereas the traits that are not beneficial (such as the dative tense, and the ð and the þ) become lost as we move into Middle English. Then, as the enivronment of the language changes (ie: a more educated and literate group of 'hosts' emerges), the traits of uniform rules of grammar and spelling (as well as other things) gain a larger evolutionary advantage and eventually become what you and I are speaking in.
> 
> Because of this phenomenon, linguists are able to classify languages in the same way biologists classify animals: using an objectively nested hierarchy. Any group of objects can be placed into a nested hierarchy, of course. Cars, for example, could be classified first by number of wheels, then by size, then by manufacturer, then by model and so on. The problem with this is that another person could come and do the classification in a different order (manufacturer, then size, then number of wheels...). This is not possible with biological species or languages, because traits that appear in one group do not, and cannot appear in other groups. You can take more or less any kind of enginge and put it in more or less any kind of car, but you can't take warm-bloodedness and put it in a fish. Let me rephrase that: there _is no particular reason_ why warm-bloodedness should not appear in fish, but it never does, because that trait is _only_ found in whichever mammals and birds, due to the way they happened to evolve. Similarly, there is no particular reason why _kanji_-like characters (which represent ideas instead of sounds) should not appear in western languages, but they never do, because of the way that those two languages evolved. There is a mathematical way to determine whether or not a given set of objects fit into an objectively nested hierarchy, but I can't make heads or tails of it, and I've just realized that I'm _way_ off topic. It's late.
> 
> In conclusion: the sentence "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America" may be designed, but the language that produced it isn't, and it is therefore a poor analogy to use when arguing for design.


The language is a metaphor for complex, specific things here on earth. Whether or not you've found a weakness in the example doesn't invalidate the point it is trying to make; metaphors - by their very nature - call up associations - they are made to point out qualities of the thing compared to, but they are not the thing compared to; therefore, the idea persists: in nature, meaningful, complex, and specific structures indicate the hand of a designer. In essence, you have argued a _straw man_, because instead of dealing with the _point_ the analogy is trying to make, you attempted to dismantle the analogy.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> That's the point: our world is a "closed" system within which we operate; as such, our understanding of everything is based upon our understanding and our interpretive methods (which are based upon how our brains work); thus, Mr. Xerzicon 4 would see most anything of ours as incomprehensible unless he had a similar thinking capability. Either way, the whole point is that the odds for producing a meaningful strand of letters to us here on earth are huge odds - odds that very much go against random arrangement.


So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA..._ad inifinitum_ is meaningful to you? Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that _Homo sapiens sapiens_ is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.




> The language is a metaphor for complex, specific things here on earth.


In addition, the language _is_ a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.




> In essence, you have argued a straw man, because instead of dealing with the point the analogy is trying to make, you attempted to dismantle the analogy.


It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and _then_ tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.




> I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?


We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there _is_ a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So, GATCCGTAGTATCTGATGAAGGAAAGA..._ad inifinitum_ is meaningful to you?


A silly question - another one that flirts with insult.




> Even if this wasn't entirely subjective, it would still be the bridge-player's fallacy. In addition, you are assuming that evolution was somehow trying to produce human beings; that _Homo sapiens sapiens_ is the end-product of evolution somehow. It doesn't work like that.


No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that _contains information_. How does it "work" then?




> In addition, the language _is_ a complex, specific thing here on earth, and one that came about by a process other than conscious design.


Laguage is an agreed upon system of conventions. It does not "evolve" in the way you're suggesting. It "evolves" in terms of change, but not in terms of creation. It is an artificial creation.




> It's not a straw-man if I tell you why the point is invalid, and _then_ tell you why the analogy is bad. The point is invalid because one string of letters isn't objectively more 'specific' than any other. The analogy is bad, because the language that created the letters evolved, as opposed to being intelligently designed.


The string of letters is more specific if it contains _meaningful information_. I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> No I'm not. The word analogy is to suggest the difference between complexity and complexity that contains information.


The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.




> How does it "work" then?


Every living speices is equally the end product of evolution, at least for the time being. In a few million years, most of them will be extinct – us included – and there will be a new set of 'end points'.




> The string of letters is more specific if it contains meaningful information.


Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.




> I need you to run down how language "just natrually evolved" instead of being a constructed entity.


Again?

----------


## Pendragon

> We don't know. Yet. Implying that this suggests that there _is_ a creator would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.


 Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

----------


## JGL57

> I can accept the idea of evolution as logical, but how does life come without a creator?


How would a creator come without a creator? Ad infinitum?

By what sound logic would we analogize from a human creating an airplane to an invisible all-powerful person creating a universe ex nihlio - other than just letting the imagination run wild? Such an imagination would be good for writing award-winning science fiction, otherwise what?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?


If matter/energy is neither created or destroyed and they are in a constant state of transformation then there is no need of a creator.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.


My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it _must_ have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.

----------


## Pendragon

> My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it _must_ have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.
> 
> Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.


No, no. I understood what you meant, Cuppa. You were just pointing out that because we don't know how life began doesn't prove the existence of God. What I was saying was, your statement "We don't know, yet." was clear and precise. Also saying that it wasn't enough to prove the existence or non-existence of God was clear. My own statement was that "There is no way to explain God that can be tested." That statement is very clear. I just figured that people might fire a salvo at you and if they did, they could also turn the big guns on myself. Both believing diametrically opposite, we have made honest statements. Neither has blasted the other. So why can't people accept honest answers?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.


We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.




> Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.


Well, because we speak English, the pledge _does_ contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical. You like to use the argument alot that suggests that without a frame of reference (here English) that a specific pattern of meaning would be meaningless. Sure. But since the frame of reference _does_ exist, then I don't think you can so easily bat away the point. Getting rid of the frame of reference can destroy just about _any_ argument (evolution included); but the frames are _there_, so lets argue from there. Arguing from an essentially "deconstructionist" platform (where all meaning is made arbitrary) totally destroys our ability to consider any argument. 




> Again?


Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.


But the genetic code does not communicate anything any more than the mineral content of a rock communicates to geologists or a speck of ash left in a hotel carpet communicates to a detective.




> Well, because we speak English, the pledge does contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical.


Only because you're defining your target beforehand. The odds of getting any pre-defined string of letters are the same, whether they 'contain information' or not.




> Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.


It evolves _because_ of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It evolves _because_ of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.


I give up.

----------


## Adolescent09

*Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe!  :Biggrin: *

I'm sorry. Please excuse me.

----------


## atiguhya padma

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> *Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe! *
> 
> I'm sorry. Please excuse me.


Certainly.

----------


## Pendragon

> If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.


Bingo, AP. None of us was thereevidence that seems overwhelming to some is unacceptable to others; some people's solemn belief seems mere fairytale to others. *The horse is dead.* To continue with the beating is ludicrous, as no agreement will be reached. Let us all agree to disagree or whatever, and let's bury the poor dead horse!

----------


## hyperborean

> It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our language and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.


I like this guy. Nicely put.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move.


An interesting polarization - one that contains believers and atheists on _both_ sides.




> I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal.


On the contrary, I am well aware as to why there is such widespread belief in evolution (despite the astronomical odds against such a thing happening).




> I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc.


You'll need to qualify how these beliefs are "childish" - since "childish" would be defined as (essentially) "immature"; I, for one, am unsure as to how the beliefs you listed qualify as "immature"; they _do_ qualify as illogical and miraculous - yes; but, I don't understand how illogical and miraculous things qualify as "childish" except that that is _your_ term of disparagement which functions to make your position seem more "mature." Care to clarify?




> A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism.


Would you mind sharing what the "full-baked" beliefs might look like?




> With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe.


Mind explaining this claim? What exactly exists "outside of time"? What created the matter of which the universe is composed?




> Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.


Probably true - and largely so because the magnitude of the universe is a _reflection_ of the magnitude of God Himself.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Childish in the same sense that the tooth fairy, santa claus, and any other insufficient and inexplicable explanation for 'miraculous' phenomena is created by or given to pre-modern or pre-adult thinkers. Illogical and miraculous explanations seem to satisfy childish minds as explanations for occurrences. When people grow up, they tend to grow weary with such explanations. Some even realise their traditional folkloric and mythological roots.

----------


## ennison

No doubt the tenuous connection with Mr Claus and the fairy world (the Picts who ran away to hide from us Scots and Norsemen) will be another justification for my Free Prebyterian friends not to celebrate Christmas. Ah but they fairly give the Bliadhn' Ur a whack.

----------


## Adolescent09

> It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.


Absolutely brilliant. Even as a strong abiding Christian I find it hard to rival your statements. I agree with you so much... What a purely reasonable and intelligent post!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Childish in the same sense that the tooth fairy, santa claus, and any other insufficient and inexplicable explanation for 'miraculous' phenomena is created by or given to pre-modern or pre-adult thinkers. Illogical and miraculous explanations seem to satisfy childish minds as explanations for occurrences. When people grow up, they tend to grow weary with such explanations. Some even realise their traditional folkloric and mythological roots.


Neither the tooth fairy and Santa Clause are part of a larger narrative that attempts to answer the questions of existence, morality, human depravity and the solution to the existence of evil and suffering. Try to find comparisons that are comparable.

As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by _that_ mind and that mind _alone_. Such egocentrism (the idea that human beings are the measure of reality) is really the hallmark of the so-called "childish mind" because children cannot really comprehend that there is a world that exists outside of themselves; as they mature into adults, they realize the complexity of the world, and the necessity of giving place to the reality that other people exist, and that their rather simple view of the world as revolving around them is inaccurate. 

Finally, Christianity is not based on mythological/folkloric roots: as C.S. Lewis has correctly said, pre-Christian mythology was the harbinger of Christ: they were the fictional/mythical "echo" of what Christ would manifest the reality of. The so-called "roots" are actually the flashes of light before the actual sound of the thunder arrived.

----------


## Adolescent09

> As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone. Such egocentrism (the idea that human beings are the measure of reality) is really the hallmark of the so-called "childish mind" because children cannot really comprehend that there is a world that exists outside of themselves; as they mature into adults, they realize the complexity of the world, and the necessity of giving place to the reality that other people exist, and that their rather simple view of the world as revolving around them is inaccurate. 
> 
> Finally, Christianity is not based on mythological/folkloric roots: as C.S. Lewis has correctly said, pre-Christian mythology was the harbinger of Christ: they were the fictional/mythical "echo" of what Christ would manifest the reality of. The so-called "roots" are actually the flashes of light before the actual sound of the thunder arrived.


