Evolution vs. Creation

[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 :D - 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/other/software/USENET/On%20Religion/Soc.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/display.cfm?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 :)

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/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.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 :)

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 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-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 (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm), 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. ;)


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/dna_detectives/adam_and_eve/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/change/deeptime/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 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0878936599/qid=1122392007/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5778609-8517431?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) 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. :)

[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 ;) 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..." ;) 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. :D 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. ;)

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 (http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm) 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 (http://www.stmarys.ca/conted/webcourses/GEO/GEO99/pubtime/isotopic.html) 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 :nod:
First and foremost: We use all of our brains, not just 10%. Check this (http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth) and this (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm) 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 :)

[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.asp?action=displaypage&book=2&chapter=14&verse=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. :D

[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)

:lol:

: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, Yes! 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. :)

[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. :)

[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 :p. 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 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm) 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. :D

[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. :)

[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 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html)). 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/all/item.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 :D]

[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 :D]

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: :) :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 :angel: :) :idea:
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.

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.
Before I reply to this: Quote your sources that you plagiarize next time. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/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. :) 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=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?
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/national/23believers.html?ex=1125633600&en=26b48dbcbf25514a&ei=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 (http://http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/taung_small.gif
"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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wt40000_small.jpg
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. :D

[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 :D ] 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: :lol: (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 ;) ) 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.... :thumbs_up :D

[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! :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up
Mad? No. Just out to make a point. Sometimes I don't know my own power of persuasion. :) 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.... :thumbs_up :DActually, 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/science/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 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29763)

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 (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html).

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! ;)

[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! ;)

[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.