These are great points, Red. It's amazing how educated the people on LitNet are.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> These are great points, Red. It's amazing how educated the people on LitNet are.



Thank you. I am greatful for your kind words.  :Smile:

----------


## ennison

The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does

----------


## hyperborean

> The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does


Discrimination against atheists is seen once again. *{edit}* Come to the US and watch christians beat up and harass atheists because they don't believe in God. Who's the wrong one there? Are you saying atheists lack morals? *{edit}*

----------


## The Atheist

> The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does



Just because religion does some good - even if it does a lot of good - it doesn't make it right.

That's the problem. I like and admire many chrsitians and I will be the first to tell you that many christians are good-hearted, generous people. So are many atheists.

I would be enormously surprised if atheists and humanists aren't every bit as generous and good-hearted as christians. The problem is with "apathetic agnostics" or the non-religious who just don't have any interest in the eternal verities. The lowest common denominator of society, if you will. Unfortunately, many christians, as well as being generous and good-hearted, tend to lump those non-religious people in with atheists as a group, which in terms of a descriptor, is fair, but in terms of philosophy, is not.

An atheist - to me (and I am, after all, THE Atheist) - is a person who has looked at the evidence for and against gods and has reached a decision that the "god" option is an empty shell. Much as christians will argue that only _xyz_ are True Christians, I resent being classed with people who are too lazy or too ignorant even to think about these questions. 

I know sufficient atheists [as described] and christians to be able to assure you that they are every bit as humanist and caring as any christian.

----------


## Pendragon

> Discrimination against atheists is seen once again. *{edit}* Come to the US and watch christians beat up and harass atheists because they don't believe in God. Who's the wrong one there? Are you saying atheists lack morals? *{edit}*


 You know, Hyper, not every Christian is out to harass you. I have been a Minister since 1982. My stand on this issue has always been clear-- I believe in God and that Creation took place. I believe that God's creatures have since evolved, and continue to do so. I call no one by any bad names, and step in for the defense if others do. If you can point out any place where I have offended, I will make it right with you. That's as fair as a man can be. I stick by my word. You have a nice day. You may rest assured that even though you cannot believe in God (which I do not hold against you, why should I, pray tell?), I will still pray for you. If I cannot show kindness, I am not much of a Christian.

God Bless.

Pen

----------


## JGL57

> The erroneous belief in evolution is both a by-product of and a cause of atheism. There are those who think it is off-topic to notice the effect this has on communities and societies. The UK (temporary thing) is today darker and worse off as a result of the clouds of atheism. Only in those areas where Christian communities survive is there sustained sacrificial charity and the blood doner units know where to go if they want blood - and it's not into the heart of darkness in the modern UK. Off topic? No way! But bound to offend some as the truth always does


Without the existence of christians there would be no charity in the world.

Right.

And the four billion plus people on earth who are not christians spend their time either ignoring each other, or callously using each other as merely objects and means to an end.

Right.

.
.
.
.
.

When donkeys fly.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<As far as I'm concerned, the truly "childish mind" is the mind that decides that all of reality should be defined by that mind and that mind alone.>

So I take it, for you, all of reality is not defined by your religious beliefs then?

Creating a wider narrative around silly notions certainly does not improve the prospects of those notions. Besides, what makes you think that there isn't such a narrative associated with a belief in fairies?

To claim that christianity was not based on pre-Christian mythology you would need to demonstrate some kind of immunity to the Roman and Greek influences that would have been a daily occurrence in the days of the gospel writers. Bearing in mind that at least one of the New Testament writers was Roman himself, I would suggest that is a tall order.

----------


## hyperborean

> You know, Hyper, not every Christian is out to harass you. I have been a Minister since 1982. My stand on this issue has always been clear-- I believe in God and that Creation took place. I believe that God's creatures have since evolved, and continue to do so. I call no one by any bad names, and step in for the defense if others do. If you can point out any place where I have offended, I will make it right with you. That's as fair as a man can be. I stick by my word. You have a nice day. You may rest assured that even though you cannot believe in God (which I do not hold against you, why should I, pray tell?), I will still pray for you. If I cannot show kindness, I am not much of a Christian.
> 
> God Bless.
> 
> Pen


Maybe you don't discriminate against atheists, but _many_ Christians do. 

I believe in God as well, but I on the other hand took the leash off my collar.

----------


## Derringer

I replaced the word 'gender' with 'religion' in Judith Butler's _ Gender Trouble_ 

and nothing happened. It still didn't make sense.

The Bible is nothing more than a code of ethics, which many people claim to live their life by, but don't - me included. 

Why does anyone care if God exists or not? It's not like you have to believe that He exists to live by a code of ethics -- and even if you could prove that he exists, then what? Are we going to be contempt and quit living life because we know the end? Is He going to come to my anti-birthday party?

' Oh, Jesus got so drunk and pushed over the poker table. Some weird Freudian problem he has'

The issue seems to be enlightenment - solving philosophical problems is enlightenment for us (see Plato); but should it be? What happens in Lear:

Nothing! x5

and nobody can explain the same word repeated five times.

So find enlightenment elsewhere? Hmm. I wonder where? Maybe in literature? We all like books, right?

----------


## JBI

I believe in evolution, but not evolution as an answer. I believe there is no answer, and therefore we shouldn't go looking for it since there is no proof. Everything in a sense is relative, and one cannot even proof that existence exists.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So I take it, for you, all of reality is not defined by your religious beliefs then?


Not by _my_ beliefs, no; by God? Yes.




> Creating a wider narrative around silly notions certainly does not improve the prospects of those notions. Besides, what makes you think that there isn't such a narrative associated with a belief in fairies?


"Silly" to you. Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.




> To claim that christianity was not based on pre-Christian mythology you would need to demonstrate some kind of immunity to the Roman and Greek influences that would have been a daily occurrence in the days of the gospel writers. Bearing in mind that at least one of the New Testament writers was Roman himself, I would suggest that is a tall order.


Suggest away - because the Bible tells us that God implanted "eternity" in our hearts and an awareness of God; as such, it is perfectly reasonable for Lewis to argue that prefigurations of Christ were anticipations, not models, of the myth-made-real to come.

----------


## The Atheist

> Not by _my_ beliefs, no; by God? Yes.


Fundamentalism 101: god exists, QED.






.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.


But what is the point of it all if you can't verify this cosmic origins that you speak of and you say you does not need verification - so all this is quite meaningless isn't it? You might as well believe in anything - even the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But what is the point of it all if you can't verify this cosmic origins that you speak of and you say you does not need verification - so all this is quite meaningless isn't it? You might as well believe in anything - even the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it.


Why don't you address my challenge instead of telling me about the unverifiability of my position (which I have never, for the record, claimed).

----------


## Guzmán

> "Silly" to you. Provide me the narrative associated with fairies that attempts to answer to cosmic questions that Christianity does, please.


If there were a narrative associated with fairies that attempted to answer cosmic questions, or moral ones for that matter, would that make its account on fairies any more credible?

I could make up that sort of book right now if I wanted to; the only difference between that hypothetical book and any other holly book would be its age and populartity; give it a couple of thousand years and maybe my book would be as credible as the bible.

Besides, why should popularity add credibility to anything?

----------


## kari

I watched this show once, that was discussing these things. Anyways, it was a bit interesting because their theory (based on findings and whatnot, I don't recall all the specifics) was that we did pretty much evolve, but that Adam was the first intelligent human being placed on the earth. I found it extremely interesting because this idea sort of put the two theories that have been debated for years together into one. Just thought I might throw that out!
Kari

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If there were a narrative associated with fairies that attempted to answer cosmic questions, or moral ones for that matter, would that make its account on fairies any more credible?


The point is this: people who claim that belief in God is no more credible than believing in "green men" The Matrix or fairies oversimplify the issue: Christianity is based on God's word - The Bible. People who say it is composed of nothing but "myths" and such really haven't read it closely or considered what it actually does and claims. No other mythical narrative deals with the scope of issues that the Bible does; no other narrative answers our fundamental questions and provides insight into all areas of life; no other narrative offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God like the Bible.




> I could make up that sort of book right now if I wanted to; the only difference between that hypothetical book and any other holly book would be its age and populartity; give it a couple of thousand years and maybe my book would be as credible as the bible.


Sure you could - and then what?

No: there is a larger difference that you are conveniently ignoring: the Bible is a unified whole that verifies and validates itself. Your work would be derivative. The Bible is unique in its answers to the questions of _where we came from, why we're here, and where we're going._ As well, credibility is established by the veracity of the claims. The Bible's teachings on human nature and morality are spot on.




> Besides, why should popularity add credibility to anything?


Popularity has nothing to do with it unless the "popularity" has morphed into something more substantial; things don't stay merely "popular" for a few thousand years. Paris Hilton is "popular." The Bible is far more.

----------


## kari

I don't know how to quote something on here yet, but to redzeppelin, I do consider myself to be a very religious and spiritual person. And I do believe in God. After reading through this last post, I think that you are forgetting free agency. People that are LDS (mormon) may also feel to other religions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon because they haven't truly read it with an open heart, or truly considered what is says and claims. Or acknowledge that it offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God. I will just take a guess, that you are not Mormon considering I haven't seen you mentioning the Book of Mormon. So what would that mean about you? Everything you are saying about people that find the Bible to be fabrications and myths. They are allowed to think so, that is their free agency to do so. I think though, you are focusing on the wrong thing...as to why someone would put God into the same catagory as green men....and that is lack of faith. You will never be able to prove your beliefs to be true, and there is a reason for that. So someone on here trying to get your to prove it...is really only going to get a smile at your efforts, because it is really impossible. God wants people to believe without proof....He wants them to have faith. Just because the Bible gives us so much guidance and truth...doesn't mean everyone will think so. Just because the Book of Mormon can give so many guidance and truth, doesn't mean everyone will think so. 
Kari

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I don't know how to quote something on here yet, but to redzeppelin, I do consider myself to be a very religious and spiritual person. And I do believe in God. After reading through this last post, I think that you are forgetting free agency. People that are LDS (mormon) may also feel to other religions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon because they haven't truly read it with an open heart, or truly considered what is says and claims. Or acknowledge that it offers answers to the questions of existence, morality, sin, human nature, creation and God. I will just take a guess, that you are not Mormon considering I haven't seen you mentioning the Book of Mormon. So what would that mean about you? Everything you are saying about people that find the Bible to be fabrications and myths. They are allowed to think so, that is their free agency to do so. I think though, you are focusing on the wrong thing...as to why someone would put God into the same catagory as green men....and that is lack of faith. You will never be able to prove your beliefs to be true, and there is a reason for that. So someone on here trying to get your to prove it...is really only going to get a smile at your efforts, because it is really impossible. God wants people to believe without proof....He wants them to have faith. Just because the Bible gives us so much guidance and truth...doesn't mean everyone will think so. Just because the Book of Mormon can give so many guidance and truth, doesn't mean everyone will think so. 
> Kari


I'm not suggesting that my belief system is true - and I've never tried to prove that it is; for some reason people do not seem to understand my argument. It goes like this: in response to people who try to "equalize" the Bible by comparing it to mythical/imaginative narratives, I am countering that the Biblical narrative is distinctly different from most other mythical/imaginative narratives or "beliefs" (green men, fairies, Santa Clause, et al) in that its cohesive narrative has a cosmic scope that other narratives and/or "beliefs" cannot match. That in no way implies that I'm right, that Christianity is true or that God is real; it simply suggests that the comparisons being made are inaccurate in terms of the content, scope and results of the Biblical narrative lived out in one's life (as opposed to living out, say, some sort of Greek mythology narrative as a guide to life, the universe and everything).

----------


## kari

I guess I don't understand your argument. Even after that explanation, I would still say the same things. That it doesn't matter the content to some, that it is still free agency to pool the Bible in with mythology type literature if they see it as the same. People that are Christians, of course view it differently, and most times probably can't understand how others would view it as mythical. Anyways, I would just be repeating myself. Sorry to have stepped in then...I still don't see what you are saying is any different than my original view of it...so I will leave it to others to comment more!
Kari

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I guess I don't understand your argument. Even after that explanation, I would still say the same things. That it doesn't matter the content to some, that it is still free agency to pool the Bible in with mythology type literature if they see it as the same. People that are Christians, of course view it differently, and most times probably can't understand how others would view it as mythical. Anyways, I would just be repeating myself. Sorry to have stepped in then...I still don't see what you are saying is any different than my original view of it...so I will leave it to others to comment more!
> Kari


I'm trying to say this: saying that all mythological narratives (and those that _seem_ mythological) are equal without regards to content is like saying that all books are equal because they contain stories - so Harry Potter is equal to _The Grapes of Wrath_. No - content matters. The Bible offers a narrative that reflects the reality of life; it offers prophecies (many of which have come true); it names historical dates and people; it offers a cohesive narrative dealing with the fundamental questions of existence; other writings compared to it do not do so. That is all I'm suggesting. I'm primarily responding to those who equate the content of the Bible with mere fairy tales. Mere fairy tales do not provide answers to the questions of existence like the Bible does - they can't.

----------


## kari

I seriously am pretty sure I understand you. I get that you are saying you feel the Bible is on a different level of literature than other mythical type of books. 
Kari

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I seriously am pretty sure I understand you. I get that you are saying you feel the Bible is on a different level of literature than other mythical type of books. 
> Kari


Yes - in terms of the questions it attempts to answer, the picture of reality it presents, and the cohesion of the world-view it gives (in terms of creation, human nature, evil, and the identity of God). I didn't say "better" or "more truthful" - I'm simply pointing out that if one wishes to make comparisons to the Bible, one should pick examples that are _comparable_ (rather than fairy tales or Santa Clause - which do not answer the questions that the Bible does).

----------


## kari

I think that maybe people might catagorize their books a bit differently. I know you say content matters...and that the Bible is on another level. But it sounds like if someone was comparing the Bible to other mythical books, that maybe the way you catagorize them is not as broad as theirs. For example, someone may just lump all children's books together. But of course, there are others that might have different catagories of books within children's books, such as books on weather, counting, bedtime stories. Others might think the Bible is comparable to mythical books...maybe not in the sense of answering those questions the Bible does, but in the sense of it being nonsense to them. That was pretty much where I was coming from...they can group them however they choose to.
Kari

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Why don't you address my challenge instead of telling me about the unverifiability of my position (which I have never, for the record, claimed).


I again ask you what is the point if your cosmic origin can't be verified? I can give you cosmic origins from Quran which is more in line with science ie Earth not 6000 years old or Bhagavad Gita etc...but what is the point? Without verification we will not go anywhere.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I again ask you what is the point if your cosmic origin can't be verified? I can give you cosmic origins from Quran which is more in line with science ie Earth not 6000 years old or Bhagavad Gita etc...but what is the point? Without verification we will not go anywhere.


Ho-hum: still on the "verifiable" kick, eh? If you only believe that which you can empirically verify, then there are many things in life that you don't believe in: love, hate, thought, the psyche, imagination, creativity, et al. Life requires faith on all sides. Only since the Enlightenment did humanity develop the highly restricted idea that only what is verifiable is _real_. Please. _Please_.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Ho-hum: still on the "verifiable" kick, eh?


That is the only way to make progress. That is the only way to agree on. This is the way we make computers work and send probes to distant planets. This is the way we banish superstitions to the pages of myths that they belong to. This is the way we remove the fear of ghosts and goblins and other magical and hellish creatures that inhabit our nightmares. 




> If you only believe that which you can empirically verify, then there are many things in life that you don't believe in


We should only accept the verifiable and keep treat the unverifiable with a degree of skepticism until they become verifiable. 




> : love, hate, thought, the psyche, imagination, creativity, et al.


All these love and hate behaviour are verifiable. We observe it. We see it in action. We can quantify the oxytocin in the brain and the mao inhibitors in the synapses etc...there is nothing unverifiable about these behaviours. 

What we can't do is "experience" how another individual "feels" love or hate. These are subjective experiences of the individual. 

As for Psyche - we can now capture thoughts in the brain and direct them to operate a mechanical device...early days yet...but we have made a start. 

As for creativity - with neural networks we can now have the creativity of a 2 year old - early days yet but we have made a start.




> Life requires faith on all sides.


Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way... 




> Only since the Enlightenment did humanity develop the highly restricted idea that only what is verifiable is _real_. Please. _Please_.



Only verifiable is something that we can agree on. Rest is just subjective experience of the individual.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That is the only way to make progress. That is the only way to agree on. This is the way we make computers work and send probes to distant planets. This is the way we banish superstitions to the pages of myths that they belong to. This is the way we remove the fear of ghosts and goblins and other magical and hellish creatures that inhabit our nightmares.


True. But my contention and what you've expressed are not mutually exclusive claims. Both can be true.




> We should only accept the verifiable and keep treat the unverifiable with a degree of skepticism until they become verifiable.


I am fine with a "degree of skepticism." It is the flat-out denial of possibility based on "unverifiability" that I dislike.




> All these love and hate behaviour are verifiable. We observe it. We see it in action. We can quantify the oxytocin in the brain and the mao inhibitors in the synapses etc...there is nothing unverifiable about these behaviours.


Here you are wrong: we may observe _external behaviors_ that may be a _manifestation_ of these emotions, but the emotions _themselves_ cannot be verified. I might spank my child out of love, out of anger, out of a feeling of helplessness. Chemicals do not indicate the presence of an emotion - they indicate the presence of chemicals.




> What we can't do is "experience" how another individual "feels" love or hate. These are subjective experiences of the individual.


Right: so since you cannot verify what someone is feeling, does that negate the validity of that experience for the individual? 




> As for Psyche - we can now capture thoughts in the brain and direct them to operate a mechanical device...early days yet...but we have made a start.


You may capture electronic _impulses_ - but you're not "directing" thought itself.




> As for creativity - with neural networks we can now have the creativity of a 2 year old - early days yet but we have made a start.


No: you can duplicate a "neural network" in a computer but that doesn't mean it will possess creative ability.




> Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way...


You assume this to be true. Your statement is _unverifiable_. 




> Only verifiable is something that we can agree on. Rest is just subjective experience of the individual.


But we can accept the reality of subjective experience that we collectively experience in our own subjective way; thus, things that we cannot exactly verify we do accept the existence of.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> True. But my contention and what you've expressed are not mutually exclusive claims. Both can be true.


We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.




> I am fine with a "degree of skepticism."


That is all you need. Accept the verifiable and treat rest as guess-works.




> Here you are wrong: we may observe external behaviors that may be a manifestation of these emotions, but the emotions themselves cannot be verified.


No am not wrong. We can verify the behaviours that is what I said. 

Not only we can observe external behaviours but we can also monitor the internal brain chemistry. We can also study which parts of the brain lights up when you feel angry or in love. We can give you chemicals that make you more angry and we can give you chemcials that make you more peaceful. 




> I might spank my child out of love, out of anger, out of a feeling of helplessness. Chemicals do not indicate the presence of an emotion - they indicate the presence of chemicals.


Wrong. It is the levels of the chemicals that generates the emotion. That is why people take drugs that give them the feeling of "euphoria".

But if I give a chemical that makes you angry or peaceful? What then? 

I can give you chemicals that makes you feel nothing - what then?

It is the presence of chemcials that give rise to emotions don't they?

People with low serotonin in the brain "feel" very depressed. It is the chemicals that generates this mood.




> Right: so since you cannot verify what someone is feeling, does that negate the validity of that experience for the individual?


Subjective experiences of an individual are just that - subjective. That is what I have always said. We can't agree on subjective experiences. It is the objectively verifiable that we can agree on and make progress. Subjective experience remains just that subjective. To you strawberries may taste bland or even bitter to others it is very sweet. So you are both right in your subjective experiences of strawberries. But objectively we can verify the level of sugar content in the strawberries - this is the thing we can agree on. You may "feel" it is cold inside the room and someone else may "feel" it is hot. Both are right in your subjective experiences. But objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer - this is the thing we can agree on. So what this points to? Subjective experience has no beareance on the objective reality.




> You may capture electronic impulses - but you're not "directing" thought itself.


Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses. 




> No: you can duplicate a "neural network" in a computer but that doesn't mean it will possess creative ability.


So far it has the creative ability of a two year old. Here is an example.

http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/lnsc/html/art7.jpg





> Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way...





> You assume this to be true. Your statement is unverifiable.


LOL :-) - We have not found Dinosaur Temples in the fossil record where dinosaurs worshipped their Dino-God :-)





> But we can accept the reality of subjective experience that we collectively experience in our own subjective way;


Yes accept it of course - but we can't agree on any of these things. The only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.
> 
> That is all you need. Accept the verifiable and treat rest as guess-works.
> 
> No am not wrong. We can verify the behaviours that is what I said. 
> 
> Not only we can observe external behaviours but we can also monitor the internal brain chemistry. We can also study which parts of the brain lights up when you feel angry or in love. We can give you chemicals that make you more angry and we can give you chemcials that make you more peaceful.


I should expect to hear you banging the "verifiable" drum - fine: but what you miss is that the "verifiable" is occasionally obvious (gravity works) but, at other times, the "verifiable" is in need of interpretation (i.e. the fossil record, the complexity of life forms, etc); once interpretation is required, we are now off of the platform of objectivity and wading into the ever-deepening waters of subjectivity. That is the primary point that allows me to keep resisting your insistence on "verifiable" reality - and the examples I listed in terms of interpreting the external behaviors makes my point.





> Wrong. It is the levels of the chemicals that generates the emotion. That is why people take drugs that give them the feeling of "euphoria".
> 
> But if I give a chemical that makes you angry or peaceful? What then? 
> 
> I can give you chemicals that makes you feel nothing - what then?
> 
> It is the presence of chemcials that give rise to emotions don't they?
> 
> People with low serotonin in the brain "feel" very depressed. It is the chemicals that generates this mood.


Legitimate feelings are a result of our interaction with the world around us.  That we can _manipulate_ our feelings with chemicals does not make the feelings _legitimate_. 





> Subjective experiences of an individual are just that - subjective. That is what I have always said. We can't agree on subjective experiences. It is the objectively verifiable that we can agree on and make progress. Subjective experience remains just that subjective. To you strawberries may taste bland or even bitter to others it is very sweet. So you are both right in your subjective experiences of strawberries. But objectively we can verify the level of sugar content in the strawberries - this is the thing we can agree on. You may "feel" it is cold inside the room and someone else may "feel" it is hot. Both are right in your subjective experiences. But objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer - this is the thing we can agree on. So what this points to? Subjective experience has no beareance on the objective reality.


This is where your reliance on objective reality falls apart: we - the assessors of objective reality - are incapable of being completely objective - our assessment of reality will always be colored by our biases and subjective tendencies.




> Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.


I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.





> So far it has the creative ability of a two year old. Here is an example.


Very pretty - but this is a product of a mathematical equation.

"Creation" that is a product of a human mind behind the programming. Creativity is more than product - it is also inspiration, communication, interaction between artist and audience. I'm not convinced. The computer is a tool to create with - it itself cannot be a creative entity without a human will behind it.





> Yes accept it of course - but we can't agree on any of these things. The only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.


I covered the holes in this idea above.

----------


## ennison

'Just because religion does some good - even if it does a lot of good - it doesn't make it right'
Well I would disagree but as this is largely about theism versus a- theism I leave it open to any of the other significant sets of religious belief to produce the same effect in their communities. I've certainly known and know many fine agnostics but I've never met any militant atheist that was not bitter, aggressive and plain nasty.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I should expect to hear you banging the "verifiable" drum - fine


That's all you need to agree on. From this we can make computers work and send probes to distant planets.




> Legitimate feelings are a result of our interaction with the world around us. That we can _manipulate_ our feelings with chemicals does not make the feelings _legitimate_.


But you don't get it do you? If you don't have certain chemicals in your body you don't feel that emotion. It is the chemcals that creates thus emotions. For example people who are clinically depressed have very low levels of serotonin in the brain. Increase this chemical the depression goes away. Some people have very low levels of testostorine - no matter how hard they try they will not able to get the feeling of sexual arousal. Give them the chemicals and they can. 




> This is where your reliance on objective reality falls apart: we - the assessors of objective reality - are incapable of being completely objective - our assessment of reality will always be colored by our biases and subjective tendencies.


The Scientific Method is not based on our feelings. If it was we would not have computers. 




> I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.


Thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain. You can't have a thought and not the electrical impulse.




> Very pretty - but this is a product of a mathematical equation.


LOL :-) you don't know how neural network works do you? It learns by experience like a child does. It's creativity - however limited as it is at the moment - comes from experience.




> "Creation" that is a product of a human mind behind the programming.  Creativity is more than product - it is also inspiration, communication, interaction between artist and audience.


It is still early days yet with neural networks. In time they will grow and become more advanced.




> I'm not convinced. The computer is a tool to create with - it itself cannot be a creative entity without a human will behind it.


A lot of people were not convinced when the first planes were invented as way of transporting people :-)

----------


## Pendragon

> We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.


OK. What is truth? Verifiable by what means? Who decides what is and is not verifiable truth? 

My reason for asking this is not a religious one. IMO, there is more evidence of the existence of Sasquatch than some of the members of the chart of human evolution. Fragments of a single skull could be anything, perhaps a malformation of a prediscovered race. But unless the human race kills a Sasquatch or finds a body, (there have been giant skulls found), the evidence is ruled "unconvincing at best." This in spite the fact that many scientists think the Patterson film to be genuine, just not as big an animal as claimed. 

The recent Xing-xing proof from China, showed that all Orangutans are not from Borneo, and that Chinese peasants were not having hallucinations. Just wondering...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But you don't get it do you? If you don't have certain chemicals in your body you don't feel that emotion. It is the chemcals that creates thus emotions. For example people who are clinically depressed have very low levels of serotonin in the brain. Increase this chemical the depression goes away. Some people have very low levels of testostorine - no matter how hard they try they will not able to get the feeling of sexual arousal. Give them the chemicals and they can.


Until I know more about this, I'm going to have to table this portion of the argument. I understand that chemicals have an important role in how we experience emotions - but I do not believe they are emotions themselves because emotions are a product of one's interaction with the world and this interaction is largely filtered through our consciousness - which is largely constructed through very individual and personal means (experiences, relationships, environment). If I feel _righteous indignation_ one day, and _irrational anger_ the next, I don't imagine there's a different chemical involved - but there is a difference between the two emotions; as such, I think the chemical is a _vehicle_, but not the _content_, of an emotion. 





> The Scientific Method is not based on our feelings. If it was we would not have computers.


You ignored my argument (again); the scientific method is a sound method for examining the world around us - and it can function objectively; we, however, cannot. That's why two scientists with different world views (natrualism, creationism) can look at the same evidence, arrived at by the same scientific method and disagree on the conclusions.




> Thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain. You can't have a thought and not the electrical impulse.


But you can have electrical impulses and no thought - think of someone who's brain dead.





> LOL :-) you don't know how neural network works do you? It learns by experience like a child does. It's creativity - however limited as it is at the moment - comes from experience.


I do not believe that machines can possess the same "creativity" as a divinely created human being. The machine may "ape" creativity, but it cannot duplicate human creativity. Creativity involves the desire to create - computers do not "desire" anything - they do what they're told.




> It is still early days yet with neural networks. In time they will grow and become more advanced.


And then what? Create for us? What's the value in that?





> A lot of people were not convinced when the first planes were invented as way of transporting people :-)


False analogy - the two do not compare.

----------


## Guzmán

You know, you can't spell "evilution" without "evil"...
Oh wait, you can, cause its evolution baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C9CH3q9PLI

There must be no one from my generation in this forum, otherwise this would have already been posted. What a great band and a great video.
Enjoy and chill out a bit.

----------


## weepingforloman

Are you intentionally ripping off Eddie Vedder, Guzman?

----------


## atiguhya padma

Lote-Tree said: 

Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

Redzeppelin replied:

I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.

Since you seem familiar with the passenger yourself, maybe you'd care to explain what thought is then, and how it is possible to 'travel' along electrical impulses.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I understand that chemicals have an important role in how we experience emotions - but I do not believe they are emotions themselves because emotions are a product of one's interaction with the world and this interaction is largely filtered through our consciousness - which is largely constructed through very individual and personal means (experiences, relationships, environment).


Without the chemicals you will not have the emotion - no matter how you interact with the world. A person with very low level of Testostrine will not be able to have the feeling of arousal - however much his conciouness filters and demands one.




> as such, I think the chemical is a _vehicle_, but not the _content_, of an emotion.


You need to elaborate on this.




> You ignored my argument (again); the scientific method is a sound method for examining the world around us - and it can function objectively; we, however, cannot.


The Scientfific Method is just that - it removes human subjectivity.




> That's why two scientists with different world views (natrualism, creationism) can look at the same evidence, arrived at by the same scientific method and disagree on the conclusions.


False. Study the Scientific Method. 




> But you can have electrical impulses and no thought - think of someone who's brain dead.


And how do we know when someone is dead? We measure the Brain's Electrical Impulses - and when no impulses - we say that person is fully dead.




> I do not believe that machines can possess the same "creativity" as a divinely created human being.


That can only be your belief. But we are not interested in beliefs but truths. But as I said neural networks - early days yet..very early days yet...




> The machine may "ape" creativity, but it cannot duplicate human creativity.


Again that can only be your belief. And we are not interested in beliefs but truths. But as I said neural networks - early days yet...




> Creativity involves the desire to create - computers do not "desire" anything - they do what they're told.


As I said Neural Neworks do not work on the principle of "do as your are told"...it learns from Experience. It has to be taught and from this teaching it learns..You can't program neural network to do as you are told...it learns from experience...Our reserach into neural networks is early days yet...




> And then what? Create for us? What's the value in that?


We shall together explore the limitlessness of the imaginations :-)




> False analogy - the two do not compare.


[/quote]

I was not making an analogy but showing views of the unimaginitives ;-)

----------


## Lily Adams

Thought some of you here might be interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI

"Light Years Ahead of Creationism"-a little though-provoking speech done by none other than Carl Sagan, a hero of mine.

Enjoy.

----------


## JGL57

I think this video may be relevant to the discussion, i.e., what about the concept of unintelligent design? -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI

----------


## hyperborean

> Thought some of you here might be interested in this:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI
> 
> "Light Years of Creationism"-a little though-provoking speech done by none other than Carl Sagan, a hero of mine.
> 
> Enjoy.


This video owned. I would like to see some rebuttal if you masters of spin can handle it.  :FRlol: 

I'm watching the "unintelligent design" right now.

----------


## Turk

http://www.harunyahya.com/

----------


## JGL57

> http://www.harunyahya.com/


From this website:

"In a few scientific circles, Darwinism is still a widespread obsession, but this does not preclude the knowledge that its days have come to an end. All the scientific suppositions that once supported the theory have crumbled, one by one. The only reason why Darwinism is still alive is because in some scientific circles, a few fanatics still passionately espouse the materialist philosophy it's based on." 

That is f-ing hilarious - one of the funniest satires on a delusional mind I've seen recently. If I didn't know better, I would suspect this whole website is a production of Landover Baptist Church

landoverbaptist.org

----------


## Turk

There's a lot of good books in that website and after reading some of them the statement you tried to make fun of (but couldn't unfortunately) are seem quite possible.

----------


## linz

*Evolution and Creation are one and the same, as all you atheist say that a vastly dense mass caused the big bang, then what caused the dense mass? Therefore if God is Omnipotent, could he not still know exactly how to start the sequence which lead to the single celled organism, and end it with Mankind's emancipation.*

----------


## Lote-Tree

[QUOTE=Turk;392108]There's a lot of good books in that website and after reading some of them the statement you tried to make fun of (but couldn't unfortunately) are seem quite possible. 

LOL :-) Harun Yahya?

That man is not a scientist! He uses other people's work out of context to further his creationist objectives! He has no understanding of biological evolution nor science as a whole.

----------


## JGL57

> *Evolution and Creation are one and the same, as all you atheist say that a vastly dense mass caused the big bang, then what caused the dense mass? Therefore if God is Omnipotent, could he not still know exactly how to start the sequence which lead to the single celled organism, and end it with Mankind's emancipation.*


Well, sure, there is nothing wrong with deism or pantheism. I doubt big bang cosmology is taught in grammar or high school science classes - probably only in certain physics classes at university. But, at the latter, the teacher or professor would be out of line to say "Thus, there is no god, including deistic or pantheistic" at the conclusion of the course. He or she could only say that the singularity (that exploded to be the "big bang") is the start of both space and time, and scientific theories (at our level of knowledge at this time) regarding its "origin" - if that word even applies - is purely speculative.

I think the science vs. religion problem is the NOTION of the monotheistic god - the one that interferes in the natural order in historical times, e.g., popping complex beings into being ex nihlio and other sheer acts of magic.

And I use the word "notion" above because such does not arise to the level of scientific theory, as it is unfalsifiable in principle.

Gods who do not interfere - the deistic and pantheistic - are irrelevant, as such are by their nature trivial claims.

----------


## weepingforloman

Speaking out of personal experience (I'm only a few years removed from middle school), teachers DO teach the big bang. Obviously they are prohibited from making religious assumptions based on the theory-- but it IS taught, and taught as fact.

----------


## hyperborean

Here is a good video from Carl Sagan about the universe. It's funny as well. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Gods who do not interfere - the deistic and pantheistic - are irrelevant, as such are by their nature trivial claims.


But God's who tinker with the world after it has been created is absurd?

----------


## Lily Adams

> Here is a good video from Carl Sagan about the universe. It's funny as well. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0


Ha ha. I have this one as one of my favorites on my YouTube account. (As well as the one I posted earlier.)

"Mountain Dew is the best soda ever made."

----------


## JGL57

> But God's who tinker with the world after it has been created is absurd?


The way I would put it is - to give credence to the notion that a good explanation for an observed phenomenon is that an assumed creator god is tinkering with reality - that would be an absurd explanation. Traditionally, such goes by the name of "god of the gaps", i.e, if humans don't understand some observed phenomenon (i.e., can't prove an mechanistic theory), then a religionists runs in and shouts "goddidit" - and badda bing, badd boom, "knowledge" is created. That's absurd.

----------


## weepingforloman

Is it absurd to observe the laws of nature, and then to infer that a God exists? Because that is mostly what modern theistic philosophy is based upon.

----------


## hyperborean

> Because that is mostly what modern theistic philosophy is based upon.


And that's why we argue against theistic philosophy.

----------


## JGL57

> Is it absurd to observe the laws of nature, and then to infer that a God exists?...


In a word, yes. Reread my previous post for why this is.

----------


## weepingforloman

> And that's why we argue against theistic philosophy.


Ah, don't get ahead of yourself. I said PHILOSOPHY, not religion.




> In a word, yes. Reread my previous post for why this is.


I do not mean the God did it! response. I mean looking at the seemingly odd, somewhat random things we continue to find out about our universe-- speed may be limited, it is possible that I might sink through the chair I sit in, electrons exist in two places, but never at a between point... And assuming that something more than Nature is present. This is not how I arrive at my conception of God, far from it... But I do not find it absurd.

----------


## Yogi

The hypothesis is why the evolution ? Rationality of Avatara. Rationality of plotting a chart, reaching the conclusion. How the scientists work out. If there is any truth in whatever they say, the experiment must work out.

The sense and the non-sense of the search. The knowledge of the Absolute by two sources: 1) by the Unconscious; 2) by the Incarnations. It was available to the enlightened ones. Later on, institutions and organizations were established in the name of the enlightened ones. The unenlightened, when exposed to these institutions, felt the sense of power in these institutions and they created an area through which they could dominate these organizations.

In the life of Jesus Christ, who was the highest expressed essence of spiritual innocence, the human beings understood the sacrifice of the dearest and only son of the Father for the sake of humanity. This gave a very human perception of God’s love for humanity. Thus, the human beings, as physical witnesses, envisaged the immortality of Spirit within man.

Therefore, the advents of incarnations are milestones in the progress of spiritual awareness. They echoed in the darkness of the ignorance, the sound of spirituality and touched every time a new boundless perception, new fragrance, a new color to the beauty of the creation. 

Because man cannot move towards God, God has to come to him as an incarnation. Books cannot do that. 

Believing also is only possible through seeing an incarnation at work.

Metaphysics depends on the human conception of God which is limited. The human awareness can not comprehend reality. It has to evolve to the point of Self awareness.

----------


## atiguhya padma

If you believe that the laws of nature are set in stone, then I can't see how you can also believe in the resurrection; the virgin birth; miracles; the transubstantiation etc. If you believe that god set the ball rolling, and designed the universe in such a way that he could not tinker with it, then god just becomes a weak and useless attempt at explaining the origins of the universe (if you cannot explain the origins of god - other than to say that god is eternal: we might as well save time and energy and say the universe is eternal - then your explanation for the origin of the universe is useless).

----------


## JGL57

> ...I do not mean the God did it! response. I mean looking at the seemingly odd, somewhat random things we continue to find out about our universe-- speed may be limited, it is possible that I might sink through the chair I sit in, electrons exist in two places, but never at a between point... And assuming that something more than Nature is present. This is not how I arrive at my conception of God, far from it... But I do not find it absurd.


There's no denying the "weirdness" of our experienced reality. Modern day science pertaining to evolutionary cosmology, quantum mechanics, biological evolution, brain research, etc. all collectively paint quite a mind-blowing picture.

But there is no excuse, therefore, for getting carried away and defining mythic narrative as historical events. In the final analysis, there IS a difference between fact on the one hand and and fiction (expressive metaphor and allegory) on the other. Read some Joseph Campbell. It might clear a few things up for you.

----------


## nishachara

I think you know too much of religion and very little about science

----------


## JGL57

> I think you know too much of religion and very little about science


It would help if you identified the poster to whom you are addressing your comments - other than just using the generic "you". Some of us here may be paranoids and you don't want to feed into that.  :Wink:

----------


## Lily Adams

> But there is no excuse, therefore, for getting carried away and defining mythic narrative as historical events. In the final analysis, there IS a difference between fact on the one hand and and fiction (expressive metaphor and allegory) on the other. Read some Joseph Campbell. It might clear a few things up for you.


Thank you. I'm sure there was a man named Jesus Christ, but I doubt he did all the powerful things that the Bible says he did.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but why don't things of Biblical proportion happen today? Like the flood and everything. (Okay, I know God made a promise to never do that again, according to the Bible, but it's just an example.) We haven't seen one in a very very long time. By bibleical proportion I mean something that sounds like magic. It does to me, at least I've never seen a man live 6,000 years old. I've never seen an Angel of Death come by and wipe out all the first born sons. 

And, another thing, for ANY religion. What makes you so sure that you're right? I mean, there are plenty other religions around. And the members of those other religions think they're right, too. I personally find it very arrogant.

It kind of ties in with the "God made us in His image" thing when it's the other way around. We're not the center of the universe.

----------


## MysticalWriter

Hm, I am not going to read 129 pages worth of posts, but- I will say I believe in Creation. 

Is there anytime in the Bible that contains a flaw of some sort? Can any scientist, geologist, doctor of any sort, etc, etc, prve that the Bible is wrong. There is much eveidenc ethat it "could" be true.

Is there anytime, in the Theory of Evolution that can/has been proven wrong? Yes! So why believe in something that can be proven wrong?

----------


## Lily Adams

> Is there anytime in the Bible that contains a flaw of some sort? Can any scientist, geologist, doctor of any sort, etc, etc, prve that the Bible is wrong. There is much eveidenc ethat it "could" be true.


Yes.

Here (It's a re-post, you guys.) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI




> Is there anytime, in the Theory of Evolution that can/has been proven wrong? Yes! So why believe in something that can be proven wrong?


And where is your argument against Evolution? I want to know the proof that it's wrong that you speak of.

----------


## weepingforloman

> If you believe that the laws of nature are set in stone, then I can't see how you can also believe in the resurrection; the virgin birth; miracles; the transubstantiation etc. If you believe that god set the ball rolling, and designed the universe in such a way that he could not tinker with it, then god just becomes a weak and useless attempt at explaining the origins of the universe (if you cannot explain the origins of god - other than to say that god is eternal: we might as well save time and energy and say the universe is eternal - then your explanation for the origin of the universe is useless).


I never said I believe they are set in stone.
I don't believe in transsubstantiation (I'm not Catholic, as I've said elsewhere).
Miracles, by definition, ARE interference with the normal workings of nature.




> Yes.
> 
> Here (It's a re-post, you guys.) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI
> 
> 
> 
> And where is your argument against Evolution? I want to know the proof that it's wrong that you speak of.


I would caution you against attempting to disprove biblical statements: if you start by believing God is nonexistent, well then, you will merely say something like "the sun cannot be stopped in the sky"; if you start by believing God is real, you can say "nothing is impossible with God." It just depends on your initial belief.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Thank you. I'm sure there was a man named Jesus Christ, but I doubt he did all the powerful things that the Bible says he did.


The real question is whether Christ was who He claimed to be; if He was, then the miracles were no big deal; if He wasn't, then there is no need to believe anything He said because anybody who claimed to be God who wasn't is certifiably insane.




> I'm sure this has been asked before, but why don't things of Biblical proportion happen today? Like the flood and everything. (Okay, I know God made a promise to never do that again, according to the Bible, but it's just an example.) We haven't seen one in a very very long time. By bibleical proportion I mean something that sounds like magic. It does to me, at least I've never seen a man live 6,000 years old. I've never seen an Angel of Death come by and wipe out all the first born sons.


"Magic"? What does that have to do with the Bible or God? Miraculous events are not "magic" - they are an intervention in the natural world by the hand of God. Example: if a vase falls off a table, the laws of nature indicate that - barring some intervention, like me reaching over and catching the vase - it will hit the floor. God is the intervening hand that alters what normally occurs in nature. No "magic" involved.

Next: God chooses not to reveal Himself in the same ways He did in the New Testament; His primary mode of revelation is personal in nature - something that the New Testament makes quite clear. There will come a time when miraculous things occur, but by that point, nobody's mind will be changed from where it's at.




> And, another thing, for ANY religion. What makes you so sure that you're right? I mean, there are plenty other religions around. And the members of those other religions think they're right, too. I personally find it very arrogant.


Find what "arrogant"? That religions are _exclusive_ in nature? The only ways they could all agree would be to either all have the same ideas as to who God is or to have no beliefs whatsoever about Him. All "roads to God" cannot be right; either one is right, or all are wrong.




> It kind of ties in with the "God made us in His image" thing when it's the other way around. We're not the center of the universe


No, you would be wrong. Created in God's image doesn't suggest our importance; it suggests a fundamental characteristic of our make-up.

----------


## JGL57

> ...if you start by believing God is nonexistent, well then, you will merely say something like "the sun cannot be stopped in the sky"; if you start by believing God is real, you can say "nothing is impossible with God." It just depends on your initial belief.


Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?


The same proof that life is the result of a random mixture of chemicals in the primordial oceans.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Correct. I prefer to start with the simpliest premises I can conceptualize, then go from there. I think it unwarrented to start from the vast assumption and belief that all of our observable universe was originally spoken into being out of nothingness by an invisible immaterial all-powerful sentient person. What proof is there of such an extraordinary claim?


Perhaps the best evidence is the extraordinary number of people who have and do believe in God/gods. Looking around at the world, I find it hard to believe that someone merely "manufactured" God-- I think the evidence of nature points more to atheism than theism... So I think supernatural intervention must be necessary for anyone to believe in God.

----------


## Ylana

I don't believe that it is one or the either (creation vs. evolution). The duality here exists because it is easier to choose between two "opposing" things than to actively search for the truth and to accept the possibility that we may never know what the answer is. in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.

----------


## weepingforloman

There IS right and wrong... There has to be, logically. Is it necessary that either evolution or creation are the source of life? No. But something must be.

----------


## JGL57

> Perhaps the best evidence is the extraordinary number of people who have and do believe in God/gods...


This is a time-honoired logical fallacy quaintly known as “the bandwagon appeal”.




> Looking around at the world, I find it hard to believe that someone merely "manufactured" God-- I think the evidence of nature points more to atheism than theism….


. 

Putting aside your Freudian slip of saying “the evidence of nature points more to atheism than to theism” – assuming you meant the reverse, that is the logical fallacy known as “argument from incredulity (or incomprehensibility).




> So I think supernatural intervention must be necessary for anyone to believe in God ….


Assuming normal and agreed upon definitions of "god" and "supernatural intervention", at some point that would follow - of course – so your statement is a mere redundancy, i.e., no new information is being proffered. 




> I don't believe that it is one or the either (creation vs. evolution). The duality here exists because it is easier to choose between two "opposing" things than to actively search for the truth and to accept the possibility that we may never know what the answer is. in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.


Per the particular issue of evolution vs. creationism – your pronouncement of 95 per cent of people having “no mind of their own” smacks of ad hominem. The overall thrust of your post seems to be an argument from radical skepticism or radical relativism or radical agnosticism (i.e., since we can know nothing for certain, we can know nothing). I think that is a bad thing, as I see it as equivalent to taking out one’s brain, making into jelly, and serving it up for lunch. I think you’ll have a hell of a time selling that to anyone, theist or non-theist.




> There IS right and wrong... There has to be, logically. Is it necessary that either evolution or creation are the source of life? No. But something must be.


Of course. There had to be straight line creation by an invisible sentient being (god), theistic evolution, non-theistic evolution, or some four concept could be the “truth” that is beyond our capacity at this time to even conceive of. As mentioned above, radical skepticism does not help in the attempt to understand reality.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Putting aside your Freudian slip of saying the evidence of nature points more to atheism than to theism  assuming you meant the reverse, that is the logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity (or incomprehensibility).


I meant what I said. Given that nature would seem to point to a godless world, why do so many believe in a God?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> in truth, there is no such thing as right or wrong. For those who take either stance literally are saying they have no mind of their own.


This statement is absurd. _Right_ and _wrong_ absolutely exist because the minute you express some sort of evaluation about behavior that repulses you, you have indicated a moral standard of some sort. If right and wrong do not exist, then no behavior can be evaluated in terms of negative or positive - it just "is." This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).

----------


## billyjack

> This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).


we've refused to accept moral attrocities for centuries, yet they still exist. perhaps its in accepting immoralities that will lead to their inexistence. after all, the first step to recovery of an addict is to accept his/her status as an addict.

----------


## JGL57

> I meant what I said. Given that nature would seem to point to a godless world, why do so many believe in a God?


Oh. OK. So we are on the same page, just not quite on the same paragraph.

Given that all of modern science (say, the last three hundred years) has made tremendous progress in both understanding and manipulating our perceived reality, in ways our ancient of days religions can only dream of, and that modern science is based on a presumption of philosophical materialism, and given that NO experimental or observable evidence has come forth refuting in any way that presumption, and given that if any scientist DID demonstrate some idealism or mystic force or entity he/she would become the most famous scientist in history, so there is NO motivation not to look for such, or cover it up if found - then, yes, a logically thinking person, regardless of whether he/she was an atheist or a person "of faith" should admit exactly what you have - that all evidence points directly to a natural universe, as generally defined by modern science and the secular humanist association.

You are aware, or you not, that as a pure fideist you are in a small minority within the "faith" community, are you not?

Anyway, to the question "Why do so many believe in god?" Well, rather than give you the 5,000 word answer this question really deserves, I will just refer you to another mere man, now deceased, named Joseph Campbell, who was generally recognized as having been at the top of his field - comparative mythology (much of which you would distinguish as "religion", at this point). Read about 10 or 15, maybe 20 of his books and I think that you, being as obviously bright and inquisitive as you are, could maybe possibly come into an actual understanding of these ultimate issues. 

That is, if Campbell can explain religious belief (mythic concepts) as a perfectly natural phenomenon of human culture (biology, even), then what have you got? - nothing more than a devout Buddhist who has achieved Satori, apparently. And that would be a good thing.

So, in return, I will read the bible. - - No, wait, I have already read it -twice, all the way through. So, looks like I'm ahead of the game.

(BTW, I see that many of Campbell's lectures are on youtube. You could start there, I guess.)

----------


## bazarov

My ratio says Evolution, but man is to perfect to be result of X and Y.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Oh. OK. So we are on the same page, just not quite on the same paragraph.
> 
> Given that all of modern science (say, the last three hundred years) has made tremendous progress in both understanding and manipulating our perceived reality, in ways our ancient of days religions can only dream of, and that modern science is based on a presumption of philosophical materialism, and given that NO experimental or observable evidence has come forth refuting in any way that presumption, and given that if any scientist DID demonstrate some idealism or mystic force or entity he/she would become the most famous scientist in history, so there is NO motivation not to look for such, or cover it up if found - then, yes, a logically thinking person, regardless of whether he/she was an atheist or a person "of faith" should admit exactly what you have - that all evidence points directly to a natural universe, as generally defined by modern science and the secular humanist association.
> 
> You are aware, or you not, that as a pure fideist you are in a small minority within the "faith" community, are you not?
> 
> Anyway, to the question "Why do so many believe in god?" Well, rather than give you the 5,000 word answer this question really deserves, I will just refer you to another mere man, now deceased, named Joseph Campbell, who was generally recognized as having been at the top of his field - comparative mythology (much of which you would distinguish as "religion", at this point). Read about 10 or 15, maybe 20 of his books and I think that you, being as obviously bright and inquisitive as you are, could maybe possibly come into an actual understanding of these ultimate issues. 
> 
> That is, if Campbell can explain religious belief (mythic concepts) as a perfectly natural phenomenon of human culture (biology, even), then what have you got? - nothing more than a devout Buddhist who has achieved Satori, apparently. And that would be a good thing.
> ...


The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology... Joseph Campbell hasn't undone us. Nor has Freud, Darwin, etc. Science is not incompatible with God. It all comes down to faith. I guess the point I was trying to get across before is, why would human beings evolve (speaking from the standpoint of the general public) a tendency to believe in God? It is not beneficial to survival, and may actually make it easier to die (sacrifices take away from food, morals make it easier to be taken advantage of, etc.). If you have already read the Bible twice (I admit I have never read Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Malachi, or Lamentations all the way through... but hey, I've got about 56 years left in life!) I recommend reading some of the great theological works. I myself am currently reading Calvin's _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, and, as a sixteen-year-old with semi-ADD, I have spent roughly three months on the first 350 pages. You will probably finish before me if you start in January.

----------


## JGL57

> The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology... Joseph Campbell hasn't undone us. Nor has Freud, Darwin, etc. Science is not incompatible with God. It all comes down to faith. I guess the point I was trying to get across before is, why would human beings evolve (speaking from the standpoint of the general public) a tendency to believe in God? It is not beneficial to survival, and may actually make it easier to die (sacrifices take away from food, morals make it easier to be taken advantage of, etc...


Funny - Campbell, Freud, Darwin and many others, such as cultural anthropologists, address the specifics you mentioned, plus tons more, and provide naturalistic explanations for all - no miracle is required. Are you sure you are that well-read in these authors and it wasn't just that some person or persons whose authority you respect merely TOLD you they have come up short?

As to your statement "Science is not compatible with god." - that is what is known as a throwaway question. EVERYTHING, no matter what, is compatible with god buy definition, since part of god's attributes are his incomprehensibility, ineffability and eternal and infinite mind that no mere man can understand. As the old atheist saying goes, it is easier to nail jello to the wall than argue for the incompatibility of god with anything. 

God, like house-hauntings or leprechauns, is beyond cogitation, and that which is beyond proof and disproof MIGHT exist. That is your never-ending advantage.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Funny - Campbell, Freud, Darwin and many others, such as cultural anthropologists, address the specifics you mentioned, plus tons more, and provide naturalistic explanations for all - no miracle is required. Are you sure you are that well-read in these authors and it wasn't just that some person or persons whose authority you respect merely TOLD you they have come up short?


I did not mean, by mentioning them, that I had read them... That post was made by me in a vacuum. I am curious to hear these explanations. If you know them off the top of your head, will you please post them?




> As to your statement "Science is not compatible with god." - that is what is known as a throwaway question. EVERYTHING, no matter what, is compatible with god buy definition, since part of god's attributes are his incomprehensibility, ineffability and eternal and infinite mind that no mere man can understand. As the old atheist saying goes, it is easier to nail jello to the wall than argue for the incompatibility of god with anything. 
> 
> God, like house-hauntings or leprechauns, is beyond cogitation, and that which is beyond proof and disproof MIGHT exist. That is your never-ending advantage.


I'm afraid you misread. I said science is not INcompatible with God. I'm very aware that God is beyond the reaches of my mind, if He was not, no doubt I would be doing something else at the moment.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> The instinctive belief in God has been accounted for in theology...


Please provide me with the names of such theologians who also have a sufficient grounding in psychology, preferably evolutionary psuchology, to talk about "instinct." And if you can, refer me to the work(s) in which they do so.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> we've refused to accept moral attrocities for centuries, yet they still exist. perhaps its in accepting immoralities that will lead to their inexistence. after all, the first step to recovery of an addict is to accept his/her status as an addict.


You just proved my point - one must contradict himself to be a moral relativist. Your statement is loaded with inaccurate uses of language. First, who says we've "accepted" moral atrocities "for centuries"? What do you mean "accepted"? Said it was OK? Found it agreeable? What? Next, what do you mean "accept" immorality? How does one do that and what does that accomplish? Your use of "accept" is clearly problematic. Finally, you've made an inaccurate comparison in your final sentence; it's a different thing to face the truth about oneself (I'm an addict) than it is to allow actions that one knows is wrong. No comparison - one is facing truth, the other is denying truth exists.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Please provide me with the names of such theologians who also have a sufficient grounding in psychology, preferably evolutionary psuchology, to talk about "instinct." And if you can, refer me to the work(s) in which they do so.


Theologians are comfortable taking information from authorities in other fields. I see no reason why a theologian should not be allowed to merely study the work of a Jung or a Freud, and use their findings as the basis of discussion. I refer you first of all to The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis.

----------


## NikolaiI

> This statement is absurd. _Right_ and _wrong_ absolutely exist because the minute you express some sort of evaluation about behavior that repulses you, you have indicated a moral standard of some sort. If right and wrong do not exist, then no behavior can be evaluated in terms of negative or positive - it just "is." This kind of thinking requires one to contradict oneself (at minimum) and accept/appove of moral atrocities (at worst).


Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol.  :Wink: 

Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.

Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."

There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically. 

Just some thoughts, what do you think?

Nikolai

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol. 
> 
> Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.
> 
> Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."
> 
> There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically. 
> 
> Just some thoughts, what do you think?
> ...


If indeed we are all one, that explains my alarming weight.

I will have to look up this "Cognizant ontology"

----------


## NikolaiI

> If indeed we are all one, that explains my alarming weight.
> 
> I will have to look up this "Cognizant ontology"


Well, yeah, it's just that Jesus was a mystic, and other Christian mystics were remarkably similar to mystics everywhere, yet anything that approaches the ontology of eastern religions is ridiculed by so many westerners. Things like - there is no good or evil. That doesn't mean you think evil is good, and it quite likely indicates a belief in a similar ontology, which is the opposite of the assumption that Red made, which is that it is all about compassion, empathy, etc. As well as saying that the definitions and boundaries we create are illusions, anyway - like Good and Evil, subject and object, us vs. them, East and West, etc. Christianity, atheism, _religion_ (imagine), countries, etc. 

I guess I don't really know what I'm talking about, it's just my beliefs. A lot of it is Zen Buddhism influenced, and Hindu. Cognizant ontology might be a new thing, I couldn't find it on google or wikipedia, so I don't know. I read an article about it once, which is gone now. I guess basically it's the same thing as the Buddhist idea that we're not seperate from the world, etc.

-And it is _not_ absurd. Just about everything else is.

----------


## weepingforloman

I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.


Do you never weary of this Rubik's Cube of turning and twisting to get all the colours aligned? Just as physicists posit the Grand Unified Theory that underlies all the laws of nature, do you never wonder if there IS a God, that the path to him would be clear and straight, and not require armies of theologians? Instead, something like *Be at peace and extend peace to all your neighbours. All the rest is chaff.*

----------


## NikolaiI

> I would challenge you to make the case for Christ's non-dual philosophy, and for His saying that we are all one.


That's what I said, that Christ was a mystic, and the Christian mystics I know were like mystics of other religions; words don't say it. You should read Henri Nouwen.

----------


## weepingforloman

Not all Christian mystics are non-dualists. Christ was not a mystic in the ordinary sense, He was God. And, unless He was a total liar, He believed in a dual universe, and a universe in which souls are distinct.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Nono, it's not absurd at all, it's right on target. You should consider changing your mind. Lol. 
> 
> Right and wrong don't exist in nature. They're purely human concepts. A hunter doesn't think it's wrong to eat a predator, etc. But don't go an think I'm some kind of sinner for saying that now.
> 
> Pretty much everything we hold to be true, down to the most basic assumptions, are false, or at least not wholly true. The whole realm of boundaries is all arbitrary, if we are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint. Mystics of all religions (including Christians) and philosophers have come to the same basic wisdom. As Nietzsche says, "There is no thing."
> 
> There is no you or me, no us vs. them, no race, etc. - we are all one - this is called cognizant ontology. It is way off base to assume this leads to evil, or any kind of acceptance or approval. Cognizant ontology...is a wonderful thing. We are all one, and so we should not hesitate to lend help if someone is hurt, etc., just as we would not hesitate to bandage our arm if we hurt it, but do it automatically. 
> 
> Just some thoughts, what do you think?
> ...


I have no idea how to respond to this. Right and wrong exist in the human world - period. We are not "all one" - I have a distinct identity as do you as does everybody else in the world. We should help our "brother/sister" out of course - but we are not "all one."

----------


## Pendragon

Am I missing something, or has this thread gone off target for sometime now? How is the discussion of various religious books actually coming close to the meat of the stated problem, which is evolution vs creation? Can it be that every arguement both sides could think of have already been presented, discussed, and neither side is prepared to move an inch, convinced that they were right to start with? And those of us who will say that it took a God to start things, not chance, but evolution has absolutely been proven as the shaper of the world as we know it, what of us? To the evolutionist, we do not go far enough, for we still insist on God. To the Creationist, we are near blasphemy, for we use the horrible word "evolution" freely. 

I have said it before and will say it again. When the horse is dead, bury it. No amount of beating it will make it get up and walk. And this horse, this arguement, is dead. It seems people grope for things to argue about.

----------


## Dark Star

First, I wish to point out that there's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' since evolution is not a religiosu belief. It's simply a derogatory term creationists use as a back-handed way of saying "You have to have just as much faith as us to accept evolution as being true!"

Second, I've yet to find an atheist that accepts evolution that will think that those who believe in theistic evolution are 'not going far enough'. Believe me...to us it's more like 'Good! One less intelligent design advocate trying to force religion into the science classroom!'  :Wink:  Personally, I find it good that a lot of folks who are christians also accept evolution. It makes it very clear that the false dichotomy of atheists (those who accept evolution) and christians (those who are creationists) is just that -- a false dichotomy.

Third, all of that said...I agree with you for the most part. We've pretty much beaten the dead horse to a pulp by now. At the very least, I hope to keep evolution vs. creationism discussions in this topic in the future, since from my experience the forum is filled to the brim with that rather than discussion of religious texts.

----------


## Pendragon

> First, I wish to point out that there's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' since evolution is not a religious belief. It's simply a derogatory term creationists use as a back-handed way of saying "You have to have just as much faith as us to accept evolution as being true!"


My apologies if you found the word derogatory. I certainly did not mean it in that manner at all. Because I believe in God does not blind me to science. Look how far we have progressed in the last century, and yet that is still so very little. We learn, but we have learned more than anything else not to rush things, because rushing is where costly mistakes happen. 

In a way, I do think it takes faith, not to believe in evolution, but to believe that chance started everything. That is where I must deviate a bit. I cannot accept chance, I think it took a much higher power, a God.




> Second, I've yet to find an atheist that accepts evolution that will think that those who believe in theistic evolution are 'not going far enough'. Believe me...to us it's more like 'Good! One less intelligent design advocate trying to force religion into the science classroom!'  Personally, I find it good that a lot of folks who are Christians also accept evolution. It makes it very clear that the false dichotomy of atheists (those who accept evolution) and Christians (those who are creationists) is just that -- a false dichotomy.


 And you may be right. I know that many atheists on the forum respect me, as I do them, for I refuse to get caught up in the name-calling stuff that is bad form for either side and does nothing to further either cause. If the person disagrees, let them. I have found very few switch sides.




> Third, all of that said...I agree with you for the most part. We've pretty much beaten the dead horse to a pulp by now. At the very least, I hope to keep evolution vs. creationism discussions in this topic in the future, since from my experience the forum is filled to the brim with that rather than discussion of religious texts.


Well, it isn't just religious texts, but this and that philosopher, and quote every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

The reason I have problems with this is there is always a "Christians and/or religious people cannot think for themselves." stated somewhere along the line. Now, if a person patterns their stance on life after a certain philosopher, and quote him or her constantly, who is doing the thinking there, the person or the philosopher? Many things have a double edge. 

It could be argued, "But this has been proven empirically true." Not according to this other, equally well-known philosopher, with opposing views. Difficulty arises. In a way, I'd like to see a thread where people were forbidden to quote anyone. A complete Think for yourself thread.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Dark Star

To clarify: I didn't mean that _you_ were using it in a derogative manner...just that that's the origin and common use of the word. I didn't get that vibe from your statement. As for the philosopher issue: I believe we (the forum members, not you and me) actually discussed this in another thread somewhere around here...  :Smile:

----------


## weepingforloman

_Requiem interra Pax_, thread. (Hey, look at me, I used Latin and I'm not even Catholic!)

----------


## NikolaiI

> I have no idea how to respond to this. Right and wrong exist in the human world - period. We are not "all one" - I have a distinct identity as do you as does everybody else in the world. We should help our "brother/sister" out of course - but we are not "all one."


You have it wrong, though I won't try to prove it to you beyond this. I could give you articles and point you in the direction of religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism that support this ontology, among others, but that's not my place. The basic idea is that we are not seperate from the world. To believe so is delusion, and a fallacy. We're part of the world, and part of each other, not removed in any way. Everything is connected, and part of a pleonasm, etc., etc.

As for the other, whether right and wrong exist, I was only agreeing with someone else on this forum. And yes, right and wrong do exist in the human world. Here's an enlightening excerpt from an article on zen, that is mentioning right and wrong. I guess differences arise when we look at the world framed on different levels.


"It is indeed the basic intuition of Zen that there is an ultimate standpoint from which "anything goes." In the celebrated words of the master Yun-men, "Every day is a good day." Or as is said in the Hsin-hsin-Ming: 

If you want to get to the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right and wrong.
The conflict between right and wrong
Is the sickness of the mind. 

But this standpoint does not exclude and is not hostile towards the distinction between right and wrong at other levels and in more limited frames of reference. The world is seen to be beyond right and wrong when it is not framed: that is to say, when we are not looking at a particular situation by itself - out of relation to the rest of the universe. Within this room there is a clear difference between up and down; out in interstellar space there is not. Within the conventional limits of a human community there a clear distinctions between good and evil. But these disappear when human affairs are seen as part and parcel of the whole realm of human nature. Every framework sets up a restricted field fo relationships, and restriction is law or rule..."

Anyway.

----------


## atiguhya padma

The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.

Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.

----------


## Gorilla King

> The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.
> 
> Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.


Christianity isn't about morals. This is an absurd straw man. Christianity is about a relationship with Christ and accepting the salvation that comes only through Him. Most moral systems whether religious or not are the same. The difference in Christianity is Jesus.

----------


## weepingforloman

> The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.
> 
> Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.


How, exactly, could there be right and wrong in the plant world, the unicellular world, or the inanimate world? It must be human or above to be moral.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You have it wrong, though I won't try to prove it to you beyond this. I could give you articles and point you in the direction of religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism that support this ontology, among others, but that's not my place. The basic idea is that we are not seperate from the world. To believe so is delusion, and a fallacy. We're part of the world, and part of each other, not removed in any way. Everything is connected, and part of a pleonasm, etc., etc.


Well, then that is why you and I disagree - neither Hinduism nor Buddhism properly accounts for reality as far as I'm concerned.




> As for the other, whether right and wrong exist, I was only agreeing with someone else on this forum. And yes, right and wrong do exist in the human world. Here's an enlightening excerpt from an article on zen, that is mentioning right and wrong. I guess differences arise when we look at the world framed on different levels.
> 
> 
> "It is indeed the basic intuition of Zen that there is an ultimate standpoint from which "anything goes." In the celebrated words of the master Yun-men, "Every day is a good day." Or as is said in the Hsin-hsin-Ming: 
> 
> If you want to get to the plain truth,
> Be not concerned with right and wrong.
> The conflict between right and wrong
> Is the sickness of the mind.


A chief flaw in Zen philosophy. Human behavior is rarely neutral in nature; our actions and attitudes have clear consequences in terms of effect upon ourselves and those around us. Some of the these actions/attitudes are harmful to ourselves and our relationships with others; these would logically be described as "wrong."




> But this standpoint does not exclude and is not hostile towards the distinction between right and wrong at other levels and in more limited frames of reference. The world is seen to be beyond right and wrong when it is not framed: that is to say, when we are not looking at a particular situation by itself - out of relation to the rest of the universe. Within this room there is a clear difference between up and down; out in interstellar space there is not. Within the conventional limits of a human community there a clear distinctions between good and evil. But these disappear when human affairs are seen as part and parcel of the whole realm of human nature. Every framework sets up a restricted field fo relationships, and restriction is law or rule..."


Metaphysical rationalizations about right and wrong do little to deal with the reality that here on earth and amongst human beings there are behaviors and attitudes that are clearly beneficial and clearly harmful.




> The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.


The only thing we "have to believe" is that God is real and that it is through Jesus Christ that we may obtain eternal life. The belief in objective _right_ and _wrong_ is not to "validate" our "worldview" but is rather a result of believing in God. You have the cart before the horse. Christianity "stole" nothing from the ancient Greeks; the existence of the idea of _right_ and _wrong_ in culture is a reflection of the reality of God within all cultures - even those that don't fully acknowledge Him. One must actively reject God to remove His influence.




> Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.


Please - don't flatter yourself with the typical atheist "We are clearer sighted than the Christian" mantra. That's bogus all the way. Morality existed long before the Bible ever made it into print form. Cultures that have never even heard of the Bible have certain moral restrictions. Whether or not _right_ and _wrong_ exist outside of the human world is kind of a moot point, isn't it? Since we're humans and we're discussing these things, then it _does_ matter.

----------


## Pendragon

> The Christian has to believe in distinct objective categories of right and wrong to validate his or her worldview. This primitive notion that they stole from the ancient Greeks is so central to their erroneous weltanschauung, that they even claim that religion is the only way to maintain a moral outlook.
> 
> Those of us who actually look at the world, and don't need to have our moral outlook and behaviour dictated by a higgledy-piggledy collection of old books, can see that there is no such thing as right and wrong existing outside the world of human and possibly animal nature.


No, wait my friends, AP makes a good point. It is the very nature of man, and many scientists would say, the animal nature of man that causes right and wrong. Why does a person suddenly go off it and kill when all of his or her neighbors are prepared to swear that they were very mild-mannered? Why is it that if a person does not develop a conscience by a certain age, they will never have one and be a sociopath? We are human, yes, but we are the highest order of primates and still animal. Even people who proclaim Christianity or other religions or some pathway of peaceful living have the danger of allowing the animal within to get loose at times. I do not really disagree with her stance as to where the right and wrong originates. I just believe in a power stronger than myself. Because if I depended solely on myself, I could easily slip over the line with all of the problems I have had. 

That, said, we are wandering off the subject again...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That, said, we are wandering off the subject again...


You're right. Time for a topic realignment. I'll go first:

God created the world in six days; life began as a purposeful creation of a Divine Being as an expression of His love. Reality contains an order, purpose and meaning that points to an initiator with a rational mind rather than the chaotic and random forces of nature. The cohesive of reality cannot possibly have come into existence by accident, and evolution cannot (even with its massive time allotment) account for much of the complexity and purposeful nature of reality. Life cannot come into existence by accident; matter cannot create itself.


There.

----------


## weepingforloman

I agree with the premise of creation. I think you could guess that. But I have some points to raise: 1.) the first section of Genesis is written in poetic form, which is rarely meant to be taken literally in scripture. Don't get me wrong, I believe in ex nihilo creation, but it IS poetic form. 2.) Days... how? There wasn't even a sun until the third day, and the sun causes the rotation of the earth. Plus, the Israelites counted days by sunrises and sunsets. So, I don't believe in one day, two days, three days, etc. progression of creation. To this end, I find it plausible to accept the Big Bang, provided it is allowed that divine activity set the matter in place.

----------


## Dark Star

....And so the circle of argument begins again with the same debunked arguments as previously. This should be fun.

----------


## Lyn

My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.

----------


## Dark Star

One correction: God would be considered a hypothesis rather than a theory.

----------


## Gorilla King

> My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.


There's plenty of material evidence for God. It's just that not all of it is so obvious. I would recommend reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life though. You may have a change of heart with regards to your notion that there's no evidence. Faith is not blind.

----------


## Dark Star

Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.

That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....

Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.

----------


## Gorilla King

> Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.
> 
> That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....
> 
> Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.


So you even doubt Jesus existed? Well that basically renders your opinions meaningless doesn't it? The only scholars who still believe that are considered kooks, and that's even by people who aren't remotely sympathetic to Christianity.

----------


## Dark Star

When inquiring into the subject without the a priori assumption of his existence you'll find that there is not enough evidence of his existence to classify him as a historical figure. He's quite clearly classed as a mythological one, until of course, we can dig up some reliable evidence for his existence (assuming this ever occurs).

As for it rendering my opinions meaningless: No. What would render my opinions meaningless would be if I decided "I am a Christian, therefore Jesus Christ exists. This is a fact. Now, it's time to go find evidence to prove what I know to be a fact and anyone who disagrees with me is insane" like the scholars that you've recommended do and you yourself seem to do.

I fail to see what you mean by the scholars 'who still believe that' since this is a fairly recent development in historical scholarship and is not kooky in any sense. Doherty and Price for example are considered to be high quality scholars even if they are in the minority. If you would try reading works on the historicity or lack thereof of Jesus that aren't by Christian apologists and deal with the subject in a more balanced matter you would realize this.

By the way, I love the evasive tactics there. You will not find any material evidence to support the existence of God, and thus, you attack my point of view on the historicity of Jesus on some rather shoddy grounds.

----------

